And now for something completely controversial…

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week that may transform the status of gay marriage in this country.  Not only is Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, being challenged, but so is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages even in states that allow them.  Let the games begin.

Let me be clear:  I am not in favor of gay marriage.  Marriage was designed and ordained by God as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of creating more little men and women. I’m not stupid enough to argue with God.  For my part, I have proudly fulfilled God’s commandment times three (kids not marriages).

And now here’s the part where everyone is going to roll their eyes at my apparent wishy-washiness:  Though I do not believe in gay marriage, I feel even more strongly that the  government has no right to tell two men or two women that they cannot be joined in a union.  I wouldn’t call it a marriage, since you can’t have it both ways, and that would negate my previous assertion about marriage being between a chick and a dude.  But certainly, with all of the great minds in this country, we must be able to come up with a legal means that affords gay couples the opportunity to be officially joined.  Call it a union, call it a merger, an alliance, call it a knot-tying ceremony, a partnership, call it whatever you like, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the SCOTUS needs to hear these arguments because the two arguments in question should never have come about in the first place.

When the government gets involved in people’s private lives, I have a problem.  I have a problem when the government funds Planned Parenthood which performs the majority of abortions in this country (more about abortion later…no wishy-washiness there).  I have a problem when Planned Parenthood gives out free birth control to middle school girls.  I have a problem when the government tells restaurant and bar owners that their patrons can’t light up a stogie after dinner.  I have a problem when the government attempts to tell New Yorkers they can’t get their caffeine and sugar high by slurping down a Big Gulp.  And I have a problem when the government tells grown men and women who want to legitimize their relationship that they cannot.

“But Kelly,” you’re saying, “that’s just the thing!  The government has no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body!”  Oh, that’s where you’re clearly a victim of incorrect thinking.  ‘Her body’, when pregnant, holds within it a tiny baby who has no rights.  Women make the “choice”, for the most part, when they “choose” to get jiggity with a man (that’s how most pregnancies begin—let’s not get into the rape and incest arguments here).  That little baby that was created has to be protected somehow.  Grownups can generally take care of themselves.

But I digress.  Let’s get back to my gay and lesbian friends.  The ones I know in committed relationships, with or without children, demonstrate far more responsibility and right-mindedness than most of the idiots legally “married” to one another in Hollywood.  So Kim Kardashian’s short-lived, pathetic, E!xcuse of a marriage to Kris Humphries was “okay”, but Cam and Mitch tying the knot is wrong?

I must also say, though, that if you are a person who does not think that two men joined in unity or two women officially proclaiming their everlasting faithfulness and fidelity is the best thing for the greater good, your views and opinions should also be met with tolerance and understanding, as long as you’re not hating.  Once the hatin’ begins, you weaken your position.  That goes for both sides.

When I started this blog, I told you I was going to remark upon things that would make most people turn tail and run.  If you disagree with my position, fine!  If you agree with me, fine!  If you thought I took the coward’s way out and tried to have it both ways, fine!  But the right of people to live their lives in freedom and equality is an issue that I take quite seriously, and it would have been cowardly of me not to have stated my piece, especially in light of this week’s pending decisions. For what it’s worth, I think it’s going to be gay marriage for the win.

Published by

kellyspringer

Following my years as an elementary and middle school teacher, I decided I wanted to spend the second half of my life just writing. Currently, I work as a technical writer for a software company, fulfilling my passion for writing and editing, and in between the times I'm trying to figure out how to put really complicated ideas into words the rest of the world can understand, I write novels. The Gym Show, published in March 2014, is my first novel. I'm already half-way through with my second novel--a title soon to be revealed. The creative side of me loves to write, but the teacher in me loves to edit, so let me help you craft your message, write your articles, mend your prose, and get people to read what you've written. Contact me at kellyspringer126@gmail.com.

4 thoughts on “And now for something completely controversial…”

  1. I could go on all day about this, but I’ll just keep it simple. I am not asking your church to marry gay couples. The issue before the court is not religious, it is secular. To stop short of calling the union marriage is to tell me that I’m a second class citizen. I was raised to know that I am not. God created me as I am.

    1. Mary,
      Thank you for your insight. That’s the thing, though. I do not feel as if a union between two people of the same sex renders that couple as second class citizens; on the contrary, a union between a same sex couple needs to be equal in the eyes of the law. I’m approaching my position from more of a libertarian point of view. Also, I know that many churches would welcome the opportunity to join same sex couples in a union–it’s just that I can’t argue with Scripture.
      Kelly

  2. Kelly, I enjoyed reading this post. You display a casual, good-natured humor often lacking in these discussions and I agree with many of your points. However I believe the Supreme Court would find that a compromise which gives gays and lesbians access to civil unions (or whatever) while reserving true marriage for heterosexual couples would not pass muster based on Brown v. Board of Education, which plainly states “separate […] facilities are inherently unequal”. I’m sympathetic to those who don’t want to see cherished religious traditions erode but as long as it’s the government doling out marriage licenses, marriage is a civic rather than religious institution and need to play by the rules of government. Of course, marriage ceremonies are often highly religious and individual churches ought to retain the ability to decide for themselves if they do or do not want to participate in ceremonies for same-sex couples … same way they retain the ability to decide if they do or do not want to participate in ceremonies for interracial couples, as immoral and backwards as it is to hear of people — especially people who claim to seek the heart of God — who are bigoted enough to oppose interracial marriage in this day and age.

    P.S. Could not agree more that a bar or restaurant owner should be the one who decides if smoking is or is not allowed in his establishment, not the government.

  3. It’s always been a rather simple conclusion to me: Who am I to judge the level or value of a relationship between two people–or more, for that matter? If more people would demonstrate a more understanding and humble approach to what others want or believe is right between two adults, we’d be a lot better off. If marriage were only a civic ceremony (as it is in other countries–the civil ceremony precedes the religious one), then I still say the government has no business telling two people that they can’t get married. It’s just that I would hate to see the “government” (that entity that, of late, has proven themselves just about worthless) once AGAIN tell people what they can and cannot do in terms of something that happens between two consenting adults.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s