That's a great question. Same-sex marriage seems to do great in every survey, but it loses big when people have to go vote on it. Why is that? Well, some pundits are crunching numbers trying to explain it. Go read if you must, but I think it's a lot easier to explain.
Let's say you call PawPaw on the phone and ask me if Same-Sex marriage is a good idea. I don't much care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Not any of my business. Just don't give a damn. Likewise, what I do in my bedroom is nobody's business, either. So, I get polled as supporting same-sex marriage.
When I get to the voting booth and see an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, I'll pull the lever for the YES vote. They're different questions. Do I care if two men get married? Not particularly, in the abstract. Do I believe that marriage should be properly defined as between one man and one woman? Yes I do.
Aggravating, isn't it? That's the nature of the American voter. You've got to be careful how you frame the question, or I'm liable to answer both sides of it. In the abstract, I don't care what you do in California, except that when they put the question to California voters, they turned down same-sex marriage as well.
Y'all are asking two different questions, linking them in your minds. In my mind, they aren't linked at all. My opinions reflect that position. Call me a hypocrite, call me narrow-minded, but don't call me late for supper.
6 comments:
The gay marriage issue, along with the Roger Clemens hearings, are nothing but distractions. Distractions from the very real problems we have, such as enormous budget deficits and debit, entitlement programs that encourage permenant dependence on the taxpayers, etc.
I'm with you. It's none of my business what you do or who you do it with in your house. However, I wouldn't conduct a wedding ceremony between two men or women because it goes against what I believe to be correct. Publically condoning what I believe God to forbid, and for me to do it in his name isn't something I want to answer for after thus life.
Concur...
The same sex marriage debate, just like the Roger Clemens hearings, is a distration from the very real financial problems we have as a nation. BHO can't run on his accomplishments(other than taking out OBL). He can't run on job creation, can't run on balancing the budget, etc. So we get "dog-n-pony shows" about gay marriage, and pro atheletes taking steroids.
Society needs to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman and is sanctioned by their religious institution.
A civil union should be seen as a legal relationship between any two consenting adults that is recognized by law and society as a contractual agreement.
Until we, as a society, can agree what the distinction is between a marriage and a civil union we will never resolve this issue.
What that Gaffer said, this geezer agrees with. The only way to resolve the unions v. Marriages beef is to define "marriage" out of the Constition, and define "unions" into it.
The logic behind such a re-definition is that as a religious concept, "marriage" had no place in our Constition anyway.
Post a Comment