Massachusetts has Big Balls

Thanks, a many thanks to the activist, citizens, and general supporters who helped law makers defeat a challenge by social conservatives in Massachusetts to ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state to legalize same-sex unions. I for one would love to see the rest of America hop on the bandwagon and follow in their footsteps. I can dream; right? If you can't tell from most of my blogs, I am liberal; in fact very liberal. But, I hate labels- I prefer to think of myself as a reasonable, fair-minded person, who can see both sides of controversial issues. Consequently, the liberal perspectives seem to always be the most intelligent. Okay, on to this gay marriage issue.

Social conservatives basically want the monopoly on who can get married. Well that's great; the last time I checked, we have a government in this country. And, "we the people" means a collective group of people who give their consent to be governed by elected officials. These Representatives make decisions which meet the best interest of those people. It's called a representative democracy. Likewise social conservatives might agree with this sentiment-feeling a vote on gay marriage should be left up to the citizens of each state. One problem, marriage in this country is not just a religious union, it is also a legally binding one. In deed, it was our founding father's major concern and hope the religion and politics, church and state need not mix. I agree; it is the basis for this argument. Since the government plays a role in marriages, although our current ideas of marriage stem from religious or Christian beliefs, does not mean the government should follow suit with a particular sect of Christianity's beliefs about marriage. If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, great, in fact more power to you. I believe Christina Aguilera's has one of best voices of all time, but I am not petitioning the government to make law my beliefs. OK, maybe that's is a false analogy, but I think you get my point.

If the government is going to play a part in marriages-making them legally binding contracts, then they do not need to specify in terms of gender [only opposites sexes] who can participate. If two consenting adults want to express their love in a marriage ceremony, then it is unconstitutional to try and deny them the right to do so. Well, what about the polygamist; Big love style, could they make the same argument? Possibly, but there is not a big movement in this country to legalize polygamy. As a feminist, I believe polygamist's practices tend to exploit and diminish the roles of women, therefore I can't really make a case for it, but it is an interesting question to raise. Once again CHEERS TO MASSACHUSETTS and JEERS to all who want to impose and legalize their faith on our entire nation.

Visit this address

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1447670620070614?feedType=RSS