I'm a few days late on this subject because I needed to cool off. I believe I have calmed down enough to offer my thoughts on the following issue. However, even as I type my blood begins to boil again. Here we go (get a drink, this may take a while (but it's worth it!)):
There is a petition circulating to get a question on the next ballot that would potentially ban gay marriage and outlaw civil unions in Massachusetts. This petition requires over 60,000 signatures to get onto the ballot. There are some opposed to this question who have taken the names of those that have signed the petition already and are posting their names and addresses on the internet at www.knowthyneighbor.org. This site claims that it is extremists who are advancing this petition and that the wording is "anti-family." They promise that all who sign will be posted on their site.
Why are they doing this? Clearly to intimidate people who might sign this petition! To frighten people into thinking that people might show up at their homes! Why else post their addresses!? The people who have created this site claim that it is so people who live around those who have signed can start discussions with them, to talk to them and possibly change their minds. Again, I ask, why the addresses? Wouldn't name and city do just fine? And what might be done at their homes? Your guess is as good as mine! Even if this site isn't intended for evil, whose to say some won't use it for such?
There is an excellent political cartoon in the Herald today regarding this. A man says the following: "Hi, I'm John and I'm gay. My whole life have been difficult because I was 'different.' Others tried to make me feel ashamed and embarrassed, pointing fingers and calling me names. I've learned not to be ashamed!" He points to a man signing the petition and says, "Homophobic Bigot! Everyone, look at the hater! You should be ashamed of yourself! I hope you are humiliated!" Which is an excellent illustration of the intentions of the creators of this site: humiliation, fear, and intimidation. But here's the problem... They've got it all wrong.
Here is the heart of the issue: This is not about gay marriage! This is about a judge legislating from the bench - altering the law rather than upholding it! This is about a special interest group who were illegally given a "right" (through legislation by the courts) attempting to interfere with rule of the people by the people.
Signing this petition is not a vote against gay marriage. It is a vote for the proper and legal rule of law. It is a vote to not allow the courts to dictate the laws of Massachusetts. I will be proud to put my name on this ballot and if Massachusetts votes in a manner contrary to my stance, so be it, the people will have spoken!
Why are the people who created this site attempting to block this question from going before the people? Do they fear that Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, will deny them the "right" of marriage?
I am happy that I waited to post this because I saw that both supporters and opponents of this petition are condemning the attempted intimidation of this website. I am very glad to see this!
So you all can stop wondering, and so perhaps some of you will comment, if the vote were today, I would vote "no." I would not vote to ban same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. (if the vote were tomorrow, I couldn't tell you how I'd vote.) We do not live in a theocracy. I look at it like this: We are Jonahs living in Nineva. We are called to inform people of the consequences of their sin. We are not called to make sure they do not sin. We can hope and pray that they turn from their sins and turn to the LORD and repent, but it is not our responsibility to prevent our neighbors (outside of the church) from committing sin.
My name will proudly be on this petition and will be on "knowthyneighbor." I will gladly support the people being able to decide what their own government will do. And it will be a difficult decision that I will have to make when it comes to voting on this issue.
I hope this action intended to intimidate backfires and sparks people to action. Do not allow this underhanded attempt to interfere with the voice of the people to succeed. Get your name on this petition in support of democracy.
May the opinion of the people of Massachusetts be heard. You've just read mine!
4 comments:
a thoughtful word, Marc. too often, in these kinds of debates, there is not nearly enough thoughtfulness and compassion.
You comment that you would not vote to ban same-sex marriage. Would you vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman? I guess my concern for the legality of same-sex marriage isn't so much in the question of legislating morality as it is in the precedent-setting nature and ultimate implications of such a law. For instance, have you heard that on birth certificates there's a move toward changing the word "Father" to something like "other parent"? What does that even mean in our world today? And what about the issue of who is a dependent of whom? Gay marriage has a lot to do with a person's ability to have a same-sex partner on their insurance. As we begin to alter the definition of spouse and make changes, I can actually imagine a backlash that would result in no dependent-adults being able to be counted on insurance in a sort of no-marriage reality. If marriage can be redefined and redefined, why not abolished entirely? And, what about the emotional and legal ramifications of an eventual increase in the divorce rate among homosexuals. It seems like the issues just multiple when you open this particular door, and it is not simply the issue of legislating morality, but more of preserving our own rights. Just some opinions... since you wanted them!
You've given me much to think about.
I'd like to emphasize lynn-nore's point:
"If marriage can be redefined and redefined, why not abolished entirely? "
I collected petitions for Proposal 2 in MI, and a suprising number of people opposed to Proposal 2 thought that the government shouldn't regulate marriage.
Think about the implications of that for a minute. Would it mean that women would have to share custody of their babies with the father, no matter who it was? Or would a court decide? Or would father have no custody rights at all? We need marriage to create families with mothers and fathers.
But where is the rational for regulating sexual relationships outside the context of children? Sure, if two gay men are living together and raising children, it would be good to enable one of the men to stay at home. But where will that take us, especially if the decision is put in terms of "rights"? There are lots of other types of families, especially single mothers that rely on family members to care for their children. Do they get insurance? If not, why not? I took care of my sister (who has schizophrenia) for several months. Under the circumstances, I could have insured her as my domestic partner, if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that she was also my sister. Is there a good reason why I should receive fewer benefits than my gay and lesbian collegaues?
Post a Comment