So, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this gay marriage topic, which seems to be all over the news recently. Its coverage of course is another one of Carl Rove's masterful strokes, as there is really no way would could possibly pass an amendment to outlaw it, is there? I mean the Constitution clearly has nothing to do with whether people of the same sex want to co-habitate. The proposed amendment is obviously being put together to fuel the hate and drives the ultra-conservative corners of the Republican party. That hate should then manifest itself by energizing the forces for the upcoming elections... or something like that. Of course, then again, as I've said often enough, I thought both Phil English and George Bush were such buffoons that they would never be elected to public office, much less re-elected. So, it's probably pretty important we don't take our eye off the ball as far as this propsed "amendment" is concerned.
That all said, before Bush won the Republican nomination some six years ago, I did consider myself a conservative. And I've attempted to research both sides of the coin as far as the gay marriage quesiton is concerned. Those against have a valid argument. They also have some invalid ones as well, I'm sure, but the main gist of the one I consider valid is that the benefits for married people are set up to encourage and assist with the nurturing of families - which represent the future survival of the species, so we need to assist with that. Makes sense and because biologically, at least traditionally, gay couples can't have children, I'm kind of down with that.
Okay, but let's flip the coin over for a minute. One of the reasons I've heard gay people arguing in favor of gay marriage is that married couples are eligible for something like 1,000 benefits that gay people currently cannot receive. So, that's a bit of a self-centered argument that is not going to fly. I mean, if I'm not gay, am I really going to care if gay people get more benefits, especially if my tax dollars have to pay for them?
To make the argument in favor of gay marriage, I think you need to look at the benefits of marriage itself. Do they go further than the production of children? In his guest Friday Forum column in the June 16 edition of the Erie Times-News, Al Richardson provides some excellent reasons on why we should support gay marriage and why it benefits society. It is this type of reasoning that makes me think we should support gay marriages - and definitely outlaw them through a constitutional amendment.
My personal thoughts on the matter involve evolution theory and consideration of the fact that our society has evolved to the point where gay marriage is normal and natural and should be supported as such. Maybe this wansn't always the case, but there was also a time when we didn't have computers on every desk or even indoor plumbing in most houses. You can't deny that society changes and evolves. Instead of fighting all change, it should be embraced when it makes sense. In the case of gay marriage, it seems to make sense, now.
Of course, I'm open to hearing opposing views, but to date, I have not heard a lot of good arguments as to why gay marriage should be outlawed. If someone could show me some numbers as to how much the legalization of gay marriage was going to cost me and then present me with reasons as to why it's not going to necessarily improve our society, I'd be more than willing to listen.
That's all for now.