Focusing on the evolution of same-sex marriage, Emily Salier, of the Indigo Girls, talks to Randi Kaye.
Just watched on CNN an interview with a young lady who seemed by her responses to questions to be educated at least to the high school graduate level, perhaps with additional years of education. She admitted to being a President Obama supporter in the past and in the present. The topic was same sex marriage. If this young lady having a level of education apparent to observers based on her speech as acequate for understanding is a spokesperson for same sex marriage, the subject is in trouble with spokespersons like her. It was painfully apparent that she has made an emotional decision that same sex marriage should be legalized by federal law, but she had difficulty explaining why she make the decision. As is common with so many Americans today regarding where in government law should reside, that laws about marriage are by the Constitution of the United States the right of individual states isn't a thing she would consider.
The entire situation is not complicated. Marriage is and always has been as a matter of law an economic and legalistic union. The states have agreed to recognize marriage conducted in religious ceremony as binding under law as economic and legal union. Those married share debt responsibility and legal claim to property. They are legally responsible for child rearing and for any legal obligations acquired by the child while a minor for infractions under various legal codes. There may be such other obligations in union that I do not have knowledge about. But, within the law, marriage is a religious term that describes a legal and economic sharing of two people. So, people, recognize the reality and write laws that allow recognizing the term marriage to only apply to religious union recognized as a legal union under state law and allow recognizing a legal union that may be consummated by a civil authority as what it is, an economic and legal union. It is a sad state of affairs if same sex couples need the term marriage applied to their union when they know it insults the Judaic, Christian, and Muslim religious communities, and perhaps other religious communities about which I am unaware.
I live in NC and struggled with the vote last week. I sat in the booth for what felt like hours trying to figure out what or how to vote. I am a white male and neither democrat or republican. I knew that NC did not recognize gay marriage prior to the vote and had the amendment not passed, it wouldn’t change the fact the NC did not recognize same sex marriages. I have friends that are gay and a father that is gay. But the way in which the amendment was written asked me to identify what marriage is to me. This was not fair. It essentially asked me to look at 'my' moral stance as opposed to my governmental stance or view. Had the amendment been written another way and asked me, should NC extend the same privileged or rights afforded to married couples to individuals in partnership, civil unions or co-habited living arrangements – I would have voted a completely different way. I don’t think that government should recognize any marriage – rather give the option for two adults to contractually agree to share equitable rights, taxation, property and dependent care…the end. Take marriage out of it. It just wasn’t right…none of it…to ask me to weigh my personal beliefs against those of my civic belief. Had it been written to address equitable benefits, only, the outcome, for me, would have been different. I left the vote feeling horribly torn and sad and cried when I got to my car.
Click here to access transcripts from recent shows.