Morality

As we draw close to Christmas, I thought it would be useful to look back over some events of the last year in the struggle for getting recognition for same-sex marriage in America. After all, Christmas is the second most important celebration in Christianity and since religion seems to be tied up in this discussion, at least on the surface, it seems an appropriate time.

It is interesting when both side in an argument claim to be on the moral high ground. But, when you look at the arguments of those who wish to prohibit same-sex marriage more closely there is precious little morality actually in them. Instead you find intolerance and discrimination. You find Catholic Cardinals likening gays to cockroaches, Popes spewing hyperbole and Presidents who deliberately use fear to achieve a political advantage. Where is the morality there?

Somehow the words “moral” and “family” when used in the name of an organization have become almost like the words “democratic republic of” and ”people’s republic of” in the names of countries. The lose all meaning or worse mean exactly the opposite.

It is a telling fact that since the November election, attacks against LGBT individuals are up across the country. This is the message that has been sent to the country: that it is ok to hate and even attack those who are different. Is this really the kind of country that you want to live in?

For those who call themselves Christians, think about the positions that some of your leaders are taking. Even if you don’t agree with someone else’s life, it is still appropriate to respect that difference. Though they say they are trying to protect society and families their actions bely those words. The only thing their actions do is promote hate and intolerance.

Christmas is a time of optimism and outside of the US there are signs of hope. Belgium and the Netherlands already allow same-sex marriage and several others are close to it, most notably, Canada.

As Americans, let us make the words that we say mean something: freedom and liberty should be for everyone, not just a select few that pass a sniff test. As we head into 2005, let us reverse the trend of 2004 and truly bring the country together.

Share

A Misguided Lawsuit

According to CNN, a family is sueing WalMart because they sold her daughter the gun she used to commit suicide.

This is a sad thing. That anyone should feel compelled to take her own life is not good. But is WalMart to blame?

I doubt it.

There is a trend in this country away from taking personal responsibility for one’s life. That’s wrong in my opinion. But this might be a special case because the woman in question suffered from mental illness and was taking medication for it’s treatment. It’s possible that she wasn’t capable of taking responsibility for her own life. I don’t know. But, if she wasn’t then her family should have been taking that responsibility. The expectation that it is everyone else’s responsibility has far reaching consequences that I doubt we really want to see come to pass.

According to the article, this woman lied on the application to buy the gun. The family believes that because her prescriptions were filled at another WalMart that this should have been checked. But, wouldn’t this be an invasion of privacy? I wouldn’t want someone checking with my pharmacy in order for me to buy something.

This is a sad situation but, to me, it doesn’t appear to be WalMart’s fault. It probably isn’t anyone’s fault. People who are intent on suicide tend to succeed. It’s natural to want someone to blame and WalMart is certainly no corporate saint, but blaming them is, I think, unwarranted.

Share

Canada Gets it Right

Why the big difference between the way marriage is treated in Canada and the US? According to this article, Canada is poised to allow same-sex marriage throughout the entire country. Yet the US, mired in conservatism, appears to be turning the clock backward on civil rights.

Sooner or later we’ll get it right. But later seems more likely than sooner at the moment.

Share

Supreme Court Stays Aloof

it was reported that the Supreme Court declined to hear a chase challenging the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing
same-sex marriage in that state.

Though the Court rarely gives it’s reasons for declining to hear a case there are some possibilities here:

  1. They don’t think the case has enough merit to warrant their time
  2. They think it’s a states rights issue and it was already handled there
  3. They are cowards and afraid to get into another controversy (see the 2000 election for a refresher).

I’d like to think it’s the first reason but I suspect it’s the latter. Must be a pessimistic Monday mood.

However, on the surface the decision is a victory for the same-sex marriage cause since the current decision stands. However, a favorable ruling by the Court about the Massachusetts decision could have had a profound impact. Of course, an unfavorable ruling would have had an equally profound negative impact. So perhaps it’s just as well.

I’d prefer this wasn’t ultimately handled by the Supreme Court but I suspect that like most civil rights issues it ultimately will be.

Share