Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In fact, there are two viewpoints in the same (0+ / 0-)

    sex marriage debate. On one side are those who, like myself, think of marriage as a civil institution. Logically, in my view, people who are not able or willing to take part in a heterosexual union should not be excluded from the legal privileges and benefits of marriage. The 14th Amendment, IMHO, requires the legal equality of same sex couples.

    On the other hand, many people - until recently a majority - think of legal marriage as a civil recognition of a religious institution. And, until quite recently, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. A same sex marriage was a mockery of that institution. Legal recognition of same sex marriage was an intolerable government attack on traditional (IOW religious) values.
       Many of those folks were and are fine with civil unions, as long as they aren't called marriages.
       While it might make you feel good to dismiss them as bigots, they do, in fact, subscribe to beliefs and values that are centuries old. They are not necessarily malicious in intent.


    •  bah. "Centuries old"=slavery. Big deal (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Tonedevil, StevenWells, KathleenM1, skrekk

      Nice old ladies in The Confederacy were probably not "malicious" either.  Who cares?

      If the end result is bigotry, the perp is a bigot.

    •  "Many of those folks were and are fine with civil (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vacantlook, skrekk, Tonedevil

      unions, as long as they aren't called marriages."

      Not really.  Most of the states that have amendments against marriage equality do not have civil unions, and, in fact, have had legislative efforts to outlaw those as well.

      And this idea that civil marriage is a codification of religious practices is terribly misinformed.  Even setting aside our tradition of separation of church and state, the practical reality is that marriage has always been primarily about the inheritance of property.  People who had no property (serfs, slaves) were not allowed to marry.  Marriage was a civil institution that religion got grafted on top of, not the reverse.

      Now, I know that requires some knowledge of history, rationality and not believing that your religion supersedes everything and everyone else, but I don't think indulging the incorrect narrative of the hyper-religious is the right thing to do in a secular society.  Facts matter.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site