Solution to the gay marriage debate

Blue moons, maelstroms and moonbows are rare natural occurrences.  Some think they are myth.  Some have seen them.  But nevertheless, they exist.  Another name to add to that list is common sense conservatives.  Yes they do exist.  Trust me.  If you look closely enough.  Listen carefully enough.  You will find that they aren’t as rare as you might think.   No, there isn’t a better chance of spotting a unicorn.  An issue where some may be surprised to read a more progressive viewpoint coming from a conservative is that of “gay marriage.”

I will concede that most members of the GOP are ardent in their stance against “gay marriage.”  However, there are some members who differ from the party in this particular topic.  There is one that might surprise you.  His critics refer to him as the “Darth Vader” of the Republican Party.  Yes, vice president Dick Cheney supports gay marriage.  Yes, that same person who accidently shot his buddy during a hunting trip.  Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, is a lesbian.  Cheney who is a very conservative Republican supports his daughter.  He believes she should be able to marry whomever she desires, no matter public opinion.  I mostly agree with his viewpoint.

The word marriage is a religious concept.  Its origin stems from many religious texts.  Marriage, as initially conceived, is between a man and a woman.  Freedom of speech, religion and press are all guaranteed by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. government by that token cannot legally force a religious organization to perform marriages between same-sex couples.  The U.S. constitution also protects certain unalienable rights.  One of which is that every U.S. citizen should be provided the same rights.

Members of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community are blatantly discriminated by the U.S. government in that they are not provided equal rights to their heterosexual counterparts.  There are many instances of inequalities.  I want to discuss a few of them.  Gay couples cannot federally file joint tax returns unlike heterosexual couples; thus, costing them in potential savings.  Additionally, if one partner falls ill the other will be unable to make decisions for there well being.  The government apparently classifies gay couples as friends.  Partners are not legally deemed as family members.

For example, picture a gay couple who has been together for fifty years.  Then one day a partner suffers a heart attack.  They are rushed to the emergency room.  Doctors must perform a risky operation but need consent.  The other partner is not allowed to make any decisions.  He isn’t even allowed to see his partner post surgery, because of course visitation is only for family members.  I would like someone to explain to me how this man isn’t a family member.  When will people realize that homosexuality isn’t a choice?  Why would anyone choose a side that is so vilified by some?  Why would someone choose a side that isn’t granted equal rights by our own country?  The greatest country in the world.  The country where all things are possible.  Sometimes I wonder what century it is.  But then I remember of the inequalities women still experience in today’s society.  In a country that is for equality, opportunity and the American Dream; it sometimes hasn’t caught up with reality.  Discriminating against a group of people because of their sexual orientation isn’t right and it sure as hell isn’t constitutional.

Two sides to this debate.  One simple solution.  A solution that will satisfy both sides.  And this is the solution that should be advocated.  Gay couples should be given the exact same rights as heterosexual couples.  The LGBTQ community should respect the religious concept that is marriage.  Anti-gay marriage proponents should respect the plight of the gay community derived from current law.  The U.S. government should pass legislation granting equal rights to gay couples.  The compromise I seek.  The solution that I provide.   Is simple.  “Gay Marriage” should be called something different.  The gay people I’ve known throughout my life don’t care what it’s called.  They care that they are recognized by our country.  That they receive the same unalienable rights as everyone else.  That is what they care about.  Most people who argue against “gay marriage” have a problem because the word marriage has a religious connotation.  Yes, there are some bigoted, prejudiced people.  But that isn’t the majority.  If “gay marriage” was called something different then I think the majority of the country would support the legislation.

Homosexuality is deemed a sin in Christianity because of six references in the Old Testament in which God calls it an abomination.  In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is introduced to be the son of God.  He believed in equality, love and inclusion.  Thus in my opinion it isn’t very Christian-like to exclude a group of people because you don’t share their sexual preferences.  Jesus told us to be accepting and not prejudiced.

The debate in my opinion, shouldn’t be about if gay couples should get the same rights as heterosexual couples.  It should be about what name the gay community wants the government to call their unions.


Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About adrakontaidis

A conservative who doesn't pander to the GOP.

20 responses to “Solution to the gay marriage debate”

  1. mummyflyingsolo says :

    I think they should get to call it marriage. Why do we have to make it something different? We didn’t call a union something different when we started letting black people marry white people. Calling it something different only highlights the fact that IT ISN’T EQUAL. It is supposed to be the same. That’s what people are fighting for. No one is asking the church to open their doors and welcome homosexuals to marry there. No one can make the church do that as you rightly point out. However there is such a thing as a non religious marriage ceremony. It’s a civil union but it is still marriage. And that’s what they should get. Besides, until the 9th century churches were no involved in marriage so it is not exclusive to religion at all.

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      That’s basically what I support and I think Mariam does too. Although I could be wrong. Read it awhile ago.

      I think gay couples should get the EXACT same rights and benefits. No question about that.

      • mummyflyingsolo says :

        Yeah here (in AUS) they actually do. They are legally recognised as defacto which I realise is different to the states. They still want to be married though. Just the same way as you or I or anyone else might want to marry the person they love. It is certainly a big step forward and I’m glad we recognise this but it makes me feel that the govt is just being hypocritical. If we can recognise them for the purpose of taxes and household income then why can they not be “married”. Sheesh. Drives me bonkers this one.

      • realtalkrealdebate says :

        I understand it to be frustrating because it can really be a debate over semantics which is unfortunate because it only belittles the union.

        I think people don’t want the word marriage redefined. They want it to mean what it meant when it was derived.

        It frustrates me that I feel this way though. I don’t want to sound insensitive to the gay community over a word.

        I’ve never heard of non religious marriages and I don’t really see the problem with it. I only had a problem with forcing religious institutions to do something against their will.

      • realtalkrealdebate says :

        Btw I asked Mariam and she doesn’t support the term gay marriage either. That’s why I’m confused why you like her stance more. We basically have the same opinion; albeit she wrote it a lot better. I hope I haven’t upset you.

      • mummyflyingsolo says :

        Not at all. I read it differently I think. She said they should be allowed to have civil unions which is what we call marriages that aren’t in churches. So if my friend gets married (to someone of the opposite sex at the moment) outside a church it is conducted by a civil celebrant. They receive a certificate of marriage and it is registered legally as a marriage. This is what I believe should be accessible for gay people as well. It shouldn’t be called “gay marriage” . It should just be called “marriage’ as it currently is for everyone else who doesn’t marry in a church.

      • realtalkrealdebate says :

        In the States civil unions currently aren’t equal to marriages in all states. Civil unions are non religious unions and Mariam and I both support them. Maybe I just wasn’t clear enough in my post. I wrote it awhile ago. Sorry for the confusion.

      • mummyflyingsolo says :

        No worries 🙂 Interesting the differences between the states and AUS in this don’t you think?

      • realtalkrealdebate says :

        Yes! It would explain the confusion. Glad you now can praise my post as well lol 🙂

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      I think the word marriage itself is rooted in a religious practice and that’s why some oppose it. I think civil unions should be the same legal equivalent as marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: