Standing on the freedom to vote
To the people running the polling site: you suck!
I get there and there’s no parking, circle the tiny lot for 15 min. until someone leaves. The line is all the way out the building and no one knows how long the wait is. I hear someone coming towards me from the back of the line saying: “This isn’t our line, our precinct is inside.” So I start questioning people around me, “what line is this?” Most don’t have a clue but the lady behind me says go inside and check and she’ll let me back in line if necessary. I go to the where the line enters the building and I ask someone who apparently is working the polling site about what line should I be in. She says what precinct are you in? I don’t have a clue as my voter registration card is at home. I ask her if there is anyone who can check what precinct I’m in (there’s never been more than one precinct at my polling site). She says “Well everyone’s busy.” So how do I know which line to get into? She doesn’t know.
So when in doubt, get in the shortest line. (I don’t know why no one else ever thinks of this.)
Bingo, I’m on the roster and I’m done before the kind lady that offered to hold my spot in line makes it inside the doors. I wave.
But I’m curious, where do you stand on marriage?
Should the government be defining marriage? Is marriage only acceptable between a man and a woman? A woman on the news said “I love my dog but I shouldn’t be able to marry him.”
I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a religious ceremony. But I don’t think the government should be regulating unions. It does me and mine no harm if two gay men enter into a civil union. People are judging this issue on what the men are doing in their bedroom, not on whether they should be afforded the right to insurance benefits or equal division of property should the union dissolve or all the other rights the government affords to man/woman marriages. This is the same as my position on abortion, I have only the right to make this decision for myself, no one else. I choose pro-life for myself because of my beliefs but I also support the right of each person to choose for themselves and to not judge them because of their choices.
You can’t force others to do the right thing because you say it’s the right thing.
Get over yourselves.
posted by The Teller | 5:22 AM
3 Comments:
O.K., devil's advocate here, but it is sometimes in the government's best interest (and therefore, assuming the government is looking after the country's interests, in the country's best interests) to regulate marriage laws. The reason for this, as I see it, is as follows. Assuming the following conditions are true (and they may not be in reality, but let's assume they are):
1. That the government promotes marriage laws as a way to safeguard the country's best interests.
2. That among the country's best interests the need for public security is tantamount.
3. That the crime rate is higher in zones where there are more single-parent households.
Then it follows by necessity that it makes perfect sense for the government to promote marriage via either the creation of marriage laws (i.e. defining what kind of "marriage" is sanctioned by the government) and/or promoting certain benefits for couples that are married (i.e. better healthcare access, tax benefits, etc).
Now, if the government deems that a gay marriage furthers the country's interests, then it makes sense that the government try to promote that somehow. If on the other hand the government deems that a male-female marriage is in the country's best interest and the gay marriage isn't, then the government should attempt to promote that instead.
So, I know I'm being controversial, that in the US the view that government shouldn't meddle on an individual's rights and responsibilities is a very popular one, but on the other side of the coin it makes *some* sense sometimes for the government to step in, in the ways that I have described.
Moreover, the reasons for the government's marriage law regulation need not only be security concerns (that one was but just one example): it could also be something as mundane as population control. In France, for instance, the birthrate is so low, that it is overtaken by the mortality rate, so the net effect is that the population is declining. This is a bad thing in general because that also implies a decline, in the long run, of production of goods and services, etc. So, a government in that kind of situation may be interested in promoting laws that encourage people to marry and have babies. Similarly, in China, the 1-child policy was implemented to try to address the opposite issue.
Whether these measures were good or bad is still a matter of debate, but you raised a question on your post, and I'm just supplying a plausible opposite side of the coin perspective.
Yes, there are always at least 2 sides to everything and I encourage everyone to give me their opinion. Agree or disagree, defend your position.
Just no personal attacks, please. That's the only way you'll get deleted.
*snaps fingers* ohh you go girl!
Post a Comment
<< Home