Wednesday, March 27, 2013


Human Rights.  It has taken a lot of forms in the last 200 years.  There have been insane amounts of arguments over those rights...

I am trying not to initiate the same fight with the same words today.  I am sure you can tell where I stand from my own religious statements over the last few years.  But I have a few analytical questions...

The idea behind same sex "marriage" is wanting to be viewed as a viable legal unit...correct?  So.  The government grants a binding unit term, that fulfills that idea, and those who hold the idea of marriage as a religious conviction do not have to be violated.  Marriage has always been between a man and woman.  Across the ages.  Across the moral convictions of virtually all primary religions.  Even cultures that accepted homosexuality.  We are literally trying to man-handle religion, the constitution, and everyone's moral convictions to force something that could be taken care of legally without touching religion or "rights".

What puts a bad taste in my mouth is that this emotional/legal right in the face of true life rights.

In the face of the abortion question:  The government and a small portion of the country have the right to offend multiple religions and tear a millenia-long tradition to shreds.  This same government has decided that if a pregnant woman is in a car wreck, and her unborn child is killed, the driver of the other car is responsible for vehicular manslaughter.  YET, if the child is unwanted for any reason, it can be killed at the hands of doctors as a mass of tissue and disposed of.

I, and others like me, propose that this is the ultimate human rights equality.
In very recent times, we see Ethan Saylor killed at the hands of off-duty police officers.  (This LINK takes you to a list of ways you can request clear justice for Ethan.)  Antonio and Gilberto , brutalized at the hands of on duty police officers.  Whether out of malice or out of ignorance, these things happened.  And there is nothing done because the victims were lesser humans, those with disabilities. 
And I propose to you Chromosomal Rights Equality.
If you support human rights then you support safety against brutality and the unthinkable by those sworn to protect.  If you support human rights then you support life. If you support human rights, then you protect the rights of all to have their religion to remain un-violated.  I'll be completely honest, I just don't feel that there is a lot of grey area here.
(If you agree, even with *just* Chromosomal Equality, please right-click and save the last picture, my awesome techie friend put together for me, and share.  It deserves to be seen.  It deserves to be said.  It deserves to be fought for.)


  1. I believe our kids are being targeted for - essentially - eugenics. that makes me sick. i am not a big fan of abortion, but legalized abortion is about medical safety. it's a larger issue than the moral one which for most people is not black and white, but all shades of gray. i believe in marriage equality. I think religion should be separate from state matters. If a church is against gay marriage, then let them refuse to perform the cermony. that is a church matter - not a state matter. if your beliefs are very strongly "anti-gay marriage" although I imagine gay marriage is not the focal point of your spiritual life - then you should choose a church that does not perform gay marriages. Your goal should not be to keep it illegal for everyone, even churches that do not share your beliefs. Just my $.02.

  2. I'm a long time reader of your blog. After this post, I won't be coming back. I'm gay; I've always been gay, and I always will. I'm also a student, a sister, a friend, an advocate for people with special needs -- people like your daughter. Please think about that for a moment. I know many wonderful individuals who work with children who have physical and developmental differences. All of them are gay. We devote our lives to helping your children lead the fullest lives possible. We advocate for their equality and inclusion. In fact, the disability rights movement has had ties to the gay civil rights movement since its inception. And despite all the work that I and people like me have done on behalf of your family, you believe that we should not be allowed to have families of our own. Can you even begin to comprehend how painful that is to hear? I try to practice compassion when it comes to bigoted individuals; I understand that not everyone has had the benefit of an education in diversity. But the mother of a child who is a member of an oppressed class herself should know better. Shame on you.

    And another thing. This has NOTHING to do with religion. Homophobic religious institutions do not and never will have to perform gay marriages. Frankly, there is nothing I would like less than to have the happiest day of my life ruined by someone who hates me. As long as a religious institution receives no funding from the government, they can practice whatever homophobic, racist, sexist creed they choose. It's also worth bearing in mind that until extremely recently virtually every major religion in the history of the world has accepted slavery and forced marriage -- both of which have been supported by members of virtually every faith, including Christians, based on the same religious documents that supposedly condemn homosexuality. By the same logic you oppose gay marriage, you should also support slavery and polygamy.

    As for your appeal to the Constitution, read the Fourteenth Amendment. Then read it again. Then remember the fact that until the late 19th century (only a few generations ago), that same document contained a clause that decreed people of African descent to be two-thirds of a person. So let's see: so far you have cited in favor of your bigotry a religious history that includes selling barely-pubescent girls into marriage and raping slaves, and a Constitution that has undergone several major revisions in order to eliminate the racism, sexism, and classism endemic in the original version. You are using these deeply flawed examples to support institutionalized prejudice against the very people who have fought long and hard for the rights of people like your daughter against the ignorance and hatred of people like, well, you. All this to prevent people who love each other from getting married.

    What's that you were saying about equality?

    1. As you said you will not be returning to this blog, I am not sure that you will be able to see my reply.

      However, I would like to answer you, in case you receive notifications of replies.

      I specifically started this post with choosing not to argue the same points in the same words.

      I am not attacking anyone. I am simply addressing the skewing of equality and rights by arguing against an inverted hierarchy. I believe that the no grey area is that before anything else, we should be fighting for life. Life versus death, first. Actual life with the freedom to make choices, should come far before forcing private choices to be accepted as mainstream.

  3. Why conflate those 2 issues? Does fighting for equality in one area preclude fighting for justice in other areas?

    Personally I believe that if you start from the premise of marriage as a religious rather than societal construct, that implies that a faith-neutral government should get out of that business for everyone. Why should tax advantages etc. be conferred on some people and not others based on a religious practice? If government wishes to support a cooperative family structure for the benefit of raising children, however, this should be gender-neutral. Civil unions for everyone, and if you want a religious ceremony, that's your business.