- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 13, 2012 at 8:17 pm #775494
Peg MorganMemberThis is the 101st comment on this blog series re Ref 74!
I am grateful for the dialogue that has happened as a result of our multi-faith clergy letter in support of Ref. 74. There have been some very thoughtful, heart wrenching and authentic sharings and exchanges. And mostly I’m grateful that Ref 74 passed, and that I may now sign government marriage licenses for those gay and lesbian couples who want their committed relationships to be recognized by the State.
My best to you all,
Rev. Peg Morgan, Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation
November 13, 2012 at 8:55 pm #775495
CaitParticipantYou can’t argue against gay marriage without being discriminatory, that’s my view. You are either stating that your fellow human being is not entitled to the same things you are or you are forgetting what a crock “separate but equal” is if you’re lobbying to “call it something else.” Marriage has already been redefined from the “biblical” sense – the fact that your wife is not your property means that we have changed over the years.
November 13, 2012 at 9:38 pm #775496
LindseyParticipantTrue, there is some grey area. It is my understanding that health plans in WA will be required to extend benefits to same sex spouses on the same basis as opposite sex spouses, unless they specify that their definition of spouse references federal law. Then you are right, it will be post-tax dollars. It’s all about the plan’s fine print. This will probably not apply the same way to self insured plans, which are allowed to define spouse however they’d like.
November 13, 2012 at 9:44 pm #775497
DBPMemberFirst off, I want to thank the gay folks here for their circumspection. I understand that there’s a lot on the line for you here, and it takes a lot of self-control to not take it personally when someone disagrees with you on this.
That said, I want to address a couple of things that Cait says above (#102) because they are central to the question.
*****************************************************************************************
You can’t argue against gay marriage without being discriminatory, that’s my view. You are […] stating that your fellow human being is not entitled to the same things you are.
–This statement begs the question. In other words, it assumes as proven that which is to be tested by argument. Specifically, it assumes that your opponents already agree with you that everyone is entitled to the same things.
But that’s just the thing, see? Because they don’t agree with you on that. So you may be jumping to conclusions by calling them discriminatory.
Consider this. Even though gender (like sexual orientation) is just an accident, not everybody is entitled to the same rights based on their gender. For example, if you’re a man whose girlfriend/wife/one-night-stand is pregnant with your child, you are not entitled to the same rights as her with regard to the question of whether she will carry the fetus to term.
That’s just one difference in rights; there are many, and I may list a few more of them as they occur to me.
Maybe you’ll say, All right, there are some things we CAN discriminate on and others we can’t.
So then, is marriage one of the ones that we can discriminate on?
You say no. Others say yes.
But the mere fact that two people disagree on what rights someone has doesn’t mean that one of the parties is being discriminatory.
November 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm #775498
CaitParticipantI’m sorry, I don’t try to be Aristotle when it comes to equal rights for my fellow humans. I refuse to try to argue rationally with people who don’t think of gay people as their equals without questioning that. We all have that capability; there’s no excuse for not using it, including ignorance. We are not ignorant of what it means to deny rights to other people if we have even a basic understanding of history. You cannot apply “reason” and “argument” to the right of other people to simply live their lives. It’s inhumane.
November 13, 2012 at 10:39 pm #775499
kgdlgParticipantFirst, thank you from my family for the passage of Ref 74 and the mostly civil tone and back and forth here. The WSB is an amazing community. Your support means a lot to me and my family!
Second, I was saying this quote a lot leading up to the election “The arc of the moral universe is long but bends towards justice.” -MLK Jr.
People need to know that the passage of 74 is but one step in a long battle for justice. Marriage in WA State doesn’t automatically end some of the most egregious discriminatory federal practices towards my family, but it is a huge step in this direction. As I have said here before, my family is not safe in every state across this country – we can be denied access to each other in the hospital across most of the US and I can not receive social security survivor benefits should my partner die young. We are most definitely discriminated against in this fashion. If you are straight and married you have these rights. Gay and married, you don’t. These are just two examples. It is hard to hear folks here and elsewhere say that “discrimination” is a matter of “grey area” or “opinion”. Please just imagine for one minute your soul mate dying in a hospital room that you have been denied access to because you are not allowed to be legally married by the State. This is not a fuzzy matter of opinion.
So it is a process. As more and more states embrace equal civil rights for gays, there will be a shift towards national recognition of our rights as individuals and families. So yes, WA State, your vote matters and I am so proud and thankful to call you home.
November 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm #775500
ghar72ParticipantThanks for your reply, Lindsay.
kgdlg, excellent post. Thank you for your eloquence. I’m so impressed with how calm and rational you’ve stayed throughout this thread. I believe you helped to sway some voters by speaking from your heart here. Thank you.
November 14, 2012 at 1:07 am #775501
Peg MorganMemberDear kgdlg:
would you like to see the whole quote? It was from Rev. Theodore Parker, 19th center Unitarian minister…then quoted by Martin Luther King, Jr., and then President Obama used a portion of the quote for his rug in the oval office…
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. It bends toward justice, but it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own way put our hand on that arc and we each bend it in the direction of justice.”
My best, Rev. Peg Morgan, Westside Unitarian Universalist Congregation
November 14, 2012 at 2:57 am #775502
JoBParticipantand this election that arc was bent just a little further towards justice
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.