I’m poaching this from Crooks and Liars this morning:
On “Verdict” last night, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura made the perfect case as to why same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and that the federal government has no right to tell you “who you can fall in love with.” I was just waiting for Buchanan’s head to explode.
See? I still love this guy. I miss Jesse being in office and actually having him in the news all the time.
ABRAMS: Pat Buchanan does this become an issue in 2008?
BUCHANAN: Yes, I think it will because of the California Supreme Court decision which was a foolish decision, frankly, from the standpoint of the Democrats. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in 2003-2004 put the thing on the ballot in 13 states and homosexual marriage lost by 58 percent to 85 percent in Mississippi in all 13 and it killed Kerry. It won‘t be as big but it‘s an issue Barack Obama will say, “Marriage should be between a man and woman.” He will run away from it.
ABRAMS: Jesse, you‘re shaking your head.
VENTURA: Well, first of all, I made a statement when I was governor and stand by it today. Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we as a government to tell people who you can fall in love with? I think it‘s absurd that fact it‘s even being debated.
We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions then you don‘t have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage. They are the private sectors. If they don‘t want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so. How on earth can we even entertain the fact that government should have the ability to tell you as an individual who you can fall in love with? Ridiculous.
Read the rest HERE.
Former Gov. Ventura might have a case if civil involvement in marriage had anything to do with “love.” Unfortunately for Ventura’s argument, the government doesn’t give two hoots about who you fall in love with.
I’m convinced that talking about marriage exclusively in terms of love has been very harmful socially. It leads people into thinking that once “the spark” is gone, they should throw in the towel on their marriage.
Nobody on the planet loves their wife more than I love mine. But my marriage is about more than romance. I’ve commented on this from my religious perspective before for those interested in my Mormon take on the issue.
In a recent NYT article on the issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriages in New York state Michael Long, chairman of the state’s Conservative Party, says, “To do this in the dark of night, through the back door, to begin the process of destroying the sanctity of marriage, is really wrong.”
Why is it that opponents of same-sex marriage fail to recognize or do anything to alleviate the multitude of problems within the bounds of opposite-sex marriage – adultery, abuse, high divorce rate, absent fathers? Instead they veil their opposition to same-sex marriage, based in religious conservatism, in so called “sanctity of marriage” arguments.
Then there is the semantics issue. What should we call same-sex marriages? Marriages or civil unions? In essence all marriages are civil unions. An opposite-sex couple can have a religious ceremony in a church, but that marriage is not recognized by the states as legal without the civil stamp of approval. If a gay couple wish to be “married” by a church that so chooses to perform the ceremony WHAT is the issue. No church that chooses not to perform same-sex marriages will be forced to perform said ceremony, plain and simple.
My 1970 American Heritage dictionary defines “marriage” as:
1. The state of being married; wedlock. 2. A wedding. 3. Any close union.
But, then “marry” is defined as:
1. To join as husband and wife. 2. To take as husband or wife. 3. To enter into a close relationship.
Maybe the “marry” definition was written by a Southern Baptist, though probably not since it did not mention the wife being subservient to the husband. Maybe it’s just an old dictionary.
My point here is that once again religion, and more particularly religious fundamentalism is being used as hammer over the heads of gay men and women who wish nothing more than to do as they have been accused of not doing in the past – committing to one another. And the commitment is no less than that of opposite-sex couples. Once again religion gets fitfully entangled in politics and the law.
In reality the argument from same-sex marriage opponents is like that of the 3 year olds in the sand box … “It’s mine.” Many of these same folks would have women and blacks without the right to vote, as well as blacks living still segregated lives. Let’s call bigotry and narrow-mindedness just what it is … WRONG. Wrong in this issue as it has been in many other civil rights issues of the past.
Did you see Patrick Buchanan’s rendition of world war 2?!?! AHAHAHAHAH. It very cute. Check it out if your intrested here –
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War