Her husband, Bill Clinton, made a public statement this past week stating the United States Supreme Court should overturn an act he signed into law in 1996 - the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
DOMA is a piece of federal legislation the Obama Administration has refused to enforce. Thank goodness. It was patently unconstitutional the day it was signed into law (H.R. 3396) and President Clinton had strong reservations about signing it. At the time he stated he was opposed to government recognition of same sex marriage but opposed to discrimination against gays.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have changed their public opinions on this issue and that is refreshing.
In April, 2009, our Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage should be legal. The result was that three very excellent jurists were voted out of office by a group of overly anal retentive conservative, judgmental, religiously fundamental radicals.
I still remember driving around the state and seeing large "VOTE NO!" signs in people yards. I wanted to kick them, pull them out of the ground, spray paint them and all sorts of other awful things. Those signs made me so angry as they represented extreme intolerance.
Those three justices were later awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. That award was very well deserved. They did the right thing when it was not popular. That took courage.
I am tolerant of many things in life. But one thing I am not tolerant of is intolerance.
4 comments:
What gay people do or do not do has never been an issue with me.
However when it comes to religion that has to follow a holy book that stipulates gay marriage is wrong, this ceremony should not be performed in that institution or the institution ceases to exist because it becomes a farce.
I apply this also to the koran. Either you agree all infidels should be killed or you don't If you believe in the koran, then you believe infidels should die. That's on the very first page.This book is not for non muslims.
So unless you decide to outlaw religious laws, then the word NO is going to exist. People don't like the word NO but we have to live with it or face the consequences of our decisions. Today marriage has been turned into a circus. No wonder no one wants to marry anymore or raise traditional families.
Today it is profitable to put kids into the world and shove them onto social welfare because the state provides the kids with lots of money, unloads them onto other people who just want the money and the parents are free to create more throw aways and live the free irresponsible lifestyle. Something is a miss here with human rights. Is it not also a human right for children not to be born in a throw away society? Are old parents not entitled to be looked after by their children and not be thrown into some institution to die alone?
I am intolerant of such things.
Intolerance has to exist as the word NO has to exist.
I hope the new Pope teaches the word NO otherwise, we don't need a Pope.If the gay people create their own religion where they can marry, I have no problem with that. It is within their right to live as they choose.
Where I work, there are several gay people, many of them married with children. They are doctors and researchers, they are decent people and I believe they have the right to live their lives as honestly as possible. None of us has the right to tell other people how to live. I don't like rice pudding, but that doesn't give me the right to tell everyone else not to like it.
I believe the Bible teaches tolerance. Jesus was completely silent on the subject of homosexuality. He did have a lot to say, however, about folks who judge other people.
I don't think anyone should be excluded from any institution -- including churches, the military or any employment, simply because of whom they choose to love. After all, it is our love, isn't it?
Thanks to both of you for your comments. I appreciate the fact both of you took the time to express your views.
My focus is on what the government allows or does not allow. Whatever a given church or religious group wishes to do is their business and their right.
I did over 1,500 divorces when I worked as a lawyer. Several told me their church did not allow divorce. I reminded them that their divorce was being done by the government (state of Iowa) and that the state government had no jurisdiction over their religious beliefs.
If their religion did not recognize divorce, that was their business - not the government's.
The same is true with same sex marriage. The government should not be denying it. If a given religious group wishes to forbid or condone it, that group or organization has every right to do so.
I fail to see the connection between human rights and religion. My feelings are that as long as mature, consenting adults want to engage in marriage, whose business is it to say no? How does their love and commitment alter that of anyone else? I'm thrilled that people are less afraid to speak out for these basic human rights. They've been denied for much too long.
Post a Comment