What is Right?

I've been thinking about gay marriage quite a bit.  Pkin, don't get excited this isn't a lesbian fantasy for you.

Last year California voters said no to gay marriage.  I do not care who does what to whom, or how they do it.  But I really can't reconcile myself to two things:

1. Interracial marriage used to be illegal.  Though having Mexican ancestry still makes my race white, I don't think Pkin and I could have gotten married legally 60 or 70 years ago.
2. When does a government have a right do things for the better of society even if society doesn't want it?  Just consider drinking and driving. Government says you can drink, if you're a certain age and have no parole limitations.  Government says you can drive, if you're a certain age and have no other limitations.  But you can't drink and drive because you can harm others and the property of others.  Personally, I think if you want to bust yourself up on the highway, and don't harm the interstate, have at it.

I see two arguments against gay marriage. 

The first is religious; well, religion is good and bad.  I'm a non-practicing Catholic, which (in my informal study) is most common for more educated Catholic school graduates.  I believe in birth control, a woman's right to choose, and that gays and lesbians can have all the headaches and joys of a lifelong commitment to another person.  I'm not sure what that would mean for bisexuals - would they need two lifelong commitments?  And I'm totally stymied by transgenders.  I think transsexuals could be the same as different and same sex couples, but what do I know.  Well, I do I know that I could find a least one priest, in driving distance, who believes the same, whether he's free to say it out loud for fear of losing his job.

The second argument, and perhaps I'm not as informed here, regards the government's reach into a person's personal life.  Where do you draw the line?  Pkin doesn't think that government should be regulating different sex marriage to begin with.  We had to pay for a license to get married and then pay for a copy of that document as proof of our love eternal.  We get a tax break, however small that is.  My employer would provide benefits to him if we weren't married.  And I know my Mom would love him just as much, or really close.  And, in California, if we write it properly, I could leave all my assets not to him.  Mr. McCourt is banking on that one.

So, how do I reconcile my conflicts?  I like being with Pkin but I also like to be part of a free country.

Comments

[mom]

i , also, am bungled by all the bs the gov. passes on us! i think everyone should be able to do what makes them happy! except for stealing,killing or otherwise upsetting the eqileberum (?)

[Laurie]

It seems that people, by nature, are not protective or kind to each other. So we create legislation to protect certain populations because there are people out there, who would deny freedoms and rights of others. Should we protect the right of the business owner to operate his business according to his values? Or should we protect the woman or black man who works for him and does equal work to white, male colleagues?

Where would we be if we didn't protect civil rights? I think it becomes tricky when we are defining what a civil right is.

[Sue]

Thanks for the perspectives. That is why life is so interesting, there are always good questions.

[Laurie]

Coincidentally, I was just watching a program about a school teacher in Botswana. What he was teaching was not part of the story but I was really taken with what he was presenting to the kids. He had two columns on the chalk board. First he would have the kids read a right they have. Then, just beside that, he had them read their responsibility. And the two coincided. So our responsibilities help preserve our rights. I thought that was really powerful and I wish we all thought that way.