Gay Marriage Clarified

It has taken a long time into the gay marriage debate to reveal the actual way gay marriage accepted as a legal right could change the general landscape on marriage as a whole. For most of the years in which it was actively debated, the premise put forth and accepted by most was simple, “It won’t change marriage, either in concept or law”.

The fundamental matter of what change might take place in our concept of marriage and the protection the laws now give it… and ultimately constituting a change in status for children and women in a marriage relationship (which is legally defined), had always been my main concern on this question.

Now that the debate is almost over and the idea of gay marriage as a right is generally accepted and being instituted in law, some inconvenient facts have risen to the visible surface. So, the question still remains how the legalization of gay marriage changes the definition of marriage and the legal complications of that change. Is anyone willing to address that yet?

That is always where I believe the point of the conversation should take place. Will definitions and permission for adultery change inside the state of marriage? Will polygamy become a part of the legal definition? What does this do to benefits for marriage partners and offspring?

Those are the questions that everyone seems to ignore, but can we afford to continue this omission?


Marriage Minus Monogamy VI
the fifth part of a series on marriage and monogamy in this issue highlights some of the difference between the customary definition of a “committed relationship” between two people, and that recognized in the gay community.

Not that the gay community is one homogeneous unit. There are scientifically demonstrable differences in how the sexual relationship, including gays, is different for males and females (1). At least at the theoretical stage (the interpretation of data is not fully conclusive), but there has long been a difference noted, if not proven conclusively. Yet, the discussion has moved forward upon the ideas that all gays have the same ideas of what constitutes gay marriage. In all the definitions possible, marriage is more than a simple business contract, and implicit within it are certain constraints on behavior. Is this included in the way the laws are outlined? I am unsure of what the actual legislated demands for a married partner consists of, at this time, but presumed it still held the monogamous view of exclusivity of one partner.

In what way might this be changed, if at all under the addition of untraditional partners? this is th ematter that I haven’t seen addressed, but the one that I believe should most be addressed.

The Future: Debate will increase over who has rights to medical care

He is not a “vegetable”, after all.

After the healthcare debate in the legislature is completed, the discussion will return to the ethical questions that have been so problematical for modern medicine and society. It is the type of story that Rom Houben represents that will become our focus. And it will pivot, not just on our ethos, but on the economics of trying to provide care to all of society.

Watch for distinctions to be made on who is worthy of care and who is not, while trying to maintain a PC exterior.

It is harder to rationalize euthanizing sentient beings, when the cloak of ” they are just a vegetable” comes off.

How to make practical this realization? Understand that even if a patient is unconscious or even comatose, they may still be able to hear and be fully aware of what is said in their presence.

Hat tip to Mark La Roi of WordFm

Tillers Death: The Aftermath

The debate and discussion over this is rising to a buzz of deafening proportions. It gets hard to think when that happens. Dr. Tiller, an abortionist, killed recently, is thought to have been shot because of his high profile as an abortion practitioner and advocate.

One of the reactions:“They’re killing doctors.” by Aeron Haynie who uses the news event to create her own theory of why women don’t openly share their abortion stories as she elects to do in her post. Her most compelling take from her abortion is “I remember feeling relief that I had my body back, my life back”. In a sense, she has never moved beyond her teenage aspect of abortion, her relief to be on with her life unencumbered by that child-product. Not that I fault her personally, in that. We, all, when faced with traumatic events stay within the framework of our vivid reliving of it from the experience of the moment, including our mind and circumstances of the time. But as someone who speaks about an ethical issue and about broad implications for society, in that I fault her for using only her subjective teenage set of morals and values.

Anotherthink plays a bit of devil’s advocate with his reaction:
“Is it legitimate to suggest that there is a moral equivalency between Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s violent opposition to Adolf Hitler and the recent cold-blooded assassination of doctor George Tiller, the unapologetic abortionist?” I weighed in with “No”.
my comment:

Hitler as the head of state and demi-god of the Nazi regime created the temptation of ridding an entire society, indeed the whole world, of a perpetrator of crimes against humanity with his assassination. The killing of a single doctor in the machinery of the abortion industry does nothing good for anyone. Not for the pro-life cause, not for the future of babies, not for society. It is simply another murder.

When you take the high ground, in such arenas as being pro-life and other issues which seek to protect human life and support the aspect of human dignity, you are not allowed the privilege of abrogating that. Not even once. At the point at which you do, you leave the high ground and join the scuffle of each man for himself, and each judging good and evil in their own eyes. All support for ethical and moral good is then lost.

That is the tragedy of this murder: the lines were blurred in the eyes of all involved as to what steps we must take to honor life and human dignity and rights to exist. Which belong to all, even slimy abortion doctors who are advanced and protected by our laws and government.

The great power of a government based upon law is its objectivity. It might be infuriating to some to see such a person weasel out of justice and even regulation meant to protect others rights. But the law is in place to protect against an individuals fury against another individual, or making an individual pay for something that truly find causation in a social inequity, not in the person who uses that inequity to his advantage or to promote his own moral view. If Dr. Tiller used his rights to further endorse and promote abortions, and sidestepped controls on his actions [Tiller was charged with 19 misdemeanors alleging he failed to obtain the required second opinion from an independent physician that a late-term abortion is necessary.]

Efforts should be redoubled in the struggle to ensure the good of society and individuals with a reasonably high standard of morality. We need to patiently example and speak for an acceptance of the view that people have dignity and have certain rights connected with that dignity. We need to work more diligently to apply pressure to our lawgivers to support that view with appropriate legislation and rulings. We need to apply our moral and ethical standards without deviation in our lives and actions. We need to speak and put ourselves on the line to that purpose.

It is a tall order. But one we must attempt to fill.

States Rights, Tea Parties…What Do You Think?

Mostly we center on the economy anymore (in the news, personal conversations, blogs, etc)…. I know that gets the lion’s share of my own interest in reading news, etc. But what about the rumblings on States rights, what about the tea parties protesting our taxes and national debt? Are they hot air, just letting off pressure, or genuine attempts by informed citizens… or something else?

What do you think?

Sometimes I honestly don’t know what to make of some of these activities and I’d like to get a bead on what the real issues are.

For instance, this move to consolidate states rights. Is it too little, too late? Is the state the last bastion in a check on runaway federal spending? Or is it a way for citizens to have more say on issues? Are the courts and the federal delivering a one-two punch to the concept of states rights?

Those are things I question when looking at what is going on today.

Time To Re-visit Old Issues

Since the Democrats are in power…and all the policy and philosophical ramifications of that… when I saw this post by Suze Orman I realized there are issues that we need to revisit, perhaps on a different level than before.

This advice is on the individual personal level: what can you learn from the Terri Schiavo case to can change something in your own life? As opposed to waiting for ethical and legal changes within the way these matters are handled.

clipped from biz.yahoo.com

If Terri had just put in writing what she wanted to happen to her in the event she became too ill to express her own wishes, the excruciating legal battle that would never have happened.

Please, my friends—no matter what your position on the Terry Schiavo case—understand one thing. The only way to salvage anything positive from this tragedy is to learn one simple lesson: With an Advance Directive and a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, you can control what happens to you if you become too ill to speak for yourself. You can spare your loved ones untold misery by telling them exactly what you want for yourself.

  blog it

Things I wanted to say: on eminent domain

I was in Brazil when President Bush issued his “Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People”.

As this article point out,
Bush executive order limits property seizure

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the executive order put the federal government on record opposing eminent domain for merely economic development purposes.

“The president is a strong supporter of private property rights,” she said.

Since the Kelo decision, an avalanche of property confiscations have followed
….

It made a good difference in the necessary process of putting a bridle on eminent domain’s runaway coach, but we still have work to do in our state legislatures. We can talk about freedom all we want, but if we sit idly by and do nothing while our basic rights are undermined, the talk and the celebration mean little. We have responsibilities with our rights and that includes standing up for them and preserving them against all tyrants. Even those found in our own backyards. I don’t see many people speaking up in appreciation for what President Bush accomplished in this important issue. If your own home isn’t safe…. your power to have and exercise your freedoms is demolished. That is why it was of such importance in English common law. “A man’s home is his castle” is more than a saying, it is a concept. President Bush has given back some scaffolding by which we may build up our property rights. Let’s complete the work and strengthen the edifice of our basic freedoms that we like to talk so much about.

There’s still work to do.

It was the one-year anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving New London, Conn., homeowners.

The majority opinion from the divided court limited homeowners rights, by saying that local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was bringing more jobs and tax revenue to the city.

But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit, and many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, welcomed Bush’s executive order. But since the federal government has only a limited role in these types of projects, he said Congress must do more. Cornyn has introduced legislation that would also bar federal funding for any state or local projects in which the land was obtained through eminent domain. ~ Associated Press

======= other things I’ve written on the topic====

A step behind the beat…or a different drummer?

Some of this discussion on gender, at times, seems so yesterday. I bet lots of feminists thought that when they got stung into surprised wakefulness by the resurgence of traditional women’s choices. And not all made by traditional women! Modern, educated, career savvy women choosing to return home, be SAHM, and turning their displeasure upon the the myths of modern feminism. I bet that was just plain painful.

I think this is one of those matters that bounces back and forth on the see-saw, because right now some of the weight is coming down on demanding some definition for what we call “tradition”. There are lots of things that we don’t really want to go back to…. in many ways the past was neither simpler nor was it better. Just one more adjustment in the pathway home, I guess, as we try to move our lives and thus our society towards what is healthy and life-giving and tenable. Fantasies don’t do the job, although they suffice temporarily. We want to dream up a society and plant ourselves in the middle. Really, that nails it for most of the debates on lifestyle. We get ideas, we hold certain prejudices and then…the light bulb goes on! Everyone should do this; we could change our world…if…if only we could mold them in our image. .ssshhhh..we could be god

heh.

heh.heh.heh.

Well, I am finding the discussion has renewed importance in my thinking. Not to change things… I’m in my fifties and my lust for change is diminishing. Or maybe it’s focusing. I want to be able to pass on something closer to the truth to the coming generations. I want something more integral and valid for myself than the piecemeal some-lie-some-truth system of thinking about women that is passed around in this society. Pick your flavor: liberal or traditional.

One of the powerful things of the gospel is that it holds truth. And the truth sets you free…. and that concept is something both sides can pay attention to. At least, we Christians have a duty to find and present it.

When you have a sector of life that combines so much of what is of bedrock importance to life and society as women’s choices are, or women’s status, or just plain women …. it is likely to take more than a lick and a polish to get things right. I’m game for the challenge.

Reformed Chicks Blabbing: Another Update on Andrea Clark

Reformed Chicks Blabbing: Another Update on Andrea Clark
Andrea Clark’s family is moving her to Chicago. Her sister, who is a democrat, has words of praise for the pro-life movement….

“More of the ‘New Eugenics’ in Action”

Read this important post“More of the “New Eugenics” in Action”, @ Telic Thoughts. Terri Schiavo and her tragic situation was really only the beginning of the debate and struggle over life and who has what rights in our society.

via Tu Quoque


More from:Secondhand Smoke
Specifics on Texas Statute Imposing Futile Care Theory…..