I agree that people have a right to vote for whatever they want; thatÂ’s America. But, I will not sit here and keep quiet when I see people in Oklahoma, people in NC vote away their personal rights and freedom to choose.
To set in stone rigid social standards (such as defining marriage) is voting away personal liberties. ItÂ’s a LEFT way of thinking.
It’s the same as saying, “I don’t want to be able to choose who I can marry, I want INSTEAD the government to make that choice for me”. It's putting the collective choice over and beyond the choice of the individual, and quite frankly I believe it's anti-American!
Let me ask you a quick question (if you donÂ’t mind), do you identify yourself as right leaning or left leaning?
.
.
First, I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your desire to have an intellectual discussion on this topic, minus the knee-jerk name calling of someone with whom you do not agree. And I am obviously a conservative and lean to the right regarding my political views, although as Sallow has taken pains to point out, not on all of them. I do not take lightly the passage of an amendment to the state constitution regarding such an issue, and I must say that I have done a lot of soul-searching regarding such an action. As a conservative and as an American, government is NOT a friend. However, several things come into play here.
Can we agree that the state of Oklahoma, and every state for that matter, has an interest in defining what a lawfully recognized marriage is? Without providing for that definition, you open up the door for those who would 'game' the system (tax laws, estates, etc.) with psuedo-marriages that we have not even begun to contemplate. Therefore unfortunately, it is the states right and I believe obligation to codify that definition into its law. Additionally, to avoid the definition of marriage from being DICTATED to the state by a federal judge (who may have NEVER set foot in this state), this definition needs to have the full weight of the state constitution behind it.
Since I believe the need righteously exists, it then becomes necessary to define exactly what a 'marriage' is. To satisfy this need, I can only point to my personal beliefs as to what constitutes a marriage, what provides society the greatest benefit as a marriage, and to ask myself IF there MUST be a correlation between that lawful definition and a societal definition. After being a cop for 20 years, I can tell you that children are more likely to thrive in a family unit where there is a mother and a father. You do NOT sentence a child to failure if they are raised by a same-sex couple, but it is more difficult. Additionally, being older, I can tell you that the 'slippery slope' arguement does come into play. If today same-sex couples are allowed to be married, then next it will be? And don't tell me that it won't happen, I see the 'slippery slope' happening every day. Entitlements are EXACTLY a product of the slippery slope.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not state that I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that a same-sex marriage is wrong. It is a personal decision, and if a same-sex couple wants to be together, then that is their decision. I will not condemn it, BUT I will also not give it a tacit blessing by allowing it to be codified into law. Religious views are part of our morals and our morals find our ways into our laws. You cannot separate one from the other. To say that I am imposing my religious views on you ignores the fact that by including same-sex marriages into a legal definition, you impose your morals on me. Sunni Man, who posts here on this forum, is vehemently anti-gay. I understand why... I do not agree with the degree that he exhibits, but I understand why. Luckily, there are not many who agree with the degree of his stance.
So there you have my reasoning. There is a verifiable reason for the definition and I have used the best reasoning as to why I believe like I do. And I pray everyday for insight...
