First they came for the…

Elizabeth Hasselbeck, from The View, a conservative who is known to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin, said that she would be ok with gay marriage, if it were voted on by the public. Voting on whether gays should have the right to marry is as ridiculous as voting whether left-handed people should be subjected to slavery. (Right-handers unite!) Fundamental rights should not be voted on.\
I understand why some people are against the gay lifestyle. However, just because you think something is wrong, does not mean it should be illegal. Stand up and preach to your heart’s content about how you believe same-sex relationships are wrong. But don’t force your personal beliefs onto others.\
Seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? In light of all of the changes the human race has seen over the years- people being property the biggest one- why does it seem like a good idea for a majority to decide what basic human rights the minority should get?

Categorized as politics

By Kevin Lawver

Web developer, Software Engineer @ Gusto, Co-founder @ TechSAV, husband, father, aspiring social capitalist and troublemaker.


  1. I hate to disagree with family, but I think it is appropriate to vote on gay marriage. And I’m not even saying it’s right or wrong or whatever. Marriage is a sociologically defined entity, not a right. Living, loving and doing what you want with you want is a right. Being ‘married’ is something that is a culturally bound legal state, nothing more. In India it meant one woman and lots of men. In Utah for a while it meant one man and lots of women. Apparently for Eskimos it meant having someone to use as barter for a novel sex partner. It’s culturally defined. Saying one group can come along and just demand a cultural change strikes me as a little self-centered and entitled. From my perspective it’s like a bunch of 12 year old jewish girls demanding Barmitzvah’s when they turn 13 because they were born to Barmitzmah. They have a right to throw a wild party, but they don’t have a right to change to overarching societal norm. Boy, this is long. To sum up, marriage is, in America, a socially defined state. When society catches up, or however you want to view it, and decides the definition has changed, then it’s changed. We can only know that by asking everyone in some organized way how they feel on the matter, some way like taking a vote or something. But that’s my sociological/anthropological take on it anyway.

  2. Hey lookie, someone disagreed with me and posted anyway! Yippeee.
    Tim, some of what you write makes me pause, but I am open to any definition of marriage that involves consenting adults. (I think polygamy should be legal and don’t understand why it isn’t.) I get there are logistical problems with expanding the definition, but I don’t think that should prevent people from legally marrying.
    Also, gay people aren’t really allowed to live, love and do what they want because sodomy is still illegal.
    I appreciate your comment!

  3. I always thought marriage was a religious thing, with a bit of legal overlay. I think a religion that said a human and gecko could be married and the legal system would have the paper work ready. Only when it creates birth defects should the legal men step in and say something. (I don’t think gay marriage creates birth defects, no?) Or at least it should be like this.

Comments are closed.