Marriage Hypocrisy
As legislators in both Washington and Harrisburg continue the process of "preserving traditional marriage" by seeking to ban same sex marriages Americablog is conducting research into which Congresspersons and Senators supporting this have violated their vows. How many have violated their much revered respect for marriage by divorcing, having affairs, children out of wedlock, or, especially, are living in the closet.
It seems to me we also need to do this in Pennsylvania. If you know of any such hypocritical state lawmakers email me with the information. Please include documentation, if possible, of divorces or anything else in the public domain which supports the allegation. I will attempt to contact the people involved for confirmation before publishing the list of people who publicly call for purity but privately violate their vows and principles.
These calls to preserve "traditional marriage" are a farce. Throughout history marriage was an arrangement. Marriage was used to consolidate wealth and power. It wasn't even a religious ceremony until recently, in historical terms.
For most of history wives had no rights. Men's horses, in fact, had more rights than their wives. These women were nothing more than chattle. "Traditional marriage" is nothing to long for. The primary purpose of marriage is for legal protection. It provides legal rights to the spouse and children. Federal laws bestow 1,138 legal rights upon people in marriages that are not available to gay couples. These are the same legal rights gay couples need for the same reasons: to protect the partner and children.
Modern times have seen marriage evolve into a romantic relationship. It has become a symbol of the commitment two people make for fidelity and love. Why this should be restricted to only part of our society is questionable public policy. It's certainly unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal justice under law. Either those 1,138 rights must be extended to all or eliminated altogether.
It seems to me we also need to do this in Pennsylvania. If you know of any such hypocritical state lawmakers email me with the information. Please include documentation, if possible, of divorces or anything else in the public domain which supports the allegation. I will attempt to contact the people involved for confirmation before publishing the list of people who publicly call for purity but privately violate their vows and principles.
These calls to preserve "traditional marriage" are a farce. Throughout history marriage was an arrangement. Marriage was used to consolidate wealth and power. It wasn't even a religious ceremony until recently, in historical terms.
For most of history wives had no rights. Men's horses, in fact, had more rights than their wives. These women were nothing more than chattle. "Traditional marriage" is nothing to long for. The primary purpose of marriage is for legal protection. It provides legal rights to the spouse and children. Federal laws bestow 1,138 legal rights upon people in marriages that are not available to gay couples. These are the same legal rights gay couples need for the same reasons: to protect the partner and children.
Modern times have seen marriage evolve into a romantic relationship. It has become a symbol of the commitment two people make for fidelity and love. Why this should be restricted to only part of our society is questionable public policy. It's certainly unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal justice under law. Either those 1,138 rights must be extended to all or eliminated altogether.
posted by PA progressive @ Sunday, June 04, 2006
<< Home