Ok kids. Seeing how my current living status is in Maine, November 3rd (tomorrow if this post gets published in time), is the day to go vote. Now many in this location are traditionalists that have changed personal stances on all things social. I recall my living grandparent acting passive about the fact that "in those days" my then-Catholic father wasn't really encouraged to meet-up with his non-Catholic friends outside of school. The area has evolved and along with it has the political climate. There are many items up for debate and delineation for tomorrow's election and people should make a sound decision on their viewpoints for any side of the story.
There is one side to the story that I don't understand in today's evolving society: why do people want to limit legal rights based on an English term (or Old French if you checked Wikipedia)?
This debate for Question Number 1 on Maine ballot is, "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?".
I'm not a social scientist, philosopher, or anything official in any way besides the fact that I've won a bunch of awards for the local university for achieving a useless bachelor degree. I'm not saying anyone is in the wrong. Personal views should be held with regard as long as you can back them up. Now- saying this, the terminology in the question is quite tricky. Technically there is a law in place (signed by Big Man Baldacci) allowing anyone to be able to be married in the state of Maine- which will really kick in if the citizens in Maine kill this People's Veto.
There are many reasons I'm all for killing this bill and crushing it into the dirt with metal:
1. If it gets killed, religious institutions whom are already opposed to the act of officially marrying non-'straight' couples will STILL have the right to not marry said groups. Nothing will change with certain viewpoints in regards to official stances currently in place. The act of marrying can still be then done with other religious institutions or your friendly neighborhood courthouse. The act of REFUSING to acknowledge the legally binding act is something that institutions have to uphold as real- otherwise would be unacceptable and could be viewed as sexual discrimination.
2. Vocal Pro-Yes Organizations have slanted the issue to crazy crazy lengths. Much like a crazed last-ditch effort to gain the love of the girlfriend you cheated on, Yes on 1 organizers have created ads that display seemingly stretched comparisons.
For random comparisons I give you this:
vs.
Yeah I know- I just used a corny TWCable ad for comparison. I don't think it's too far fetched. The TWC ad makes a roundabout assumption about cute puppies and how Direct TV hates them...indirectly. The first 'Yes on 1' ad was quite the roundabout technique. I love how the spin at the very end says the inevitable, "THEY'RE GONNA TEACH THIS SHIT IN CLASS. GAY CLASS! RUN AND HIDE YOUR FUCKING KIDS- THE HOMO PATROL IS HERE!!!!!!!!" This was like linking all that candy I ate from the trick or treaters that didn't come to my house to the main reason I've got a massive headache. I bet the coffee manufacturers love the fact that I didn't directly mention that I had three cups of coffee in the past hour as well. As far as the question on the ballot is concerned, there is nothing in the description that will change anything about school State and Nation standardized testing (which the State of Maine has to impose for educational consistency...or somethin'). I love spin- but not when it's used to generate a completely different question out of the initial information. Massive Misinformation.
3. If organizations want to view marriage as an institution rather than the legal terminology that's being presented, then look no further than your Backyard. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but if something like 50% of marriages currently set into the books fail, then I'd be taking the time to fix what went wrong with the "institution" of itself. Have mandatory counseling for ALL who want to get married. Perhaps minimum lengths of 'getting to know you' before getting married. Stopping Vegas, "Holy shit, what the fuck happened last night???" moments. I know this steps on the rights of others, but perhaps the focus of religious persons could change from the exclusiveness that currently excludes, to a positive adjustment that enriches and tries to save the lives of people within bad marriages. There are many many many factors obviously, so why focus so great on people that quite possibly could love each other as much as others? Last time I checked we're human. Sexual orientation means jack shit when it comes down to a term.
4. Massive Overpopulation: People Will Make Babies til the End of TIME. I seriously don't understand how a term will stop people from reproducing. Part of life is to create- so how will a ballot vote change anything?
5. Keep this away from religion ideology. I don't think religious institutions should reflect the main motivating factor how people vote. People will surely intake whatever information presented to them- however; following what others tell you because of some indirect (and possibly incorrect) threatened consequence is absurd. The incorrect use of the term 'ignorant' can be applied here I guess. Make sure YOU understand viewpoints and make sure whatever stance is made is YOUR'S and not an imposed institution's.
I have homosexual friends. Whoop-tee-freakin-do. I have heterosexual friends. And other's who view themselves as anything under the sun....and quite possibly the kitchen sink. My point here is that terminology is the means to spin and misinterpret whatever meaning can be implied. When I mentioned the 'old ways' in my local area, it's more based on traditional values. The general rule of misunderstanding and ignorance comes into play easily. The goal is not to step on anyone's toes but continue to try to understand why we us fight over the use of terms to 'lock-down' the lives of others. My lone living grandparent now tolerates people of most similar religious factions, and that a little step that took years. My hope is that the ballot fails because I can't stand to see people's lives denied by a damn single word.
My vote: No on Question 1.
vs.
Yeah I know- I just used a corny TWCable ad for comparison. I don't think it's too far fetched. The TWC ad makes a roundabout assumption about cute puppies and how Direct TV hates them...indirectly. The first 'Yes on 1' ad was quite the roundabout technique. I love how the spin at the very end says the inevitable, "THEY'RE GONNA TEACH THIS SHIT IN CLASS. GAY CLASS! RUN AND HIDE YOUR FUCKING KIDS- THE HOMO PATROL IS HERE!!!!!!!!" This was like linking all that candy I ate from the trick or treaters that didn't come to my house to the main reason I've got a massive headache. I bet the coffee manufacturers love the fact that I didn't directly mention that I had three cups of coffee in the past hour as well. As far as the question on the ballot is concerned, there is nothing in the description that will change anything about school State and Nation standardized testing (which the State of Maine has to impose for educational consistency...or somethin'). I love spin- but not when it's used to generate a completely different question out of the initial information. Massive Misinformation.
3. If organizations want to view marriage as an institution rather than the legal terminology that's being presented, then look no further than your Backyard. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but if something like 50% of marriages currently set into the books fail, then I'd be taking the time to fix what went wrong with the "institution" of itself. Have mandatory counseling for ALL who want to get married. Perhaps minimum lengths of 'getting to know you' before getting married. Stopping Vegas, "Holy shit, what the fuck happened last night???" moments. I know this steps on the rights of others, but perhaps the focus of religious persons could change from the exclusiveness that currently excludes, to a positive adjustment that enriches and tries to save the lives of people within bad marriages. There are many many many factors obviously, so why focus so great on people that quite possibly could love each other as much as others? Last time I checked we're human. Sexual orientation means jack shit when it comes down to a term.
4. Massive Overpopulation: People Will Make Babies til the End of TIME. I seriously don't understand how a term will stop people from reproducing. Part of life is to create- so how will a ballot vote change anything?
5. Keep this away from religion ideology. I don't think religious institutions should reflect the main motivating factor how people vote. People will surely intake whatever information presented to them- however; following what others tell you because of some indirect (and possibly incorrect) threatened consequence is absurd. The incorrect use of the term 'ignorant' can be applied here I guess. Make sure YOU understand viewpoints and make sure whatever stance is made is YOUR'S and not an imposed institution's.
I have homosexual friends. Whoop-tee-freakin-do. I have heterosexual friends. And other's who view themselves as anything under the sun....and quite possibly the kitchen sink. My point here is that terminology is the means to spin and misinterpret whatever meaning can be implied. When I mentioned the 'old ways' in my local area, it's more based on traditional values. The general rule of misunderstanding and ignorance comes into play easily. The goal is not to step on anyone's toes but continue to try to understand why we us fight over the use of terms to 'lock-down' the lives of others. My lone living grandparent now tolerates people of most similar religious factions, and that a little step that took years. My hope is that the ballot fails because I can't stand to see people's lives denied by a damn single word.
My vote: No on Question 1.
Very well thought out my friend. I like you're video comparison there. I think it makes a valid point.
ReplyDelete