Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Gay Marriage in Illinois

Gay marriage laws have been in the news recently, as it is the start of a new year, when new laws usually go into effect.

Personally, I'm going to wait for the US Supreme Court to give a ruling on gay marriage.  They have two separate bills on this year's agenda which deal with the topic; I'm sure there will be a lot said when those bills are addressed.

In the meantime, I thought I'd mention Illinois.  Their senate recently voted on redefining marriage laws.  The vote was 8 to 5, in favor of allowing gay marriage.  The law didn't pass, so I'm guessing that Illinois requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass laws.  It should be noted that some senators were absent for the vote.

My second cousin, Bishop Tom Paprocki, was one of the people who testified before the senate.  He's a lawyer, in addition to being a Bishop, which made him an ideal candidate for the job.  His testimony was very clear and well done.  You can hear his testimony on Youtube, but since that's just an audio file, I'd recommend his video address on the same topic.

I'm going to quote the part of the speech which I found particularly enlightening.  "[The bill] would enshrine in our law--and thus in public opinion and practice--three harmful ideas:

1. What essentially makes a marriage is romantic-emotional union.
2. Children don't need both a mother and father.
3. The main purpose of marriage is adult satisfactions."

We can see destructive behavior, which results from these ideas.  Marriages built only on emotional attachment, with no solid foundation, crumble quickly.  Parents are much more likely to abandon their children, in a system where the presence of both parents is deemed unnecessary.  And when marriage's main purpose is adult satisfaction, then there is no reason for marriages to be permanent or monogamous.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

my only concern is that if gay people want to get married go right ahead. but dont call it marriage. call it a union because marriage is founded under God.

Sani said...

"Parents are much more likely to abandon their children, in a system where the presence of both parents is deemed unnecessary."

... I can't see the reasoning behind this statement.

Emily said...

The arguments surrounding marriage in this country are thoroughly irritating to me.
Marriage is a religious institution that should have absolutely no legal standing. If you want to have a legally declared partner, whether you are straight or gay, you should get a civil union through the legal system. A marriage should be a non-legal, non-required religious observance through your church that takes place after you are legally joined through your civil union.
This is how most, if not all, countries in Europe manage marriage and they don't have these kinds of ridiculous arguments.
The church has absolutely no right to force their beliefs on the population as a whole, just like the population should not be able to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that work against their beliefs.

The fact that either of these was ever proposed is proof that the religious/legal system in this country is irreparably broken.

Cat said...

1. Voters believe that anyways
2. Children need two parents, but those parents do not need to of opposite genders. Additionally, children are raised by so many people other than their parents.
3. You can thank anyone who teaches against premarital sex for instilling that view.

That part you mentioned also seems to be intolerant of married couples without children, as well as any other non-traditional families. Widows move in with unmarried sisters sometimes. Nobody wants to have parents who don't love and respect each other. People refrain from getting married when they don't believe they would find it satisfying. that segment is completely flawed.

Anonymous said...

Right.......... I dont under stand this sorry

Anonymous said...

I think I agree with your cousin the lawyer bishop dude.

Nautilus said...

But marriage isn't just a religious institution. It's spanned practically all of recorded human history and is hardly unique to any one culture or religion.

I... don't think anyone would be forcing religious institutions to carry out marriages against their will. I mean, some people might like a religious ceremony but I'm pretty sure most would just be happy to be recognized legally.

Guess I'm kind of on the same wavelength as Cat on the "harmful ideas" thing: They don't seem all that bad? Or are kind of over-reachy?

1) Marriage has always been an emotional-romantic-legal-social-spiritual-financial hodgepodge with varying amounts of any of its components. I'd imagine any relationship that puts too much focus in any one thing would maybe have issues anyway.

2) I think a decent support structure, regardless of the number, sex, or relationship of those involved, is more important than an arbitrarily labeled mother or father. And as to parents who abandon their children willy-nilly: Good riddance. They probably wouldn't have been good for much in the first place.

3)Um, do you mean satisfaction as in just sex or the satisfaction of having a partner you can rely on or...? Eh, I guess I don't have a problem with polyamorus or expiration-date/renewable marriages as long as everybody involved is cool with it. Can't say I'd be very upset if we did away with the whole concept altogether, but... Eh.

I don't want kids, so I probably wouldn't be allowed anyway. :P

Anonymous said...

So, you're going to reserve your opinion on gay marriage until after the Supreme Court rules? Really?

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I agree with you and your cousin. Our society has really downgraded the institution of a family. Yeah, families aren't what they were in the 1950's - but that's just the point. Taking gay marriage out of the equation, people's flimsy regard of marriage and its responsibilities is what equates to divorces, mixed families, and so many more issues in our country. Society doesn't think it's that important anymore to be married, that we have the right to whatever we want. Society, forgets, however, that there are consequences for our actions, and - when people try to undermine the institution of marriage and family - the repercussions are not good.

Justice said...

I don't know whether to be encouraged or just confused by the fact that so many people who don't agree with your values follow your blog, Michael. :-/

Anyhow, I agree with you and Bishop Paprocki. My main problem with these laws has always been that they validate immoral, selfish behavior; basically, that our government is starting to adopt that malignant value system known as 'if it feels good, do it' or 'there is no absolute right or wrong, it's about what I think is right for ME'. People don't realize how much they are harming themselves, others, and the general world around them when they only live by what their heart tells them.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Emily

Anonymous said...

My family works with foster children, and I can say that I've seen proof that kids need both a mother and a father. Really, they do. A father is security and authority to a child. A mother is the nurturer and comforter. Kids need both.

I'm not bashing gays - I'm just saying what I've seen happen.

Anonymous said...

I kinda see the three points you mentioned a little insulting towards gay people.

1- This suggests gay people don't love each other? I would assume they do if they wanted to get married. Let's not forget some straight people marry for money or other selfish non-romantic reasons.

2- Many children are raised with one parent or any sort of different parenting arrangement.

3- Maybe a drunk marriage on a whim in Vegas where people get married and divorced in the same weekend. I honestly don't think people go past just a normal relationship to marriage without it involving a lot more than just 'adult satisfaction'. I mean... newsflash, people can have sex without being married.

I kinda think the main issue everyone sees is they can't see gay people as anything more than horny animals out of control, completely ignoring all the straight 'playas' out there.

Amanda said...

Oh no! Michael I liked you and your blog so much before this! This is very disappointing. Your last three points are insulting and pretty ignorant. So disappointing.