Friday, May 23, 2008

Ellen Tackles McCain On Gay Marriage

image Ellen did something that many in the mainstream media have not had the courage to do.  She declared her right to love as she chose, and challenged McCain to say she was wrong.  For someone who believes so strongly in his position I find it interesting that he could barely make eye contact with her.  Fact of the matter is that, hatred, and bigotry have no place in this world.  When we truly love someone it elevates who we are as human beings.  It proves that we are not violent animals incapable of beauty.  To deny the love of another due to ignorance and bigotry limits not only the individual, but us all.  Good for you Ellen! Now catch the video.....

7 comments:

Octogalore said...

Wow, go Ellen!

Renee said...

I absolutely love Ellen. I think what she did her was amazing and more main stream journalist should push McCain on this issue. He is getting a walk about his bigotry while people fight it out between Clinton and Obama.

James Diggs said...

I like Ellen a lot, I would love to meet her. I also think Ellen did make a compelling argument. I can certainly empathies with her argument that the law makes her (and many others) feel like second class citizens.

Here is the problem though as I see it. What Ellen is asking for is for the state to go beyond just declaring legal partnerships and declare gay unions as having the sacred status of “marriage”.

Now this is not to say that there can’t be compelling arguments for why gay unions could not be considered sacred and given the term marriage; I am just not sure that government is really able to mandate any union beyond just it’s legality and declare something “sacred” one way or the other. So perhaps government has over stepped its boundaries by ever declaring any legal union, even heterosexual, a marriage.

Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the marriage game all together and declare both homosexual and heterosexual unions “civil unions” and let marriage be determined in the context of peoples various religious and cultural communities.

This way everyone would have the same legal rights and at the same time allow diverse communities to determine on their own what would constitute sacred and marriage beyond just a legal agreement and partnership; and no one could deny them that.

Just a thought, I am just trying to honestly listen and look for ways where we as a diverse people can show one another love and respect. I would love to hear your opinion.

Peace,

James

Renee said...

Personally I am not in favor of marriage for anyone however it must exist is should exist for all. If we give power to the clergy to decide who and who will not be married we give up an important aspect of secular type governments. As we know religion has been used to justify many of the worlds horrors it is not stretch to assume that they would use their power for exclusion rather than inclusion. Already various denominations are protesting gay marriage.
The fact that we even have to refer to it as gay marriage is a problem. It attests to the fact that there is a difference when we know that there is not.

James Diggs said...

Just because I used the word "sacred" does not mean that i think this should only be controlled by religion. I think any couple or community can make a determination that a union has greater meaning than just the legal privileges assigned to it by government.

My point is that government should not be able to comment one way or the other on any union being more than just a legal contract. I do think it should be the same for everyone. Government should mandate a legal partnership and any other definition that goes beyond this for that union should come from the various diverse communities, whether religious or secular, that make up our country.

Peace,

James

Renee said...

"Government should mandate a legal partnership and any other definition that goes beyond this for that union should come from the various diverse communities, whether religious or secular, that make up our country."

If we do not allow the government in this case to mandate change people identifying as queer will be subject to the tyranny of the majority. How we define marriage is discursively important.

Arya samaj said...
This comment has been removed by the author.