An so it all kicked off when President Obama publicly announced that he was a supporter of same sex marriages. The web through its various fora, social networks and blogs had a stream of commentary about the fact he finally took a stand on this position. For many it was the final part in a journey for many activists who believed that equality for all should be in place regardless of sexual preference and for other’s it sparked a renewed vigour in those who believe he should not be POTUS.
How do we define marriage?
I got into a bit of a small “tussle” with some on my timeline about some of the more inflammatory responses to this. Yes out rolled the birther commenters (yawn), the Obama-is-the-illuminati brigade, the more fundamental religious commenters and those who were fully in support. The main thrust of debate though was about how one defines marriage.
Now for many, religious or otherwise, is the mutual union of a man or a woman. Yet still for many others this is regarded as old hat and marriage is about the union betwixt any adults, regardless of sexual orientation. The interesting thing for me here, and I suppose which caused a bit of a debate online, is that I still believe that religions have the option to determine what they recognise as a marriage. Whilst there are those who would argue against this and accuse religions of being archaic or irrelevant, one has to recognise that for billions over the world religion is very important. I also understand that there are those in societies or cultures where to buck that trend could result in death or harm. Whilst I will respect the right of those who wish to stand beside their religious beliefs what tips it for me is that one does not need religious authority to have a marriage recognised. Civil authority and law outside the confines of a religious has more sway in the general public. It also grates me that there are those who consider such a viewpoint as ignorant because they are so determined in their views.
The Power of Debate
So moving on to debate. The power of debate is that both sides of the argument are required to respectfully put forward an argument. The elements of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion) and logos (reason) need to be present for the debate. It get’s so tiresome when those who would wish to enter debate don’t get this. If you are a person of faith and don’t believe in people of the same sex being married it behoves you to understand that supporters of same sex marriage may not share the basis for your argument. Whether it is based on writings within a holy book or is part of the dogma of that faith not all agree with it. To start baracking (see what I did there) the president based on your world view win’s no supporters.
On the filp side those who don’t agree with the principles of a religion shouldn’t dismiss the fact that others have a belief. Whilst may not believe in the concept of a God or non human form of authority it is still key in a debate to have respect for the person. The reality is that whatever side of the argument one takes the laws that support individuals of the same gender are in place and more will take it’s place. Those who wish to marry/cohabit will be able to have the same legal rights for custody, inheritance in the case of a death, adopt children and other rights historically only afforded to heterosexual partners.
My honest opinion. I respect Obama for being able to take a stand on this. Yes it is difficult to appease both sides of the argument and ethics aside he put his stake down on an issue he had promised as part of his original manifesto. Whilst many may see this in isolation it actually is one of many acts in a long line of many that has seen Obama provide equal rights for same sex partners. Of course the silly birther arguments, illuminati references and all things that detract from the main argument at hand will continue, but in the meantime there is this. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. For many Americans having seen, on paper at least, laws allowing for racial equality being a part of the American psyche, now to see the same extended to sexual orientation is a major shift.
The reality is in a number of sections of American society Obama may lose votes. This is a brave but big step. Kudos to him taking it regardless of the backlash he may receive as a result of it.