invites that make you go hmmm...

I received an invitation this morning to join a cause on Facebook ~ Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman.

Yeah. I don't think so.

I've been discussing this issue on a Hatrack thread. It's reminded me why I stopped going there...very frustrating at times. This is one of my posts on that forum (bold = text quoted from a previous poster):

Originally posted by Scott R:According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity.

So you see no problems with that? How reassuring. Do you actually not see the arrogance there?

This is not just about the rights you are so generously willing to see granted. This is also about the right to use the word 'marriage'. Marriage is an "institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple". It's like the water fountain argument someone made earlier. It's not relevant if the water is the same, or if the fountain is the same size or in the same locations. It is in the implied need for a separate water fountain that the denial of a person's humanity begins.

What is it about homosexuals that prompts you to keep the word marriage from them? Why it is important that their unions not wear the same label as yours? Why can't they drink at your water fountain?

Many religions have a building they refer to as a temple. The LDS church doesn't lay claim to the word, even though the temple is its most sacred location. In Hindu temples, people worship a plethora of heathen gods. I've been to several Buddhist temples in Japan and the level of commerce in those places contrasts sharply with the purpose and environment of an LDS temple. I'm sure that not a single 'temple' worldwide exactly mirrors the LDS temple. But so what? LDS temple patrons lose nothing as a result of these alternative definitions of the word. Those other worshippers, however, gain something by using it for themselves. The word has not only meaning to them individually, but also is understood in society to convey a certain level of respect and sacredness, even from those who think their beliefs are strange or abhorrent.

You can't just say that you are comfortable with granting the rights you choose to grant and withhold one that makes you squeamish. That's the nature of equality and rights - what you are 'comfortable with' isn't relevant, because your comfort isn't the goal.