Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Carter heads to Utah, brings feisty views on issues

The Tribune discussed Jimmy Carter's latest book and his views on Christian fundalmentalism. While I don't agree with him on many issues, I must say that he has articulated some good arguments in regards to some of the most volitile issues that face our country. Minus the Iraq war, and his resurrecting old Democrat rhetoric regarding "rich and poor", he makes two great arguements about abortion and gay marriage.

"Rather than letting the controversial issues remain so divisive among our citizens, perhaps we should separate the two basic approaches, by letting governments define and protect equal rights for citizens, including those of "civil unions," and letting church congregations define "holy matrimony." This is a great point, especially in a nation that has separation between church and state. Marriage, while holy and sacred in most religons, is a sacred rite that shouldn't be defiled by homosexuality. However, it is a religious rite, and there needs to be an allowance for civil unions to allow monogamous gays to enjoy some legality to their relationship.

Check the Tribune article out. He has made a better ex-preident than he ever made a President.


Bradley said...

Perhaps this issue is too tired, but a question remains in my mind. Perhaps Carter provides an answer even though it isn't cited in the post. If civil unions are to be permitted, why should they be based on sexual relations? Why not any two people such as mother and daughter? Perhaps there would be less opposition to the concept if it weren't based on legitimizing behavior many feel to be immoral. (After all, most laws exist to codify popular morality.)

pramahaphil said...

Thank you for your Comment bradley.

For me the issue isn't so much legitimizing their immoral behavior, I see it more as offering the legal benefits that monogomy offers to heterosexual married couples for gays that desire to live in lifetime monogomous relationships. Although I find the practice of homosexuality abhorrent, I don't see it being equitible to disallow any kind of meaningful contractual relationship because it offends me and my religion that the couple happens to be two men or two women.

Homosexuality has already been legitimized, in some people's minds they are almost given the status of being a separate race.