Voting yes on 2 doesn’t seem a very loving thing to do | RecordCourier.com

Voting yes on 2 doesn’t seem a very loving thing to do

Karel Delbecq

I have been assaulted recently with hate mail, both in my home and work mailboxes.

I’m calling it that because the same gut-reaction the literature invoked, is the same reaction I have when receiving anti-Semitic propaganda or while reading KlanWatch, the quarterly published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, that catalogs acts of hate and bigotry perpetrated in our nation.

At first, I am angered. Then, I find myself in awe that we (the American public) can take what should be regarded as a purely economic issue and turn it into one of morality. God knows we did that in a big way during our Civil War.

Remember? The public issue that was touted and upheld then was the abolition of slavery.

In addition to the issue of states’ rights, the cause of the war was the North’s desire for economic superiority and control over the South. Even President Abraham Lincoln had no real personal (moral) resolve to see slavery end.

But how many people would willingly send their loved ones to die for a monetary cause?

When I look at our phobias about sexuality in this country, I’m convinced our forefathers, those lovely folks who landed at Plymouth Rock (they were fleeing discrimination), are still running the show.

But I digress.

We’ve all seen the signs. “Protect Marriage – Vote Yes on 2.”

On the surface, Question 2 seems innocuous enough. But it is being touted as a gay and lesbian issue.

The literature I’ve received says “Marriage: The Way It’s Always Been. The Way it Should Be,” “It’s Simple … It’s Common Sense …” “”It’s Only 18 Words” … “It’s What Nevadans Want.”

By the way, those are not my soundbites.

Also, the Nevada Families Voter Guide, a self described nonpartisan publication, says in part:

“Love is the most powerful force in the world. Love is the great motivator. Therefore, love is the foundation of the ballot question to insure that in Nevada marriage is between a man and a woman.

“The whole issue is surrounded by love D Love of a husband for a wife, love of a wife for a husband, love of parents for their children.

“Love extending into the future as we work to insure that generations yet unborn will have the opportunity to experience the love of a family.”

Now, please re-read that, and where there is the word “love,” substitute “hate.”

The last bastion where we are given full license to be hate-mongers, to play off people’s fear and ignorance, is against gays and lesbians.

To imply that the only place where loving relationships can be experienced, are in traditional, heterosexual families with 2.5 kids and a dog, is the height of stupidity.

We should be thankful for love in the world, rather than supporting hateful rhetoric. I might be going out on a limb here, but I wonder if Jesus would support Question 2.

If we take the “sexual orientation” aspect out of this question, we potentially have a constitutional amendment that also impacts heterosexuals who have common-law marriages in order to protect their financial standing, by not having to forfeit social security benefits, or pensions received following the death of a spouse.

The bigger economic question is one of health insurance. Insurance companies do not want “marriage/spousal privileges” given, which would require companies to provide coverage in a non-marriage situation.

Let’s take a look at what the facts really are:

n Nevada law already defines marriage as between only a man and a woman.

n The argument that this must be a Constitutional Amendment in order to close “loopholes” to avoid having to recognize same-sex marriages made in other states is misleading, as only Hawaii legally recognizes same sex marriages. All states allowing “common-law” marriage, stipulate “a man and a woman.”

n Lawmakers are being asked, through the support of Question 2, to oppose initiatives that would give the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage to those (regardless of orientation) who can’t marry (such as hospital visitation and input about a loved ones care, family leave, bereavement leave and the receipt of health benefits).

I don’t understand, how people engaged in right thinking can use “love” in such a way that debases the very meaning of the word.

n When she’s not looking below the surface of every little thing, Karel Delbecq is the R-C’s People Editor.