DOMA: My 2¢ Worth

Edited and reposted from my Posterous, since people still seem to be getting it wrong.

I firmly believe that a homosexual relationship should not be called "marriage". It may be a commitment; it may last longer than many heterosexual marriages. I may yet be convinced otherwise. But for now, I wish to stick with tradition.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the definition of "marriage" is beyond the power of the US Congress. As of this writing, as it has been for decades (if not centuries), the individual States issue marriage licenses. The counties record marriages, but the State sets the criteria for licensing. My true belief is that civil government really has no business in marriage at all, but that's the way it is now--tradition.

It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether they agree with one or another definition. Having made that decision, they can then decide to live in a State whose definition they agree with. So if, say, Vermont wants to define a woman-woman-dog relationship as a marriage, the people who want to take advantage of that definition (and their dogs) can move to Vermont.

In short, I believe the DOMA is unconstitutional, even if I agree with its intent. Therefore, I agree with the decision for the US DOJ to stop defending it against Constitutional challenges.

Pondering

I've been thinking about this today, and I can't wrap my head around it.

The Bible says drunkenness and extra-marital sex are wrong, and Christians generally tend to avoid those behaviors, or at least agree that they should avoid them.

The Book of Mormon (I've been told) says that "hot drinks"--meaning coffee and tea--are bad and should be avoided, and the Mormons I know do avoid them. Many of them avoid caffeine altogether.

The Q'uran says to avoid alcohol (of the vine or the grain, according to The 13th Warrior), and devout Muslim do not drink alcohol.

Even outside of the realm of spiritual religion, people who believe that fast food is bad for them generally avoid it. Vegetarians avoid eating meat, and vegans (how is that pronounced, anyway?) avoid all animal products, including dairy, eggs, and animal oils used in foods.

So why is it that people who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) use electricity? Unless it's generated by nuclear or water power--both considered by many to be environmental hazards themselves--virtually all electricity is the result of burning fossil fuels. Isn't it hypocritical for people to use computers to write about how we should reduce or stop burning fossil fuels? What about going on television? I can't even imagine the power consumed by television cameras, studio lights, transmission towers, let alone all those big-screen plasma sets to tune it in. I'm not even going to mention those who travel the country, or the world, in gasoline or diesel powered vehicles and in jet aircraft, to rail against the very civilization that gave them those tools, for using those tools.

Why don't people who believe in AGW go live on a self-sufficient plot of land far away from electrical transmission lines? Maybe some Amish in Pennsylvania would be willing to sell part of their land.