Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Will abortion, gay marriage opposition follow similar path to restrictions?

Can the same be said of marriage?
The trend seems to be that states are going to be backing, bit by bit, measures that permit gay couples the right to have legally valid marriages – just as for the past 41 years women have had the right to terminate a pregnancy, if they so choose!

Yet the reality of today’s society is that the opponents of abortion have managed to push for so many restrictions on the medical procedure that for some women – particularly those stuck living in isolated areas of the country – it can be next to impossible to obtain one.

THAT HAS ME wondering if many of the ideologues who rant about abortion equating murder are going to try to push similar tactics through on marriage.

Make it possible for gay couples, in theory, to get married. Yet make it so difficult for them to actually be able to obtain the necessary ceremony. And make it next to impossible for the trappings of marriage to take place.

To the point where some couples might just decide it’s not worth all the legalese the conservative ideologues of our society may try throwing out there.

As for abortion, I have encountered many activist-types who will admit that they’re not all that worked up over overturning the Supreme Court ruling issued 41 years ago this week that struck down all the laws across the United States that deemed abortion to be a criminal act.

ALL THOSE PEOPLE who gathered in cities across the country (including Chicago on Sunday – where they marched a few blocks from the Kluczynski Federal Building to the James R. Thompson state government building) calling for the demise of Roe vs. Wade?

It was all just for show!

Will their tactics soon spread ...
If anything, Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., may have been the most honest. He spoke at the resulting rally in Chicago, and said he’s backing a bill in Congress to permanently ban federal funding for anything remotely involved with abortion.

I’ve never understood how federal funding can be denied for anything that is deemed legal. But it has been the way things have worked in recent years, and the way Lipinski would like to see them remain forevermore.

SO ALL THE harassment has become the way the world works when it comes to an instance when a woman wishes to end a pregnancy. And where a medical doctor gets put on the spot in being required to justify that there are medical reasons involving the life of the mother that might actually require such termination at times!

... to these people? Are they largely the same?
Is that where we’re headed with regards to gay marriage?

Will we soon be getting restrictions preventing people from going elsewhere other than where they live in order to obtain such a procedure – on the off chance that the local authorities throw up such objections that it becomes uncomfortable to seek it near home?

Heck, will we get the same type of people who want their ideological beliefs reinforced on abortion trying the same thing with marriage? Perhaps they’ll argue that government funds should, in no way, be used to permit such marriages to take place.

SINCE MOST SUCH marriages are going to wind up being of the City Hall variety (since our laws do permit religious denominations to refuse to perform such ceremonies, if they wish), could they claim that county clerks are somehow using tax dollars in a manner offensive to a segment of society.

That’s a batch of nonsense, if you think of it on any logical level. Then again, logic has never been a sure guarantee that something will get enacted into law – or that stupidity will prevent something from occurring.

It was just on Monday that I stumbled into a King Day tribute where some of the people present persisted in wearing yellow buttons reading “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman.” They weren’t actively stating such views as part of the Martin Luther King legacy.

It’s just that those buttons have become a part of their daily wardrobe – even though the larger issue is over.

WHICH IS WHAT all of the legal activity in Utah and Oklahoma are really all about – those measures that theoretically strike down efforts to permit gay marriage as being legitimate.

Appeasement of the types of people who will want to over-regulate marriage in ways that would offend them if done on other issues (firearms, anyone???) – just to appease their close-minded sensibilities.


No comments: