On Gay Marriage

Just read an article on how Miss California has launched a campaign to protect “traditional marriage“.  It makes me laugh a little.  Are people so naive that they actually believe that gay marriage is not destined to be accepted in just a few years time? The parallels to other moments in American history couldn’t be clearer if it were outlined in Sharpie.  Within a decade (two if we foolishly put a fundamentalist in the White House… God Forbid), gay marriage will be seen as no different than interracial marriage.  I think back to how our country, not so long ago, felt that alcohol was so bad that we banned in our constitution.  We Americans are so short sighted.  In time, we’ll look back and laugh at ourselves for this even being an issue.

Furthermore, let’s be serious, why does gay marriage bother anyone anyway? It doesn’t infringe upon any of your rights. It’s truly a case of “this doesn’t affect me, but I insist you don’t do it.”  It’s holier-than-thou nonsense.   The fact that these so-called protectors of traditional marriage feel strongly perplexes me: Burt Bacarach is still right: “what the world needs now is love, sweet love.”  Those lyrics don’t work when you replace “love” with “exclusionary dogma”.

You don’t have to advocate homosexuality to “be okay” with not limiting marriage via law or constitutional amendment.  Legislating hate and discrimination is the most un-American thing we can do.   We’ll all look back at Miss California the way we look back at people like James Earl Ray, who felt they would be seen as martyrs and voices of reason, but instead just look like fools.

I’m not anti-Chritianity (or any religion at all, for that matter) but – boy, oh boy – those fundies do a good job at making themselves look foolish.

7 Replies to “On Gay Marriage”

  1. You have been removed from my RSS feeds. I don’t hate homosexuals, I hate the sin. It is a wicked abomination, and a blight on our land.

    America is headed for some deep trouble!

    You may now commence pointing out what a “fundamentalist” I am…

  2. We’ll all look back at Miss California the way we look back at people like James Earl Ray, who felt they would be seen as martyrs and voices of reason, but instead just look like fools.

    Totally agreed. As Stephen Colbert put it: “Remember – when gay people are granted personal freedoms, ours get taken away. How? Shhhhhh.”

  3. You definitely hit the nail on the head. Un-americanism aside, you’ve also got to some irony in how Christianity and religion is being invoked on this issue.

    Constitutional bans on same-sex “marriage” have nothing to do with “religious marriage.” Civil marriage is merely a contract that affords certain legal protections to both parties of the contract (and any children/dependents of that dyad). California’s passage of Prop.8 removed that legal right from a specific group (a ‘protected minority’ to boot), and yet same-sex marriages are still being performed in a number of churches throughout the state. No federal amendment can stop this practice, but that reality is not taken into consideration by those in support of bans on s/s-marriage.

    Going further, we find a bit more irony. Propaganda for banning S/S-marriage focuses its arguments on the basis of “protecting” children. (You see—the two consenting adults have no right to their own legal protection, and a child’s awareness that people who are LGBT can and do commit themselves to monogamy is an immoral disservice to the world. Huh?) So what happens to the children who happen to find themselves in a family with two moms or two dads?

    Case example 1: Mom #1 has a full-time job with benefits. Mom #2 is a homemaker with no benefits; mom #2 is also the biological mother of the couple’s child. Child becomes severely ill and requires expensive medical treatment.

    S/S-marriage ban = Child is not covered by Mom #2’s medical insurance policy. The best (and subsequently most expensive) treatment was out of financial reach, and the second best treatment has put the family in debt for the rest of their years together. So long college savings plan; less $ available for books, computers, clothing, and resources essential to raising a child. Family summer vacations and warm, fuzzy memories? forget it!

    Case example 2: Dad #1’s biological son is injured at school and transported to the hospital. Dad #1 is in a foreign country on business, and is unable to be contacted promptly to in order to provide essential medical decisions. Dad #2 is in town and quickly arrives at the hospital.

    S/S-marriage ban = Dad #2 is immediately shut out of the situation. He has no legal right to make medical decisions for his son. Moreover, Dad #2’s questions regarding his son’s health remain unanswered, as he has no legal right to the private health information.

    There are long, drawn out legal avenues to resolve some of these situations. But none are guaranteed; none are absolute; and none are as simple and accessible as legal marriage. I’ll be damned if a male/female couple would stand for being forced down that “alternative” path. But s/s-marriage bans has forced this as the only route for s/s couples. So much for ‘protecting’ children; sounds rather un-christian and immoral, doesn’t it?

    The benefits bestowed by marriage exist in a well-established framework that is intertwined with so many aspects of our society. Barring a group of people from enjoying the same ease of access to these legal protections is therefore unjust and unconstitutional.

    So where are we today? Gay marriage is still happening (Sorry ‘conservatives’), but legal protections to some humans are removed (Sorry families!). Everyone loses.

    Another quick point to consider is the amount of money, time, and personnel resources that have gone into banning s/s-marriage. Hundreds of millions of dollars, countless volunteer hours… What if we channeled that into something that REALLY mattered? Combating starvation, homelessness, etc.? You know….real community and religious values?

    Sorry for the rant, but I skipped lunch today…and your post really got my cogs going. =)~

  4. I don’t hate homosexuals, I hate the sin.

    How very… oh, let’s say “enlightened.”

    It is a wicked abomination, and a blight on our land.

    Have you watched a news report or opened the business section of a newspaper lately? I think your land has bigger problems to worry about at the moment.

    America is headed for some deep trouble!

    Same-sex marriage has been legal in most of Canada since 2003 (and nationally since 2005) – no plague of locusts here yet.

    You may now commence pointing out what a “fundamentalist” I am…

    If the shoe fits… of course, pointing it out would probably be an example of (over)stating the obvious.

  5. Pingback: Anonymous
  6. Gay guys are your best friends because they won’t try to steal your girlfriend and they will talk to her (hopefully) positively about yourself.

    And gay girls are YouPorn’s best source of lesbian action for when your girlfriend is away.

  7. I am a conservative Christian with a very libertarian political ideology. I feel like government is overstepping its bounds by legistlating about marriage at all. Marriage is a personal matter that the government needs to stay out of. I am all for eliminating marriage licenses and letting people refer to marriage however they want to. It’s really not a government issue.

    So to summarize my position about gay marriage. I’m against it because if it is a government marriage license you are refering to, I’m against all government marriage licenses, and if its a church marriage you are refering to, I’m against it because that is a perversion of the church to attempt to apply the sacred state of marriage where it does not belong.

Comments are closed.