04 July 2008

Marriage in California


So, the California Supreme Court has ruled that denying gays the right to marry is unconstitutional.

I agree.

I don't get why some people get so upset about gay marriage. I'm still waiting for just ONE rational explanation, though I've heard a whole lot of irrational ones:

"It will damage the sanctity of marriage."

Um, how? My marriage is going great, thanks. If the gay couple down the street decides to tie the knot next month, my marriage will still be going great. Unless you or someone you love is gay, I can't see how this affects you at all.

I don't like liver and onions. I find it offensive in the extreme. But I have no problem with people eating it in their own home. Doesn't affect my dinner. Same concept.

"This will open the door to polygamy and the next thing you know people will want to marry their cats and their toasters."

Hmph. Aside from being REALLY insulting, this argument, too, is bunk. First, because this does not "open the door" to anything other than what it is: Ending the discrimination of gays when it comes to the legal contract of marriage. Unless cats and toasters are granted citizenship and the ability to offer legal consent, I don't think you have a lot to worry about.

As for polygamy - I actually feel the same legal standard should apply. I have no personal interest in polygamy, but if that is what works for some consenting adults, then the state really should stay out of it. But, the bottom line is that this is not about any of those things. It is only about gay marriage. One step at a time.

"God hates homosexuality." or "Homosexuality is a sin."

That's nice. So what? In this country we have a separation of church and state. If your religion wants to deny a religious ceremony to a gay couple, it has that right. But the STATE does NOT have the luxury of bigotry. Under the law, marriage is a contract. The state cannot stop a consenting adult from entering into a contract based solely on his or her sexual orientation.

"They can have a civil union, they don't need a marriage."

Oh, gee thanks. Shall we have separate drinking fountains and bathrooms and bus seats, too? Yeah, that separate but equal thing didn't work 60 years ago, it's not gonna fly now. And what a stupid argument. You can have everything but the name ... "marriage" is "our" word, you can't have it, neener, neener, neener. Pfft. Ridiculous. In that case, let's just change all "marriages" to a "civil unions", please. Oh, what's that? The legal rights aren't actually the same? Ah. Guess it's not all that separate but equal, after all.

"Biology indicates that unions between man and woman are the "natural" way of things."

Hmmmm. This one SOUNDS rational. But it's still bunk. Homosexuality IS. It exists. It has existed for a long time. It's going to keep on existing. If you think it's unnatural, you need to take it up with mother nature, because she keeps cranking it out.

And for those who throw out the "it's a choice, not biology" argument: First, you are wrong. And second, even if you were right - so what? Doesn't change the fact that people ARE gay. And it doesn't change the fact that they are being denied their civil rights based on that. Which is wrong. And, oh yeah, they tried THIS argument in the 60s, too.

"Marriage is for having children."

This is so stupid, I don't even want to address it. So infertile or childless-by-choice couple should just go jump, huh? Idiots.


Nope. Not one valid argument to justify this denial of civil liberties.

The only possible way I can see that homosexuality in the abstract could bother you is in your own mind: "I don't like it; don't make me acknowledge it; it makes me uncomfortable."

Get over it. It's not hurting you.

Seriously, how does it "hurt" you? How does it "threaten you" or "threaten America"? How does it even AFFECT you?

There are many SERIOUS problems in our society today that actually DO threaten our lives, our security, our collective future. Instead of focusing on what consenting adults do in their bedrooms or who someone else chooses to love, how about redirecting some of that energy where it can do some real good?

I support gay marriage because I support civil rights and I support the separation of church and state. And I support the idea of as little government intrusion as possible into it’s citizens lives - a value the Republican party USED to hold up as well. Irony, eh?

I do believe that, in the long run, we will outgrow this “separate but equal” mentality and learn to accept people who are different. I just hope it is sooner rather than later. I want my kids to grow up in a country that truly is about freedom for everyone.

"The delusion that one's sexual pattern is The Only Right Way To Be is probably the single most common sexual-psychosis syndrome of this era, and it is virtually almost always the victim's fault. You cannot acquire this delusion by observing reality."
~ Spider Robinson

3 comments:

  1. "If your religion wants ... the luxury of bigotry." [emphasis added]

    ::tee-hee::

    I Love You!

    ReplyDelete
  2. In Mexico if you want to be legally married you have to have a civil ceremony.If you want to get married in the church or where ever you can have another separate ceremony, but that is not recognized as legal or binding. Also there seem to be two types of civil marriages, one where you chose to have everything community property and one where all your goods are separate.
    I agree with you 100% by the way including the comment on polygamy, as long as everyone involved is an adult and capable of legally making choices,why not?
    Marrying cats and toasters sounds like some of Charles Dodgson's logic problems.
    regards,
    Theresa

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, Theresa, I like you already! :)

    I think Mexico has the right idea. I have a friend who is American, but her parents (and her husband's parents) are Mexican. They had a civil ceremony several years ago. But their parents never really considered them "married" until this year (three kids later) when they were finally married in the Catholic Church.

    Personally, I was married in the church of mother nature by a Methodist Paster who was a friend of the family.

    But, really, I don't give a fig about whether or not any religion "recognizes" my marriage.

    I don't need or want a religion to grant me marital "rights". But if that is what someone else wants, then I don't begrudge them that.

    Just as I would not begrudge anyone else their CIVIL marital rights.

    :)

    ReplyDelete