Home › Blogs › spartacus's blog ›

Yes, I do support the freedom to marry

Submitted by spartacus on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 22:11
in

The idea of happily ever after with white wedding gown and black tuxedo was first impressed upon me with Cinderella I think. At 21, when I was planning my own wedding, all the brides magazines were of beautiful women and handsome men - all romantic and perfect. So, that's mostly the image of a wedding and marriage most people I know have. Not the day to day reality, but the image of it.

Now...

When I see two really ugly people walk down the isle, I think "dang, their kids will be crazazy but you gotta 'love the love' baby."

When I see an octogenarian marry a bimbo, I think "she's marrying for money, he's marrying for - what - sex? seriously? at his age? but you gotta love the thought!"

When I see two very young kids take the plunge, I think "they are too young, it'll never last, but gosh I hope it does."

So when I see two same sex people pledge their love in front of their friends, I think "I hope they legalized a trust because they have no automatic legal rights like I do."

On my soapbox, marital status in general doesn't affect me personally. Whether someone chooses to tie the knot or not doesn't change my taxes, my income, my ability to work, vote, shop, drink or dance. I couldn't give a care if you love your sweetheart and date for the rest of your lives, live together, or marry. If you have a child and decide to raise it as a single person or not, doesn't impact me or pose a negative threat in my community.

So, I think the fuss is silly. But the arguments for prop 8 are not. They are horrific. They remind me of book burning and scream intolerance. That without changing the Constitution, we would then be forced to teach our kids that same sex marriage is okay. Perhaps these same pundits believe that their kids are not already aware that there are in fact gay people in the world who are currently not allowed to commit to each other in a legal way that means the same thing as marriage. And that these kids don't already disagree.

I urge all who are as appalled as I am to please lend your voice before its too late. March 5 is coming sooner than we think.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Two kinds of "marriage"

Submitted by birdmojo on Fri, 02/27/2009 - 12:50.

The problem is that when people talk about "marriage", they generally mean one of two definitions... but they switch back to the other definition when convenient. I think they do this without even realizing it.

Anyhow, there is "marriage in the eyes of God" and "marriage in the eyes of The State". When most people talk about "marriage", they mean "MOG", generally. Falling in love, sharing a bed, deciding between cheeseburger hamburger helper and bacon cheeseburger hamburger helper, going over to the Johnson's on Wednesday night to play Parchesi, that sort of thing. The everyday stuff, the people living together stuff, the "family" stuff. May or may not involve children. The State does not have the power to prevent this from happening, really. Sure, it can get a handful of people to kick down a door and say "your marriage license ain't good here" and run people out of town (or kill them, I suppose) but that's just running people out of town (or killing them). It doesn't change the view of God Himself about the validity of the capital-M Marriage.

Marriage in the eyes of The State, however, is what is being denied folks. MOS, as I'll call it henceforth, is boring legal stuff. Lawyer stuff. Manila folder stuff. Party of the first part stuff. If so-and-so dies while on a plane, who gets the 9/11 commemorative coin collection? That sort of thing. Children may or may not be involved. This is the only stuff that The State really has the power to grant or to deny.

When people talk about gay marriage, they're really talking about MOS... and, they tend to use MOG as their justification for why it either should or shouldn't be allowed.

"Look at these two guys that I know!", pro- forces shout. "Of course they're already married! They live together! They went and saw The Wrestler together because NPR told them to! They bicker! Of course they've got a MOG! They only need a MOS for protection!"

"Look at those two guys!", comes the rejoinder. "Of course they're not already married! Read Leviticus 20:13 again! Read Romans 1! They cannot be married *BY DEFINITION*!!! We are not denying marriage to them because they cannot be married!!! BY DEFINITION!!!!"

Personally, I see MOG as a First Amendment issue and belief in a God who had nothing to do with Leviticus 20:13 (or Romans 1, for that matter) is Constitutionally Protected (no matter how right or wrong it may be)... which turns the discussion to whether MOS should be denied to homosexuals... which, generally, results in it being pointed out that gays can already go to a lawyer and get contracts written up (which strikes me as a concession that MOS is something that those who oppose gay marriage don't really care whether homosexuals have the manila folder stuff done... "but they shouldn't *CALL* it "Marriage"" is an argument I've seen at this point... which brings us back to The First Amendment).

I rather suspect that gay marriage is inevitable, anymore. It's just a question of whether it'll happen in the next 10 years or the next 40.

I think that gay marriage is inevitable.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/27/2009 - 13:21.

but it's at the join between MOG and MOS that problems really strike home. A gay person can't visit their beloved in the hospital, things like that.

There are a lot of things taht DOMA made illegal for civil unions to cover. a LOT.

Inevitability

Submitted by thirdeblue on Fri, 02/27/2009 - 14:17.

The state is a secular institution formed for the equal treatment and protection of all its subjects.  Whether God gives a flip about the whole ordeal is as pertinent as "What color is Monday?".  Marriage equality opponents, however are correct in believing there is a blurring of the "Marriage of God" of "Marriage of State".  This happens because we absurdly hold our governments as gatekeepers for "Marriages of God," when they do no such thing.   Never have and in a purposely secular governent, they never will.  Seriously though folks, why don't forcast into the future and see problems as they emerge or even better, before they emerge.  That way, we're not left to finally muster the courage to voice an opinion contrary to what the religious right says is valid, just as the debate is on the verge of being over.  How about this for prognostication - in your own lifetime, it will be culturally unacceptable to voice an opinion critical of gay marriage, just as it has become culturally unacceptable to voice an opinion critical of biracial marriages.

quaker marriages for the win!

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/27/2009 - 14:34.

(sign a document, with two witnesses. no need for some authority figure at all)

tiffany jewelry

Submitted by louis vuitton on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 03:23.

 Reagan was president when I turned 18, and I hated the bastard.  Still do.  Vehemently.  Republicans invoke the name of Reagan in order to discredit themselves and make them appear as if they have ulterior motives.  They would be better off to invoke the names of Goldwater or Eisenhower instead of some morally degenerate screwball radical.

No, I think my own politics were more influenced by the culture I grew up in, the desert southwest. discount tiffany jewelry

Can anybody suggest me a

Submitted by sam123 on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 07:10.

Can anybody suggest me a Punjabi wedding dress?

 

Thanks,

Promotional products