Discrimination and Marriage Inequality
I’m still waiting for someone — anyone — to present an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t boil down to, “My religion doesn’t approve” or “I think it’s icky.” Using the former as an excuse for discrimination is about as unAmerican as you can get, and the latter is just asinine.
While politicians and bigots continue to argue that “those people” don’t need “special rights or protections” under the law, here’s some of what’s been going on recently…
In Texas, a judge enforced a clause in Carolyn Compton’s divorce papers which states that, “someone who has a ‘dating or intimate relationship’ with the person or is not related ‘by blood or marriage’ is not allowed after 9 p.m. when the children are present.” Since Carolyn’s partner of three years is a woman and Texas has laws against same-sex marriage, the judge has essentially made it illegal for them to live together.
In New York, Elliot Morales shot Marc Carson, a gay man, in the face at point blank range, killing him. Elliot had followed Carson and his companion, and was heard yelling anti-gay slurs and asking, “You want to die tonight?”
In Chatham, Canada, an openly gay 13-year-old boy was attacked by four older teenagers, who called him “faggot” and “queer,” told him he was going to hell, and beat him. One of the boys pulled a knife and threatened to kill him.
Rep. Mark Pocan became the first member of Congress to obtain a congressional ID card identifying his same-sex partner as his spouse. However, his husband is still legally excluded from receiving health, pension, and other benefits.
In Washington state, lawmakers have proposed a bill that would provide an exception to anti-discrimination law and allow businesses to refuse service based on sexual orientation.
David and Jason married in New York in 2012, but Jason is a UK citizen. As a result, Jason is unable to stay in the country. In order to see his husband, Jason has to get a Tourist Visa, which allows them to be together for 90 days. Jason is now being warned that he’s used too many Tourist Visas, and has been advised to stay out of the U.S. for at least six months.
In New York, two gay men were pursued by a group that shouted anti-gay slurs and then beat them. Both victims were hospitalized. One required eye surgery.
So go ahead. Explain to me why we’re still denying people equal rights and protection under the law. Explain to me why any of this is okay. Explain how you sleep at night, knowing that these things are the direct result of our refusal to recognize “those people” as equal. Or even to recognize them as people.
Jimmy
May 20, 2013 @ 12:03 pm
I think you’re wrong. In my experience, when you get right down to it, the ones using religion as an excuse are in the ‘I think it’s icky’ camp as well.
http://www.theatheistpig.com/2012/05/16/05-16-2012/
Chet
May 20, 2013 @ 12:10 pm
I present to you the only compelling argument I’ve heard, per your challenge at the beginning of the article.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/01/10/in-france-anti-gay-marriage-voices-emerge-from-gays/
Milia
May 20, 2013 @ 12:24 pm
I think the state should get out of the “marriage” business altogether. Let that be the perview of religion. The state should be strictly dealing with the legal aspects of x number of people who want to form households that have specific legal rights – including making decisions for each other, property rights, survivorship rights, and child guardian type rights, etc.
sara
May 20, 2013 @ 12:31 pm
That’s the same tired “separate but equal” nonsense with a new “we’re too special to get married” spin. Along with the same old jabs at single and adoptive parents.
But yes, it does qualify as not dragging in religion or the feeling of ickiness.
sara
May 20, 2013 @ 12:32 pm
This is what I keep thinking.
Lila
May 20, 2013 @ 12:40 pm
I eat bacon, which is against a lot of people’s religions and which another whole subset of people think is icky. It’s also arguably bad for me.
Strangely, though, nobody is trying to make it illegal for me to eat bacon.
Would that we could summon up the requisite amount of “none of our damn business” with regard to who we think should be allowed to get married. (This applies to the French thing too–why should being gay give you enforcement rights over other gay people’s behavior and relationships? Also, this guy sounds as though (1) gay marriage were mandatory and (2) straight couples only get married in order to produce children, and no single straight parents or married childless straight couples exist. As with straight opponents to gay marriage, I say: Don’t like gay marriages? Don’t enter into one.)
Tracy Erickson
May 20, 2013 @ 12:40 pm
Jim, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you. Everybody who publicly states their opposition to marriage discrimination puts a little more pressure on the folks who think I need to live by their own likes and dislikes.
So thank you.
'Angela
May 20, 2013 @ 12:43 pm
No thank you. There are a lot of straight non-religious (or of alternative religions, or religious but…) who are married without it having to do with religion. The point is in giving everyone equal rights, not in stripping more rights from the rest of us.
Keri W.
May 20, 2013 @ 1:00 pm
Seeing as how everyone in the US has a government but not everyone has a religion, maybe religion should get out of the marriage business.
Craig Laurance Gidney
May 20, 2013 @ 1:03 pm
Great post.
When I was in my late twenties, I was the victim of botched hate crime. I know too well that homophobia harms and kills.
Chet
May 20, 2013 @ 1:19 pm
Never said I agreed with it. I was just answering your challenge at the beginning. I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate.
Milia
May 20, 2013 @ 1:25 pm
I may be missing your point here, ‘Angela, but upon reading your comment, I feel as if you miss my point. I don’t care what it is called. There seems to be some baggage with the term “marriage.” I think, leave “marriage” as a term with the historical religious baggage out of the State legal agreement. The State should have nothing to do with peoples’ decisions about monogamy, what types of people can and should be part of this legal agreement. Let’s create a term for exactly what we think the State should be involved in – for me (and I’m thinking that many many people will have many many different ideas on this) it is the legal aspects of property, decision making, financial benefits/sharing, and child guardianship/rearing. I think the decision to be monogamous should not be something that the State is involved in but something that should be included in a separate legal document between the two people – like a pre-nump today. If you violate our agreement, we terminate our legal agreement in this manner.
I don’t see this as “stripping rights” from anyone. It would be the same (or at a minimum very similar) rights that marriage currently confers but rethought for the current age. Putting the State in only on those issues the State should be involved in – not those it shouldn’t – like who can enter into this agreement. All past marriages could be automatically granted this new legal status but all future marriages, without this legal agreement, would be just that, marriages with no legal rights or benefits under the law.
Also, making this new legal agreement could possibly greatly simplify the termination of the agreement – currently called divorce (which, interestingly, is different from annullment, a religious separation of a marriage.) I think this would be a plus. Today a divorce is very expensive and leaves many people greatly financially harmed even when it is mutually agreed upon and non-contentious.
Anyone who wanted could be “married” if that meant something to them, outside of the new legal agreement arrangement. However, a “marriage” would mean nothing legally, unless a legal document
Milia
May 20, 2013 @ 1:27 pm
A grand idea that would achieve the same goal but highly unlikely. Religions have been around for thousands of years, the U.S., only a couple hundred.
Jim C. Hines
May 20, 2013 @ 1:48 pm
You bacon-eaters are destroying the sanctity of traditional breakfast meats!!!
Lisa
May 20, 2013 @ 2:11 pm
Thank you Jim! I totally support humans loving humans, be that man/woman, woman/woman or man/man. Seems like it’s nobody’s business if two adults want to be married to each other, so I have to agree with you that it comes down to an “ick” factor for those opposed.
Kathleen Haney
May 20, 2013 @ 2:24 pm
I believe that if people will check history they will find that the institution of marriage was a legal contract instituted as a way to keep property in the hands of specific families. The Catholic Church picked up as a way to gain property for themselves. Love didn’t enter into it as a factor (no matter what romance novels like to say) until the late 19th century because young women had no choice in their spouse unless it was at the whim of the males in their family. I think that anyone who wishes to marry should be allowed to do so regardless of their sexuality and they should have all of the legal rights of a spouse.
Kathryn (@Loerwyn)
May 20, 2013 @ 2:29 pm
In the UK, it’s quite funny to hear anyone from the Church of England talk about how it would change marriage (for the worse), when the Church of England was formed by Henry VIII so that he could get divorced. A church formed to change marriage for the worse (in some opinions) complaining about changes to marriage for the worse (in some opinions).
Kim
May 20, 2013 @ 3:04 pm
This is awesome. I hate that so many people are denied celebrating their love by marriage because others are too narrow-minded to realize it’s none of their business. If Person X doesn’t think two people of the same gender should be allowed to get married (for religious reasons, for the ‘ick’ factor, whatever)… well, Person X doesn’t have to marry someone of the same gender.
It’s not rocket science, really.
Kathryn (@Loerwyn)
May 20, 2013 @ 3:36 pm
With respect to your last points;
It’s kinda why I get SO frustrated when I hear gay people (particularly ones in the public eye, e.g. politicians) say “Oh, I’m gay but I don’t want gay marriage”. I find that SO infuriatingly selfish, especially as opponents *do* latch onto these examples and go “look look even gays dont want gay marriage this is just stupid!!!111!11?!12!”.
PJ
May 20, 2013 @ 3:56 pm
Thanks for this, Jim. It’s always lovely to read a post like this. That opening paragraph is a breath of fresh air.
PJ
May 20, 2013 @ 3:57 pm
(I’m sure Mayor Bloomberg of NYC would outlaw bacon if he could. But that’s beside the point.)
Avilyn
May 20, 2013 @ 6:20 pm
The two common arguments I hear are “Well Government shouldn’t be in the marriage business anyways, so just do civil unions for everyone.” and “Marriage is about procreation & raising children.” I think both of these are B.S. The second is the easiest to dispute. If marriage is all about procreation, then infertile couples should not be allowed to get married; people (like myself) who do not intend to have kids shouldn’t be allowed to get married, people past child-bearing age shouldn’t be allowed to get married… it all gets rather ridiculous very quickly.
Regarding civil unions vs marriage, and “getting the government out of marriage”, it’s a non-starter. There are too many laws governing rights already defined with the term “marriage”, and the terms “husband” and “wife” are unambiguous and immediately convey relationship status and legitimacy (as opposed to ‘domestic partner’ or ‘civil partner’ or whatever you would call the parties involved in a civil union).
Laura
May 20, 2013 @ 6:21 pm
Warning…there will be snark and not much seriousness in the following: Perhaps those who subscribe to the “ick” viewpoint, which seems to have been established above as everyone who has issues with equal marriage rights, should not be allowed reproductive rights, for the “ick” factor as well. Just a thought.
Avilyn
May 20, 2013 @ 6:23 pm
I disagree, and made this point in my post below:
Regarding civil unions vs marriage, and “getting the government out of marriage”, it’s a non-starter. There are too many laws governing rights already defined with the term “marriage”, and the terms “husband” and “wife” are unambiguous and immediately convey relationship status and legitimacy (as opposed to ‘domestic partner’ or ‘civil partner’ or whatever you would call the parties involved in a civil union).
Megpie71
May 20, 2013 @ 9:44 pm
That’s a daft argument. After all, I’m heterosexual, and I don’t want to be married (okay, my country’s government recognises that after living with the same person for over seven years, we’re married de-facto, if not de-jure, but that’s not the point). Does that mean we can argue for the abolition of heterosexual marriages?
It’s almost as daft as the argument which goes along the lines that homosexual people getting married means taking rights away from heterosexual people who are currently married, or who are choosing to marry in future. Anyone with a lick of sense can see the thing homosexual marriage does is add rights, not take them away – women will have the right (which is not an obligation, no matter how much the rabid commentators would like to pretend so) to be able to marry women, same as men do. Meanwhile, men will be granted a right which is currently only available to women – namely, the right to marry a man. Everyone gains!
Droewyn
May 20, 2013 @ 9:55 pm
But marriage was originally a civil contract, not a religious sacrament. The Catholic Church in particular frowned quite strongly on non-royalty marrying for hundreds of years because it encouraged fornication, which was still thought of as a sin regardless of marital status. It wasn’t until societal pressure became too great that the Church co-opted the institution and developed the concept of marriage as a sacrament.
Samantha
May 20, 2013 @ 11:27 pm
The challenge, I think, cannot be totally met. All I have ever read or hear boils down to the ick factor and Sodom and Gomorra (and even the meaning of that tale can be argued). We all have the right to the pursuit of life liberty and happiness, the fight for marriage equality is long and drawn out and will be for some time. The tides are changing and the wall is breaking. All we can do is hold out a little longer. I suggest that everyone take a moment and really read the transcripts for the bill of rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) and the declaration of independence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html). According to those, Both the Church and the Government have precedence set forth that frown upon them even setting foot in this battle. It is we the people who must stand up and delegate this change to ourselves, for ourselves. We must demand it, not expect to be handed this by our government.
Mercy
May 21, 2013 @ 2:42 am
In Germany, there’s civil marriage and religious marriage. You have to do the civil kind first, and then if you want to (and can find an officiant of the religion you want to get married in who’ll do it), you can do the religious kind.
And that’s in a country where the churches have even more power than in the US.
Kathryn (@Loerwyn)
May 21, 2013 @ 3:50 am
Exactly!
MadGastronomer
May 21, 2013 @ 7:12 am
Yes, because religious marriage doesn’t predate Christianity by thousands of years or exist in cultures that Christianity didn’t reach until much later, or anything.
MadGastronomer
May 21, 2013 @ 7:15 am
Again I say: Yes, because religious marriage doesn’t predate Christianity by thousands of years or exist in cultures that Christianity didn’t reach until much later, or anything.
MadGastronomer
May 21, 2013 @ 8:12 am
Also, even within majority Christian cultures, marriage as a means of passing on property rights was generally just for people who actually, you know, owned property. Peasants and poor people were generally much more able to marry as they liked, and often did so… which is why you get lots of stories about people running away to marry for love from before the 19th century. The concept existed, and so did the practice. The poor have outnumbered the rich in every era.
'Angela
May 21, 2013 @ 8:31 am
Milia, I don’t think I missed your point, I think I respectfully disagree with it. Judging by what you’ve written here, in the end, we both want equality but we differ in how we want it. You don’t want to fight over the word any more and you want to create a new term for civil unions that you separate from marriage. I say that I do want to fight for the word, and look, it already covers marriages performed by state officials only AND state supported religious unions.
In order to give the bigots the word and accept (at least on the surface) the lie that marriage has always meant what they say it does (just skim the Old Testament and won’t need the pre-colonial international history that I’m choosing not to go through here), you create something complicated that, indeed, makes me want to clutch my marriage license and say that you’ll get it when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands. But we could always not buy into the lie, keep the word, and convey 1400 rights that piece of paper gives my spouse and I to consenting adult same-sex couples.
Pat Munson-Siter
May 21, 2013 @ 8:38 am
What bugs me are the ‘domino effect’ arguments. If you allow gays to marry, we’ll have to allow group marriages. And the even more ridiculous ‘if it becomes legal for gays to marry, then…OH NOES!!! Next thing, it will be legal for humans to have sex with animals!!!’ and currently the problem with ‘civil unions’ instead of marriage, is that many corporations, states, etc don’t acknowledge to the two as being the same so they won’t grant the same rights (medical benefits, inheritance, etc) to a civil union partner as to a spouse. And the government can’t get out of the marriage business so long as marriage results in various financial, medical, etc benefits. Now, if civil unions were recognized under law as being the same as marriage… I would love to have everyone joined by civil unions for governmental purposes, and have marriage be only a religious institution for those wishing the religious ceremony. By that measure, my husband and I would have a civil union, not a marriage.
CrissyM
May 21, 2013 @ 10:47 am
We call what you are describing “marriage”.
Marriage is not a religious term. There are lots of people from all sorts of religions, as well as agnostics, and atheists that get married all the time. People got married before the bible was written. They got married in pagan societies, and in some tribes down in the middle of the amazon rain forest that never heard of white man and his odd religions.
“Marriage” is a contractual obligation between two people. You are stating, in front of your peers, friends, village, country, etc, that you have formed a household.
What annoys me is that religious institutions have taken something that was a construct of society in general, and said “this is about what god says, not just society at large.”
And it also bothers me that people say “the state should get out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether”. Marriage is the states business. It’s about taxes, property rights, child care, health care, and legal responsibilities. You are joining your household to another person and making yourselves legally responsible for each other, that is very much the states business.
By saying “he state should get out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether” you are just buying into the idea that “marriage” is about religion, when it isn’t.
Milia
May 21, 2013 @ 12:06 pm
‘Angela
I seem to have misunderstood your point. Sorry about that. I agree, we both want the same thing. I’m not picky about how we get there. I’m certainly not going to try to take your marriage license from any of your hands – cold and dead or warm and living. I will however, toast to it with you using the libation of your choice.
Based on the comments in response to this article, clearly marriage (or the concept of marriage, regardless of language and evolution of language) has been around for a long time – doubtless as long as religion, lucky underwear and cavities. I can understand being attached to it and unwilling to give it up just because of some haters and bullies.
Based on my life experiences, I have found that sometimes it can be easier to get what you want by just not arguing about the thing they are trying to make the argument about. “You don’t want marriage for x type people? Fine, we’re not giving it to anyone, but we’re giving everybody the chance for that grants the same 1400 rights.” I don’t care the path we go down, I care about the destination. You get this but disagree. That is cool with me.
I do wonder if we need, as a society, to examine what marriage is and see how many other assumptions we make about it that should be dusted out along with the “one man and one woman” trope. Why shouldn’t two sisters be allowed to benefit from the rights that marriage (or whatever one calls it) confers? Is there a good reason to give polygamous adults something with these rights? I think these are all questions worth examining.
But, for right now, I’ll take keeping the word and allowing
Milia
May 21, 2013 @ 12:09 pm
Excellent point. It seems to be a type of parallel-ish evolution around the world.
Milia
May 21, 2013 @ 12:15 pm
Hear, hear! The ick factor of marriage equality cannot be worse than the ick factor of so many parenting tasks (not to mention birth!) – catching vomit in your hands so it won’t go on the carpet, cleaning up after a diaper blow out in bed when the results have been used as impromptu finger paints, the toddler’s inexplicable interest in the cat’s box. Babies are, basically, ick factors with a random timer that goes off a minimum of 4 times a day.
crissym
May 21, 2013 @ 1:09 pm
The problem in the USA is the language. We have marriage and civil unions in many states, also. And several states now have gay marriage. But civil unions do not share the same context as marriage in the US.
Marriage is protected. When you are in the hospitol and your spouce comes in to see you they have to met you in to see them. If it is just a civil union then it isn’t necessarily protected and they do not have to, and will sometimes block you from seeing your partner just because of their bias.
Men and women have died alone in hospitals because their same sex partner wasn’t legally allowed to be in the room with them. Children have been taken away from partners because civil unions do not confir right to parentage. People are fired, evicted, and worse… because if you are married you are protected, but you are not protected if you are in a civil union.
In the USA being in a “civil union” is just saying “you’re not married, even if you’re living like you are.”
In order to make civil unions usable we’d have to retrain everyone in it’s meaning. Better to just use the word that already exists, and if someone wants to be “married under the eyes of god” then they can do that to.
Laura Resnick
May 21, 2013 @ 6:49 pm
“Domino effect” arguments were also used to prevent women from voting, prevent blacks from entering the military, etc. Since we don’t see see many baboons or worms voting (I mean, -outside- of Congress, obviously) or entering the military, I don’t know why we keep seeng the “domino effect” argument these days, but we do.
KatG
May 21, 2013 @ 9:51 pm
Marriage equality isn’t just about marriage and it isn’t just about gay marriage. My husband and I were married by a judge. Our marriage is totally secular. There are a lot of people involved in the anti-equality movement who would like to change that, whose use of the get the state out of marriage argument is also meant to lay the groundwork for eliminating secular heterosexual marriage rights and bringing it under the control of religious institutions, and primarily their own churches. They are angry about heterosexual couples living in civil unions or just co-habitation, and they believe allowing marriage equality would increase those things as well, further decreasing the power and influence of conservative religions in secular government. While not everyone opposed to marriage equality is religious, the main force against it is waging essentially a holy war against the 1st amendment and religious freedom, because they fear it leads to wider secularism and the erosion of primarily Christian and Christian conservative power in the U.S.
And that actually is the main argument against marriage equality, rather than it’s an unnatural sin or it’s icky (which are pretty much the same,) — it’s a matter of power and money. Gays being able to marry confirms gay citizens as normal and equal members of the society — gay sex, gay relationships, gay families, gay teachers, etc. will all be accepted as normal in the society, as just another part, and gays entitled to full civil rights and protection from discrimination from at least the government. It’s the secular businesses of large conservative churches that will then take a hit if there is marriage equality. Public secular businesses, hospitals, adoption services, and buildings owned by churches will lose federal money if they discriminate against gays (which has nothing to do with their private congregation and gay weddings.) That’s a lot of income. And churches will further lose influence on the drafting of public policy and laws in county, state and federal government, which also costs them money. Those fighting marriage equality in activism and activist media, including some church groups, are making a nice profit over fundraising the fight — it’s lucrative, and so even if they slowly lose the war, it’s a money making proposition to drag out the fight as long as possible. And once there is marriage equality, churches that exclude gay members face an increase of young people leaving, further depleting church coffers and future power in the U.S.
So that’s really what the gays have come to stand for to these groups, not just icky gay sex but the secularization of America and a future world in which they will continue to have less influence and control and income, just as happened with women’s rights, black rights, interfaith marriage, etc. That’s why they are always on the side against civil rights until those rights are given legal protection — money and power. And as long as gays have their civil rights denied to them, all of our civil rights are under threat. Christian and other churches that do perform gay weddings, have gay congregants and clergy — their rights are under threat and denied. Secular heterosexual marriages and civil unions — their rights are under threat. Interracial couples and interfaith couples — their rights are still under threat. Women’s rights in marriage, including protection from domestic abuse and rights to her own body — under threat. This is everybody’s battle. Gays who don’t want to get married are still going to keep being denied civil rights until they have the right to get married. It doesn’t matter what matters to you, marriage or no marriage. It matters what the law is and what that law says your legal status is. That’s what controls our lives. The big churches know this and this fight is part of their attempt to control the law, not just demonize gays.
For instance, the poor teenager down in Florida. She started a relationship with a girl a couple of years younger than her; they both played for their high school basketball team. The basketball coach kicked her off the team on the grounds that her romance would cause too much drama — something that should be completely illegal. After the romance had been going on for several months, she turned 18, an adult, at which point her girlfriend’s parents fought to have her expelled from school and prosecuted by the county for sexual abuse of a minor, both of which are occurring. She is facing either accepting a plea bargain as a sexual offender, ruining her life, or a court trial in a conservative county in which she could get fifteen years in jail, ruining her life. (And her father is an ex-cop no less.) The girlfriend’s parents claim she turned their daughter gay. The county doesn’t give a hang about civil rights, but they do care about conservative churches and other conservative financial donors who want to continue to exert control over the government. The violence against gays, gay teens, discrimination by businesses — those are all devastating side symptoms of a legal fight for power in government.
Those who discriminate claim it’s their religious freedom to sit on the religious freedom of others and they are being oppressed if they aren’t allowed to oppress and embarrass other citizens. But the argument again is basically that they feel their church should be in control of the government and the government should protect those of the church. It’s a protest against what they see as the secularization (and thus moral decrepitude,) of society and law. Businesses also try to discriminate against unwed couples having children, members of various religions they don’t like, etc. because their existence is viewed as a collapse of society — the society where they were in control and got more of the money.
Discrimination is always economic at its base. There is perceived financial value in it which is then given a moral value as an excuse and dogma. One of the reasons that marriage equality and gay civil rights have seen a fast surge in public support is that the economic benefits of ending discrimination and the economic costs of continuing it are being better understood. Those are outweighing the economic benefits for one minority segment of the population of the discrimination. Of course, these things are also personal, upbringing and all the rest, but the economics are a major factor, especially in getting politicians and electorates to vote for equality.
Amanda
May 22, 2013 @ 12:45 am
“If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” – Desmond Tutu
Mercy
May 22, 2013 @ 3:07 am
But in Germany, they’re both marriage. You can have both civil and religious marriages side by side with the civil side being the one that matters for legal stuff, and them BOTH called marriage. (Unfortunately, there’s ALSO “registered partnerships”, which is the equivalent of civil unions for same-sex couples, for all that it’s colloquially called “gay marriage”. But at least the courts keep ruling that they MUST be treated legally just like marriages.)
I do understand the US context, I’ve only lived in Germany for 6.5 years.
Susan
May 22, 2013 @ 8:56 pm
The good thing? I think the US laws will change, and sooner rather than later. The bad thing? There will still be people who discriminate against/harm gays. That mindset won’t be changed overnight. In fact, these are the people who will always find some group to discriminate against/harm–blacks, Jews, women, you name it. It’s just in their nature to hate.
Reziac
May 23, 2013 @ 12:06 pm
My eye was caught by the fact that you have a “marriage license”.
Do you know what a license actually is?
It’s permission granted (here by the gov’t) to perform an act *that would otherwise be illegal*.
James Cheatham
May 23, 2013 @ 3:27 pm
Oh let’s be honest, if “it’s icky” was an excuse no ones parents would be married. (I know I can’t think of too many things ickier than the idea of my parents having sex. Eating oysters maybe?) It’ll get there, with the military leading the way for the very simple reason that now that homosexuals are allowed to openly serve, you have to start enforcing their rights and benefits equally. It’s not there yet, but it’s coming and the world will be a better place.
DawnD
May 23, 2013 @ 6:14 pm
Actually, I studied this on the way to getting a graduate degree in history. In the upper classes, “love” as we now think of it, wasn’t considered a prerequisite for marriage, although you can go back centuries in European history and find ballads celebrating love in the upper classes. Literature as well, think Shakespeare. Even famous royal matches that were based first on love, or desire, whether or not they ended well, say Henry and Anne Boleyn. I could go on, but I’ll stop on that point.
Also, as MadGastronomer points out, where property wasn’t the leading concern, attraction between the parties was much more important, if not dominant. Then, as now, parents would rather their children married well than poorly, but children could largely make their own choices. And, yes, there are whole books published on this.
Unimaginative
May 26, 2013 @ 9:54 pm
And the thing is, there are PLENTY of examples in the world of gay marriage being legal and recognized for over a decade, without the dominoes collapsing. Gay marriage has been legal and recognized in Canada since 2002, and the only thing that’s different now (to the country in general, not the individuals personally affected) is that the wedding industry has a larger client base.
No collapse of het marriage, no churches closing down, nobody forced to gay-marry, no man-bear-pig sightings. There’s really no downside.
Wendy Clements
May 27, 2013 @ 3:22 pm
I used to work with children with profound disabilities in an elementary school. Regular education kids would come up to me and ask me questions because they knew I would answer them and tell them the truth. The most important questions they asked, I think, were “Will I catch it?” and “Is it contagious?” These little seven and eight year olds were conquering their ignorance and fear by asking questions to find out the truth. This is more than most adults will do.
I don’t know for a fact, but I think that’s a lot of the reason for fear and/or hatred of homosexuality: “Will I catch it?” and “Is it contagious?” The answer is the same as what I told the seven and eight year olds who had the courage to ask the question about disabilities. No, it’s not. It’s easy to cover up that fear and hatred under the guise of religion and politics, because that means people don’t have to reveal their ignorance. It’s much easier to justify what you’re saying with religious or political backing. And do all the people who have mentioned that it isn’t the business of either of those groups, they’re absolutely right.
What would we be doing if what was happening to young girls and women in India was happening here? Would we just stand by and let it happen, or would we do something about it? If women were being raped on buses here, what would we do? If five year olds were dying after mistreatment at the hands of men, what would we do? We, as a nation, would be guilty of looking aside at some of the most horrendous crimes man can commit if we did nothing. These are hate crimes. Crimes of power.
Now, please bear in mind that I am not comparing homosexuals to women, because I’m not, but what’s happening to homosexuals, what Mr. Hines listed above, are hate crimes. Pure and simple. These men did nothing except be who they are. Which is their right. People ought to be allowed to love who they want, without fear of reprisal from ignorance and fear, or self-righteousness.
What happened to compassion and kindness, treating people the way you’d like to be treated? I’ve noticed that people are actually suspicious of me, thinking I have ulterior motives, when I’m just simply being nice. That makes me incredibly sad, that altruism is looked upon with suspicion or disbelief. It shows the atmosphere of the world we live in, why no one cares that hate crimes take place.
People can argue until the cows come home (not my home, though, please, we’re already hosting an uninvited squirrel in the attic and our house isn’t all that big to start with, although one cow might fit in the back yard, if the landlord said it was okay, but it would have to be temporary) about the religion and politics of the matter until they are blue in the face. It may or may not do any good.
What will do good is if you see something happening, do something about it. I mean, don’t be stupid about the situation, if there are guns, call 911. Just call 911 anyway. But don’t just walk away from the situation without doing anything. You might save someone’s life, or keep them from getting beat to a pulp. I’m definitely not advocating super-hero action or anything to endanger yourself, sometimes I think if a car pulls up with it’s headlights on the people assaulting someone take off because now there are witnesses. Mr. Hines, you probably have better advice than this because you have more experience. I’m sort of impulsive when it comes to things like this, and I tend to react and do things that maybe if I were thinking correctly, I wouldn’t do. I would always have risked my life for one of my kids at work, which is probably taking work a little too seriously, but with school shootings and kids who are orthopedically impaired or just simply would freak out at the situation…
My point is that we are all human beings living on this planet together. I’ve never had a problem with two men loving each other, but now that the world is becoming so badly overpopulated, yay, zero population growth! Play nicely together. Stop the hate. It’s a waste of time and it’s exhausting. Don’t just believe what other people tell you blindly, find things out for yourself–do research. Let people love who they want to love. Hate crimes are hate crimes no matter who they are committed against–it’s what happens when bullies don’t get stopped before they get out of school.
Finally, I’ve been a vegetarian for years, but the smell of bacon and, for some reason, Kentucky Fried Chicken are the two things that really get to me and make a little part of my brain go “Mmmmmm bacon….” If I were a zombie, those would be the two things I’d go for.
Thanks for listening. Reading. Participating.
Wendy