I get asked a lot how I feel about gay Marriage and it’s proposed constitutional ban. I typically supply the best, most obvious “canned response” I can conjure up. But with the recent media attention on this subject I’ve been forced to think more about it. My honest opinion, being a gay person of the world, is that it’s perfectly fine for 2 consenting adults to engage in an emotional, committed, contractual relationship. Whether that’s called a “marriage” or “partnership” makes no difference to me whatsoever. All I want are my “inalienable” rights as a citizen of this country. On the Constitutional Ban, I think it’s absurd that our leadership would promote legislation that would, for the first time in constitutional history, place language in the most important legislative document we have that actively discriminates against a sizable population of this country. That in and of itself should shake people to their very core, despite their feelings about the subject matter.
Often, right wing conservative Christians justify their hate mongering by using responses like “were not discriminating against gays, were defining the word marriage”. Or the ever popular “the bible says marriage is an act between a man and a woman”. Well any intelligent human being on this earth fully understands that if your “definition” of marriage omits a certain population, you are in fact, discriminating against them. Plain and simple. The religious in this country have done a bang-up job of selectively accepting humanity as their own. Permitting themselves to choose who and what they accept as people and using biblical references (that are often mistranslated and out-of-date) to justify their feelings towards the groups they don’t accept. It’s interesting that some of the most bigoted people I know go to church every single Sunday. People like the Rev. (loose term) Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church who spews his backbiting, terminological inexactitude whenever he can and plots grossly inappropriate and irreverent funeral protests, because he’s so convinced that the gays are destroying the earth. (Yes, he’s clearly a latent homosexual who has to go ridiculous extremes to keep his true sexuality at bay. Hell have a great time in hell with the rest of us) The dichotomy Mr. Phelps represents is appalling really, but it also thankfully helps discredit him to most Americans who actually know their ass from a hole in the wall.
Personally I’m flattered and amazed that so many in this country consider my personal life such a threat to their very existence. It’s sad that these people have lost their sphere of influence over their families and themselves. I had no idea me and my gay friends meant so much to so many people. These folks have allowed virtual strangers to dictate their personal mental and emotional security and now they’ve decided to gain back their “moral” ground by supporting the dehumanization of other citizens. They have the gaw to use an ancient text as their foundational argument, because the know intellectually it holds no water. Life is about individualism, for gays and straights. Smart, adjusted people teach their families to be individuals no matter what (or who) they see around them. Stupid, uneducated people fall victim to social, religious and political influence time and time again. Unfortunately, this country seems to be chocked full of stupid people who use religion and bigotry as comfort food for their souls not thinking for a second about the personal and emotional impact this has on the gay and lesbian population.
I don’t believe for one second that this latest attempt at political gay bashing was organically grown. It’s a well plotted, hot topic issue that’s been regurgitated again by the religious conservatives to divert attention away from the massive political, social, and economic failures they have helped recently usher in this country. I’m ashamed of the republicans as a whole for pushing a socio-religious agenda when theres a devastating war going on. I’m saddened that we (including the media) are focusing on gay marriage when people are paying 60+ dollars to fill up their gas tanks. It’s beyond pathetic that our country devotes any amount of time to this subject when our borders (another loose term) resemble swiss cheese and there’s a hit floating out there with our name on it. But I’m most saddened by my fellow Americans willingness to deny their compatriots the same rights and freedoms they enjoy; Their use of the Bible as a divisive instrument of hate; And most importantly nurturing the anti-“American”, disharmonizing spirit this issue embodies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well put. For the life of me, I cannot understand what the "threat" to America is when it comes to gay marriages. There are real threats out there, as pointed out in your posting, and I agree we should be using all our resources against those threats.
On a lighter side: Gay marriages, if legalized, would be a boon to the legal profession. Does anyone believe that,in the long run, gay marriages would suffer any less percentage of failures and divorces than that of the straight variety. And, they would be just as messy and expensive.
Here, here. Very well put. Most of my married, het-ro-sexyul friends keep asking me what my plan is to sabotage their marriages. They want to know the "gay agenda's" plan for destroying everything.
I swear... I won't cave.
Well put. And yes, it is a plot to divert attention.
Back in the day, we were all sitting around smoking cigars at the Choke Room, and all the angry white male bigwigs were trying to figure out what would stir such vitriol as to blind the general population in case the economy went in the tank. They were throwing all kinds of things out there: integration of public schools, welfare reform, illegal immigration...
From the back of the room, I said: "What about the gays?" After much discussion, everyone agreed gay marriage would be an appropriate issue to galvanize the conservative base.
With that out of the way, we quickly finished our cigars and had an orgy.
Very good and well put!
Your favorite man who "Succeeds in spite of himself" tried to make this the issue of the day today... He succeeded in making a fool of himself inspite of himself.
Oh... and thanks... now I cant get Pat Benatar out of my head.
I have a draft response about Gay Marriage that I may post on my blog.
First, Discriminaton occurrs when the majority votes for a law no matter how you look at a segment of the population will be discriminated against. Also, discrimination was incorporated in the Constitution women not having the right vote, land owners having the right to vote and most importantly the 2/3 clause regarding blacks.
Second, Marriage is not a right, the right is freedom of association which does not require government interference. As you properly stated a union between two people is a contract that requires the government intercede when terms of that contract have been violated and enforce those terms.
Third, as being a contract laws must be establish. In a republic laws are establish indirectly by a majority by electing representatives that are accountable to the people. It is these representatives that enact and promulgate laws including laws regarding contracts and grant privileges.
I'm for civil unions, but not marriage because of the religious context to it. I'm for an amendment because I don't like an activist court to impose its will on people that did not elect it and enact legislation from the bench. The amendment the was propose went to far and would have interferred with individual states deciding if they want to grant civil unions or marriage. The amendment should be narrowly tailored to address the "full faith and credit" concern from those people that fear an activist court.
Many might not agree with my point, but I don't want a body that is not elected to impose its will on anyone or all of the land. Gays should not use the courts to advance their agenda, it only angers the ignorant. Slowly, but shorely the additude in the American Polis is changing. Polls indicate many American opposed to gay marriage, but favor civil unions.
The sad part is politicians need to continue to divide America to maintain their power. All they do perpetuate the hatred against a minority and it needs to stop. Each gay person is a proud and productive American and deserves the respect as an other American. However, we confuse rights which are personal to us with privileges and laws that require government to protect and enforce.
Incognito, politicians are Machavellian by using any means to justify the end. In this case they use socio religous agenda to energize their base maitain their power and policies. Just for argument sake, just because they attack one aspect or minority does not meant they are not paying attention or concern with other areas, such as illegal immigration.
i'm pleased to report from boston that the state of massachusetts has yet to suffer a moralimplosion after nearly 3 years of same sex marriage. and surprisingly, the dire predictions of people lining up to push the measure further and demand they be allowed to marry their dog(s) and/or sister hasn't happened either ;)
upwards and onwards- let's hope it catches on...
Well, I don't think you been to the Bershires, so, you can not be absolutely sure that somebody did not marry the momma sister.
The one thing the got me after Massachusetts ruled gay marriage the law of the land was that ruling obviously did not apply to the consequences of a failed marriage. A couple in Western Mass. got divorce and there was a child involved. The biological mother sued for child support and the former partner did support the child during the marriage, however, the court ruled it could not force child support on the former partner. I think the Mass. Legislature needs to pass laws to ensure when two people take on raising a child and they decide to end their relationship, both shall be obligated to pay for that child's rearing.
Hey, if hetero's have to pay their baby's momma, so, should daddy's pay their baby's daddy. It is just all of matter of time until everyone works out the details and promulgates the laws correcting this oversight.
Post a Comment