Why not gay marriage? Why the fuck not?
Don't get me wrong: the state absolutely should not tell any religion what to do on this issue. Human sacrifice, yes. Marriage, no. If {religion X} doesn't want to allow same-sex couples to get married, that's their deal. Not a state matter. So don't get me wrong here.
But if the state chooses to provide marriage for opposite-sex couples, how can it not provide those rights to same-sex couples? Civil Unions are a big step forward. But it's Plessy v. Ferguson, not Brown v. Board. Yeah, I know, baby steps and all that. But we're all hung up on this word: "marriage." Oh, gee, "marriage!" That's a social hangup of our time, and I understand the hold it has on some people, I really do. But we need to move beyond that hangup, and hangups like it, and eventually we will. That's not a guess; it's not a prediction: it's a guarantee, from me to you. Let's just skip the 10, 25, 50 years of interim conservative wrangling and accept it now. These people who say "oh, let's give them the same rights, but call it something else" are the same people who used to say "let's give the blacks a school system of approximately equal quality, but don't let them into OUR schools."
Giving gays and lesbians "civil unions," is a step forward, and I support it. I realize that at the same time some states are taking that step forward, Ohio is about to take a step backward. So please don't take this to be a disparagement of what progress we've made. But eventually, gays and lesbians will say "how come we're only good enough for 'civil unions?'" just as other minority groups have said "how come we're only good enough for 'separate but equal?'" And when they say that, they'll be right: they'll deserve better than that. But they deserve better than that right now. Why not just skip all the bullshit?
There's a debate on TV right now, dealing with whether states should be obligated to recognize the marriage laws of other states. They shouldn't: no state should have individualized marriage laws, or individualized laws on any civil rights. It should be a national law, 100%, right now. Think of the debate 200 years ago over whether the northern states should be obligated to return slaves that ran away from their masters in the south. That was the law of the land, and it had some support even among those who opposed slavery, because some of them felt the states' rights on that matter were of superior value to the embattled black man's. It was wrong, but we got past it. Today, it would seem like lunacy to propose that each state be allowed to pass its own slavery laws, and then debate whether other states should or should not be obligated to recognize those states' sovereign rights to declare slavery legal. Gay marriage will eventually seem as obviously correct as the abolition of slavery. States don't get to say murder is legal, or arson is legal, and they shouldn't get to say who deserves to get married and who doesn't. That's just logic, regardless of your feelings on homosexuality. It's the constitution. So fuck all that.
Yes, I have a strong opinion on this, but I'm perfectly willing to listen to anyone who's willing to try to explain why 10% of America's population should not be allowed the full rights of the other 90%.
Posted by Chris at January 22, 2004 09:36 PM | TrackBackMy personal opinion of this is that marriage shouldn't be a legal issue period. Marriage is between two people and nobody anywhere is obligated to respect that one way or another. I think much of the mess comes from the notion that typically marriage involved, necessarily, a comingling of assets- which is essentially unecessary. Ideally- if two people wanted to get married they could simply do that- without the governments involvement. Then, if either felt like it, they could then give each other their assets- or sign a contract promising half upon seperation. Or write a will to guarantee assets passed on upon death etc....
So- like many things- I believe the simple soulution would be to end government involvement.
How did I know THAT was coming? :P
Sure, if the government had no involvement at all, there'd be no inequality. Kind of the way the government doesn't say who can and can't wear black T-shirts. But to offer marriage rights, benefits, and recognition to one group and not another: that's the issue. And somehow I think it's a lot more likely that gay marriage will gain acceptance than that the government will stop recognizing all marriages, especially the current propensity to "defend" the institution.
Posted by: Chris at January 22, 2004 10:32 PMI know I'm predictable! It's simpler that way(for me). I guess I'm not sure what rights are offered by the government to married people aside from income tax things (which in my opinion aren't really much of a good thing- nor are they rights) and perhaps the automatic assumption of inheritence rights to married people. Beyond that I believe insurance is the other issue- which isn't really a government thing. I admit I may be missing something but overall I don't see government recogntion of marriage as worth anything.
The whole current trend to 'defend' the 'institution of marriage' is more of and attempt, as far as I can see, is a battle over the definition of a word. Some group of people want to legally define 'marriage' as synonymous (SP?) with 'heterosexual marriage' which is a.futile as language changes plus no matter what- if there are people who refuse to recognise same-sex marriages they will have a way of making that distinction- ie they'll refer to 'natural' marriage etc... judgemental people won't go away. b.stupid since marriage tends to have the word/concept of forever in it and that's just not the current trend with marriage -so why waste time and money defining one criterion of a word when the rest of the definition is shit?
My position on the whole thing is that anyone can claim that they're married to anyone- whether they are or not is soley between them. I'd be happy to see the entire thing go away- especially in the context of a frickin constitutional ammendment bullshit. The whole thing could easily get out of hand in either direction in my opinion- either we'll end up with some stupid change to the constitution over a matter of bigotry OR we'll end banning distinctions between same sex and heterosexual marriages- either way in my opinon goes too far.
well at the risk of getting my ip banned I thought on it more and decided I should add a little xtra. I think, probably, my biggest issue with this entire thing is that it fails to address a larger problem- so I see it as diversionary. When you consider that I'm completely against income taxation (slavery) and government making behavioral incetives using that system it may make more sense. Furthermore I don't believe that there ought to be any privileged class in the eyes of the government (married or with family or skin color etc...)
anyhow hopefully that makes more sense- to me the whole issue amounts to trying to get mistreated better rather than getting things right. I'll shove off now. (promise)
I agree, reefer should be legalized.
Posted by: CriticalDog at January 28, 2004 06:23 AMIt certainly should. And it should be over-the-counter. And we should be allowed to buy it in Canada.
Posted by: Chris at January 28, 2004 09:34 AMNot just leglaized- mandated- perhaps via fortification of milk or time release implants... I vote both.
(my stupid email is down if you've sent a bio or anything cool like that)
Yeah, mandated for all except politicians and cops...and, we could drive across the border and get it cheaper for sure. I aint smokin no high inflated Mississipppppppiiiiiisssiiiipppp dope!
Posted by: CriticalDog at January 29, 2004 06:13 PMOK... on the serious side of why I'm against Gay Marriage.
When they go to the ceremony and the organist (no pun intended)starts to play, "HERE COMES THE ___, ah wait. HERE COMES THE ___. O, you must change the key of the song, and that my friend would just not work!
Man, don't be such a homophobe! There's always a fem one...they just make HIM be the bride :)
Posted by: Chris at January 29, 2004 06:56 PM