Last week, my state blew it. The legislature was within a mouse’s fart of passing a bill that would have given same-sex couples equal marriage recognition but, at the very last minute, the bill failed like Michelle Bachmann on a US history test. I haven’t read any of the commentary that might explain why the measure fell apart because I find it too disheartening but my NPR affiliate reported that religious groups had lobbied against it because they “stand for families”.
Please explain to me how opposing a marriage-equality bill stands for families. How does it serve families at all? Does it reduce the cost of childcare? Improve wages for working women? Does it improve schools? Lower housing or utility costs? Des it reduce carbon emissions? Lengthen the solvency of Social Security? Does it increase access to medical care? Does it do anything, anything at all, to improve the lives of families in Maryland? Or does it just let homophobes feel smug?
I don’t buy one word of the argument marriage-equality opponents toss around about the children of same-sex couples having a harder time growing up to be well adjusted. These people must lack even the tiniest amount of self-awareness because if they had any they would realize that the problems faced by children of same-sex parents do not generate with the parents but rather with the bigots who take exception to the parents and feel no compunctions about sharing their ignorant drivel with those children.That is where the adjustment problems for kids lie: in realizing that you are growing up in a world where not everybody is kind to the two people you love the most.
I also don’t buy the idea that refusing same-sex couples marriage equality will prevent them from uniting in love and starting families. It hasn’t so far. Lotsa gay couple with kids walking around. Proving the bigots and their attempts at obstruction wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
And don’t even get me started on how ridiculous the “sinner” argument sounds. Adultery is a sin. Would anyone propose not allowing adulterers to marry? Divorce is a sin yet there are no legal restrictions on allowing divorced people to remarry. Masturbation? Sin. Yet masturbaters marry. Thieves marry, coveters marry, murderers marry, liars marry, blasphemers marry. If sin was a reason to obstruct marriage, we’d all be single. No, what bothers these people is that gay people have gay sex and that wigs them out and they’re not mature enough to get over it and move on. And they really should. I mean, I’m totally grossed out by the idea of homophobic bigots having sex but I’m not petitioning my state to refuse them the right to be married until they get enlightened.
Ugh. It’s all so damn stupid. It’s all part of this “I’m part of a club you can’t join so nyah” mentality. It’s all about wanting to feel superior to someone. And the disgusting part is how often they win these fights. Why do they keep getting to win? When is it our turn to win? You know. Us guys. The smart, sane, tolerant, compassionate people who are frankly too busy to think much about who anyone else marries. Unless we get invited to the wedding in which case we have an outstanding excuse to go shopping.
Life is too short to seek out reasons not to celebrate love. There are not enough occasions of joy to try and cancel some of them out because of things like gender preference. Love, marriage, family, community. Those are the things that matter. For everyone.
Absolutely love how eloquently you make your point. I just can’t get over how “what is good for the goose isn’t good for the gander” in these situations. Don’t we have a separation of church and state? Who does our government think it is to impose morals on us? And if they are going to use religion or morals as their basis for this vote, then they need to stick with that, and make it impossible for anyone who commits a sin to marry/have kids. Sounds a little ridiculous to me.
Amen. But can I get on my soapbox for just a minute? Here’s the solution according to me, and I’d love to hear somebody’s argument against it, just because I’m curious to discuss it with anybody. The state needs to get out of the “defining marriage” business entirely. No joining should be called a marriage, in terms of state definitions. It should be called a union, pure and simple. Anybody can do it with anybody they want to, as long as they are 18 or older, and have all the rights (medical, tax, inheritance, child issues, etc.) that come with it. This gets the state out of the morals and marriage area. There’s supposed to be separation of church and state, so let’s stop with this grey area crap. If you want to be “married” you have to find an institution or an officiant that will perform that ceremony. And there are those institutions that will perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. If you don’t want to get married, just want to have the state union, that’s fine–everybody has equal unions that way. If you want to get divorced with the state–fine, just file for breach of contract, end of story. If you want to separate your marriage that has happened through an institution or officiant, you have to follow the annulment or divorce proceedings through that arena. I just think the two (union and marriage) need to be absolutely separate so there is a chance at equality for at least one of the areas. What are other thoughts on this?
Good heavens. That was well put. I have the same feelings but could not put them into words the way you just did.
My sister and her partner are every bit as married as my husband and I are, except for legal and tax benefits, which sucks all kinds of ass.
Strangely enough, her marriage does not weaken my marriage. Even when she and her partner are in my home, I do not feel threatened, or on the verge of divorce, or as if the earth might rattle apart based on the fact that two people with the same stuff between their legs love each other.
Oh, oh, also? My kids spend tons of time with their aunts, and none of them is turning out to be a sexual deviant. Imagine that! Of course, if any of my kids turns out to be gay, the cons would probably blame that on my sister’s influence, but there’s no accounting for ignorance, is there?
The whole argument is just beyond ridiculous to me. Brian and I enjoy all kinds of financial and legal benefits that they can’t have, and for what? To avoid triggering someone’s ick reflex? So incredibly unjust.
The problem with the religious right is that they don’t need logic to sustain their stance. All they need are their religious beliefs, which don’t have to be based in logic. They are just based on a really old book.
Some days I wonder if this world would have been better off without religion. Most of the time I come to the conclusion that it would have been. Religion has set back science back hundreds of years with the dark ages, it’s caused persecution…well, maybe not religion, but the humans that have been the so called spiritual leaders.
Why religion is dictating law is beyond me. This is why we should have “separation of church and state.” I totally agree with Erica on that marriage and civil unions should be totally separate. It’s a great idea and should be contemplated. If you want to have the whole church thing, that’s cool, whatever. If you want to have a contractual union, go the civil union route. That way, if churchs want to not recognize gay marriage, have at it. But that won’t impede gays having a union so that they get the same advantages and protections that other married people have. I have no interest in being married before God but I do want a contractual union so that I can see my partner in the hospital if something goes wrong without having to draw up multiple types of wills and powers of attorneys. It’s fucking demeaning.
I completely agree with you. If I can marry as a person that isn’t homosexual then why can’t someone else just because they are.