It's been a full day since the California Supreme Court uphelp Proposition 8 and I am learning a lot about the legal system. The court decision had more to do with legal processes than it did marriage, and I still think that marriage equality will come in short time to California.BUT, that still doesn't make me any less mystified as to why Prop 8 passed in California to begin with. The proposition made marriage between same sex couples illegal, in case you hadn't heard. It doesn't makes sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
Maybe I am oblivious to the gathering storm that Carrie Prejean and her frenemies at NOM have been warning us about. A storm of what exactly? Houses being rented by a committed couple, kids being raised by committed couples, flowers being purchased by one half of a committed couple to give to the other half. I know, it sounds like hell. How dare a man try to woo and marry another man? That's crazy talk!
So, what is the basis for this fear? What kind of horrors will be visited upon your opposite marriage if Justin Timberlake finally gives in to my marriage proposals? I really want to know. My own mother (whom I love and respect, for the record) insists that all marriages should be called civil unions and that would take all the semantics out of the equation. But why all that be changed?
Marriage is already a legal state, one that has been has been constantly evolving as long as humans have been marrying. At one point it was between one man and as many women as he wanted. At other points it was only between a man with money and the daughter of a man who wanted that money. Marriages have been arranged between children for political gain. Marriages have been performed by jumping over brooms. The apostle Paul thought marriage should only be entered into as a last resort, like when you are so horny you can't control yourself. And more recently, marriage has been between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman.
Why is it such a stretch that an exclusive legal contract between two adults like marriage could be signed by two people regardless of gender? Why should the name suddenly change, without any good reason? A lot of questions, very few good answers. Why can't I visit my husband in the hospital, why can't I inherit his estate, why can't we link our names, our credit history and our hearts before God and these witnesses, just like an opposite married couple can?
What about love? This is the topic we like to dance around. When it comes down to it, when you say that I can't marry my boyfriend you are saying my love is somehow less important, less holy, less committed than the love you have for yours. That you have the right by virtue of your gender to enter a legal contract that I can't. That is what makes it discrimination. That is what makes it wrong.
I don't want this to be a one sided debate, I would love to hear a rational defense for excluding me from the marriage process. And, no, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" does not count!
7 comments:
Oh Paul! There is so much here that I'm gonna try to keep my response as short as possible.
Marriage in the US is so intertwined with society and money that I believe a lot of people who voted for Prop 8 aren't anti-gay as much as they have been raised to believe that marriage is a man and woman because they have known nothing else.
Because the "man" was expected to get married, get a job, work for 40 years, and retire. This structure was literally forced on people in the 30s, 40s, 50s, even 60s because it makes companies rich. And when companies get rich, they cement these societal conventions so they can be assured that they'll have a willing workforce who won't question the status quo, won't want too much money, or rights, etc.
Well that's just what gay people are doing. Challenging the status quo. And that's scary for a lot of people. That and the recognition that if we give gay people this longstanding societal convention then that suddenly doesn't make them so foreign. Suddenly being gay isn't really different from straight. There's nothing to keep children in the closet. And especially for men, that means possibly losing masculinity! Egads!
What I don't get is when the opponents say they don't want to explain gay to their kids. Uh, it's not that hard. Two girls. Two guys. Done. Do you explain how straight people have sex to kids? No, so kids don't need to know anything more than two girls, two guys... And I'm spent!
Junior, as usual, you bring up some good points.
I also believe that those who voted for Prop 8 are not all "homophobic" - mostly because I hate that word. But that's another post! They are subconciously heterosexist, and that is why I think questions need to be raised. Otherwise, the heterosexist status quo remains unchallnged and no one even realizes there ever was one.
Ooh, Paul, you have to elaborate because I fear I may not get what you mean by "heterosexist" but I'm crazy intrigued...
Heterosexism is like sexism or racism, a straight person's bias towards their own sexual orientation. I'm guessing I didn't make that word up, although I started using it before I heard any one else use it.
The reason I prefer the term "heterosexism" to "homophobia" is because I believe most people who are biased towards opposite marriage don't do so out of fear or hate, it's out of ignorance and the natural biases we feel towards those like ourselves.
Okay, I get it. I had a bit of a blond moment because I couldn't figure that one out. I agree too. My mom is wonderful but she too has reservations about gay marriage. Yet yesterday she got on the phone with me going on and on about this article she read about Suze Orman's love life. Because she loves Suze Orman. I guess that's why visibility is so important...
That is why visibility is so important! Both visible celebs and real folks show that being gay doesn't mean you are strange or bad. After all, if your florist or your dentist or your favorite TV finance advisor are gay, then maybe it's not such a bad thing...
Just to set the record straight from mom, I believe that civil unions would be a comfortable compromise for America. The civil union would give the legal rights for property, visitation etc, but not encroach on the religious ceremony that marriage has traditionally been in the US. The civil union would be the legal union (contract) between 2 people for legal purposes for federal benefits and property rights and such. The marriage ceremony would then become a religious ceremony that would be regulated by the individual religious institutions of our land (I hesitate to use the word church as there are mosques and temples and whatchucallits) and would be whatever the particular religious institution believes and would have no legal standing, only religious standing. Complicated yet simple.
Just as an aside: marriage has been around in the US long before the 30's and has nothing to do with a conspiracy to make big companies rich. Big companies would probably rather have single people with no responsibility for a family to make them richer. The big railroad companies in the late 1800's and early 1900's became rich on the backs of men who were not allowed to have their families with them. Read your history...
Post a Comment