Hurrah for Gay Marriage
I've never understood the objection to gay marriage. We humans are pair-bonding creatures and we seem to feel safest when coupled. It's not true for everyone, of course, but most of us eventually want a partner to merge our books and lives with. Marriage provides certain extremely useful perks: a partner to be with you when you are ill, someone to share your poverty or wealth with, someone to share your celebrations and devastations, someone to raise children with. You'd think the right wing would be pleased that gay people share the same needs as other Americans.
In the past, gay people had to adopt their lovers to leave them their goodies. Or they had to go without a next-of-kin to depend on in hospital. All sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo was required because marriage was forbidden. And why? Because a bigoted old Bible seemed to imply that God made Adam and Eve -- not Adam and Steve -- as the anti-gay faction likes to say.
I've often found that gay people are better at marriage than straight people. They don't get all bent out of shape about sex for sex's sake. At least this is true for gay men. And they don't run to bust up a perfectly cozy union because one member of the couple -- or both -- has a fling. Some couples are faithful and some not. And they seem to practice this without the territoriality and hypocrisy of mixed-sex couples. Actually, they should be our role models in marriage. They take it far more seriously than straight people -- perhaps because it was forbidden for so long.
So hurrah for California and Massachusetts. Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse. It certainly promotes stability and family. And it's certainly good for kids.
But the truth is the anti-gays don't think rationally. They need their wedge issues to distract the populace from reality. Anti-gay rhetoric is a useful political smokescreen. It obscures the fact that the rich are getting richer and that nobody gives a hoot about the poor. Whenever people get exercised about sex -- suspect the truth: they want to pick your pocket.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is one of those "issues" I don't care either way about. I have no problem if gay people want to marry. I think they should be able to. But I will not vote for or against a candidate based up their stance on gay marraige. If I like a candidate and he says he wants an amendment to ban gay marraige, I don't care. Or if I don't like a candidate, but he wants to legalize gay marriage everywhere, again I don't care. This isn't that important of an issue for either side. Like was said in the blog "It obscures the fact that the rich are getting richer and that nobody gives a hoot about the poor", that is what I will base my choice for president, congressman, senator, governor, ect on. Not gay marriage, or many of the other "wedge" issues. I vote for what is best for ME, and in my case gay marriage isn't one of those.
How very loving and considerate of you. I suppose you stand in front of the mirror every morning (having a difficult time tearing yourself away) and sing ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, until the tears run down your face at your own gloriousness.
Excuse me, but the issue *does* happen to be important to a lot of people.
Okay so now banning same sex marriage is discrimation....are we now ready to go defend the case for polygimists? How about incest? You see where I'm going here...we have to look a little further now for the impact of this ruling.
Yeah, we know where you're going: backside first down an illogical slippery slope.
The parade of horribles that reactionaries conjure up all share the quality of being about "relationships" that are exploitive, non-consensual, or biologically dangerous inasmuch as they have the strong likelihood of producing children with devastating birth defects.
Same-sex marriage is not related to these, nor does it provide logical support for them.
So, all the other groups don't get equality because it might be dangerous? What about aids?
Yeah... let gays marry and pretty soon we'll have people marrying their dogs. Sheesh! Is there no protection from goofball thinking?
Ms. Jong:
"Because a bigoted old Bible seemed to imply that God made Adam and Eve -- not Adam and Steve." If God would have created only Adam and Steve.........would not be much of world would it.....if any at all. It is a lifestyle, that in today's society and societies of the future, which will never be accepted as the prevelant and dominating union for the continutation of society.......and marriage between same sexes can never and will never justify that behavior. The bigoted old Bible; and what do you believe in, other than yourself, Ms. Jong? Your article are only words without a heartbeat.
Try actually reading Genesis. There are two different and conflicting creation stories and one of them makes clear that the ancient Hebrews believed that the ocean not only surrounds the earth but arches over it and envelops it. That's why both the seas and the sky are blue and that's where all the extra water came from to cause the flood! So, do you believe that too?
JohnJames- What are the chapter and verse for the two genesis stories? Truly interested.
Johnjames- could you tell us the chapter and verse for these two conflicting stories? Truly interested.
Your bible is only words without a heartbeat, too. Just so you know...
I don't think so........and acceptance of same sex marriages..........whatever floats your boat......but don't force that belief or behavior on the rest of society.
1. No one ever said it should be the "dominating union for continuing society". It's not a het vs gay contest; it's about protecting the rights and privileges of all, even minorities. That's American democracy in action.
2. Homosexuality exists in nature, in animals.
3. Homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of humanity, as the Bible and other ancient texts show.
4. Your Holy Book is NOT static; there is a huge jump in tolerance, love and acceptance of all INCLUDING ENEMIES in the jump from the Old to the New Testaments.
5. Ms. Jong's words have the heartbeat of compassion, acceptance and tolerance--just the kind Jesus was always talking about.
Why do people refer to opposition to gays as homphobia? A phobia indicates a persistent fear of something. I, and many others do not fear homsexuals. Speaking for myself, I find the thought of acts by homosexuals well, disturbing, gross, and definately not normal.The thought of embracing another man in a kiss or any sexual contact is nauseating.I wasn't taught to feel this way, just do.Now back-up my "spider sense" with how God feels about the subject and I know where to stand on this issue. The people of this country continue to vote against this to no avail.Homosexuals have every right to do what you want in this counrty, but to call all of us bigots etc. is wrong. Your going to have a fight on your hands when you try and strong-arm the rest of the country in believing that it's normal and something to be celebrated.I don't hate or wish any ill-will to people in the gay community, but I will never accept it as normal because it's not. For you Bible busters out there, Jesus would never go against what His Father revealed to the prophets of the old Testement. He would state" Your faith has healed you, now go and sin no more"He wouldn't say it is not a sin or just let it pass. God bless the world.
Did you seriously just back up your "spider sense" with God's wishes? Dude. Who can argue with that logic?
No offense True Blue but:
(1) Your god doesn't exist.
(2) Your god was stolen from the Jews and twisted beyond all recognition.
(3) Your god demands blood sacrifices and gives the thumbs up to genocide and polygamy, among other delightful things.
(4) You have never read your religious book in its original language and belong to a community that discourages you from doing so or from knowing anything about the history of its writing.
(5) You know all of this, and you are so afraid of it. In exchange for holding on to beliefs you know deep down are not true, you would deny your fellow human beings the rights they are guaranteed under the constitution. How "Christian" is that?
I really don't see what the fuss is all about. right-wing religious people should find something else to get outraged about. What about tax cheats? Wife beaters? Child molesters? Dog-fighters? Do they only care about who's doing what with who in the bedroom? If so, they have a really unhealthy fixation.
Most of the 70-80% "lunatic fringe" would probably be okay with gay marriage in their own state if it was voted into law.
But having a court impose it by fiat is outrageous to them, even when it's their own state court.
Much, much worse would be for a state like Utah to have Massachusetts law imposed on it because Obama rescinds the Defense of Marriage Act.
It's outrageous acts of judicial activists governing by fiat that bothers people. If you ask me for money, I might give you some. But if you run up behind me, bash me in the skull with a pipe wrench, and then empty my wallet while I'm laying there in a pool of blood, I'm going to be justifiably angry. Even if you only take a dollar, the tactics used to get it are worthy of a major backlash.
No court imposed it on *them*. I wish these people would get over the notion that gay marriage has anything to do with them. It's about gay people and *their* rights.
The courts are doing what the courts are supposed to do. Defend the rights of the minority against the prejudices of the majority.
Lizy- No one is trying to make laws saying tax cheats, wife beaters etc. are ok and normal. There is a difference.
Jong writes "In the past, gay people had to adopt their lovers to leave them their goodies."
I think that should read: "In the past, gay people who, like their heterosexual counterparts, were irresponsible when it came to estate-planning and did not make a will, could not leave their assets to whom they wanted."
In what jurisdiction, Ms. Jong, is one required to adopt someone in order to bequeath them their assets instead of just putting that intention in a Last Will and Testament?
Ever hear of challenging a will? Gay people have had their wills nullified countless times by homophobic (or greedy) family members.
Challenging wills happens to heterosexuals all the time as well; it is NOT exclusive to gays.
For example, suppose a gay man who has been in a heterosexual marriage for 35 years and has fathered 3 children then divorces his wife and moves in with his homosexual lover. He writes a will leaving everything to the gay lover. He then dies one year later.
Do you not see a justice in the ex-wife and the three children challenging such a will? If the new lover were heterosexual, most courts would side with the first family. Why a double standard just because the new relationship is a homosexual one?
There are two sides to every story and not all challenges to gays are out of spite or prejudice.
Good point. It won't stop the disinformation campaign, though. And the bleeding hearts will still go into spasms over the injustice of forcing these poor, persecuted people from using the due process and legal avenues readily available to them.
Precisely.
"legal avenues are readily available to them" to do many of the things that would result from legalizing gay marriange. The sad fact is many heterosexual couples don't even take advantage of them themselves.
For example, it is claimed that as many as 40% of people who die with property die intestate. Do you think their property will get distributed according to what they would have wanted/
I think not.
Way to miss the point.
Do you really want (you obviously need) an explanation of the many, many ways gays are limited in rights as compared to heterosexuals? Jobs, children, health benefits, the right to have whoever you want at your hospital bed as you die, "don't ask, don't tell", etc.
You're not concerned about accuracy, you're just looking for another way to avoid the fact that you THINK you deserve one set of rights while others deserve another.
You are wrong and it's as simple as that.
Please don't project your prejudices on to me.
I brought up a specific point which you didn't answer. Do you care to?
Others have mentioned that it often happens that despite what is written in a will, the deceased's family can challenge it...and often do it successfully.
Well, successful challenges to wills happen in heterosexual situations all the time, so that is not an answer. Indeed, challenges to wills are often successful when, for example, a husband disinherits a spouse in a will. The surviving spouse may assert certain rights to the decedent's property despite the will provisions. Often, the courts will give the surviving spouse what he/she would have received if the decedent had died intestate.
There are many ways of effecting what gay couples want without having to resort to changing the law and legalizing marriage: joint tenancy with rights of survivorship; living trusts; powers of attorney.
Not true. One of the things that legal marriage does is to CREATE KIN out of two previously unrelated people. Without this, it is very possible for the "next-of-kin" to challenge the will.
It has in fact happened countless times simply because the relatives did not approve of the choice of mate. Now, if the two people are married, the courts have repeatedly sided with the surviving spouse. But in the case of a same gender couple, WHO don't have this tie -- well, there are numerous examples of one partner being forced to leave the house they shared because he didn't automatically inherit the entire house upon the other partners death. And that partner's family decided to sell their half of the house.
The remedy, I would think, is "joint tenancy with rights of survivorship" which supercedes any will.
If a married person dies without a will the estate automatically go to their spouse. Even if a gay person has a will the biological family can still sue to get the estate. That's happened quite often. I've never heard of a gay person adopting their partner but it does sound pretty clever.
The anti-gay lunatic fringe?
80% are now a "lunatic fringe"
Get a grip, please.
80% in West Virginia, maybe. 65% SUPPORT gay marriage now in Massachusetts and they know a thing or two about it. Like that it doesn't cause the sky to fall. Not only that - Massachusetts continues to enjoy the lowest divorce rate in the country. Flamingly conservative Oklahoma has the highest. If I were as irrational as the typical right-winger I would claim cause and effect.
We aren't an island anymore, and global culture is here, whether you are prepared or not.
On Friday I travel to Spain, a nominally Roman Catholic country where they have same-sex marriage, and where those who oppose it stridently and anxiously are indeed increasingly seen as having an anachronistic mentality.
The screaming dimwits in front of Little Rock Central High School who proudly felt themselves to be a part of the mainstream 50--yes 50--years ago are now living, if they live at all, in a country where the next president is likely going to be a black man, and there is no doubt as to their having been fearful, deeply troubled people, maybe even lunatics, when they tried to stop black children form going to school.
Same-sex marriage is coming. If you are young enough to expect to live another 50 years, do you want to be remembered as having been on the obstinate, backward-looking side of the issue?
The author notes that marriage provides "useful perks", without noting the literally thousands of special rights, priveleges, compensation and benefits that government and society bestow upon those who chose to marry that are unavailable to those who are single. Instead of focusing on the question of gay marriage and whether we should extend those discriminatory "special rights" and benefits to even more people, we should be taling about getting government out of the marriage business altogether.
I'm a straight, white male, over 50 years of age, which means I'm racist and/or sexist according to Erica's PA-primary column, but I hope I'm allowed to weigh in here and totally agree with her this time.
If there is a God, and if that God is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, then I can only imagine that (s)he would be delighted that any two people who love one another and want to declare their love and commitment before their community and before God. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Well states, Erica.
You're right that the anti-gay haters don't think rationally but wrong to imply that this is something new. They've been at this long before even gay people themselves imagined the possibility of lawful marriage. They've opposed ever single piece of gay rights legislation tooth and nail for over forty years now. Thanks to their efforts it remains legal, for example, to fire an employee solely because of his or her sexual orientation in over thirty states. They opposed gay adoption rights despite the fact that there are thousands of unwanted children and literally hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have shown that gays are as good at parenting as straights. They opposed gay military service even after every other Western country had dropped their bans, if they ever had any, and reported that it hadn't compomised miltary morale or readiness in the slightest. And the list goes on. No, the hatred very much comes first with these people and rationalizations are only tacked on afterwards.
can someone / anyone please let me know why marriage is any of governments business in the first place?
let marriage be a religious sacrament where it belongs and get govt out of the bedroom entirely
Lust4Lost
Tax Reasons are why its the government's business.
That and all those people back in the day who were opposed to polygamy. I think they were the same people who supported prohibition...
Then you have to consider there wouldn't be alimony or palimony without government involvement...
So those are the reasons, like em or not. I agree the govt should get out of the bedroom, because I think people who don't want a committed relationship should be able to pay for sex legally.
Yes it is governments business, California is in financial straits and this will be a great way to raise money.
Yes it is governments business, California is in financial straits and this will be a great way to raise money. Boost economy.
The government has an obligation to enforce the public morals. It's one of the fundamental responsibilities under the Police Powers.
Why do you think gambling is illegal in many places? Why do you think prostitution is illegal in most places? Polygamy? Incest?
It's because there is a moral fabric in our cities, counties, states, and country that is worth protecting.
By arguing that the state has no power to enforce public morality, you open the door for all these other illegal behaviors.
there are ten definitions of the word 'marriage' on dictionary.com. only two refer to the union of man and woman. one refers to homosexual marriage. so it seems the answer has been there all along: marriage is not the strictly defined term some would have us believe.
One important correction:
It's not "gay marriage" just as it's not "interracial marriage" or "American marriage" or "heterosexual marriage". It's just plain marriage. Equal marriage.
Agreed. Just like there is no "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism". No matter who the victim or perpetrator is--male or female, black or white-- it's just racism or sexism.
Look up marriage in the dictionary. You have no right to redefine MY language! Have any kind of union you want - call it whatever you want, but NOT marriage. Why? Because it IS NOT.
Here's one definition of marriage, thankfully the courts decided to change the definition as society has evolved, you can call it whatever you want in your church, your church is not required to evolve:
"4. No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct.
If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are "white persons" as provided for in this act.
The clerk or deputy clerk shall use the same care to assure himself that both applicants are colored, when that fact is claimed.
5. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages.. "
http://tinyurl.com/6hj7rs
Ah, the good old days! Unfortunatrly, there are still way too many people who would like to return to them.
Your "argument" is ridiculous beyond comparison.
"Your" language changes constantly.
"Your" language is not protected by any laws.
No one here is writing in AdamX. We are all writing in English. It's not "My language." And really, if people want to marry it's not even "My business."
When two people commit to a life partnership it should be applauded, not castigated by paranoid small minded folks. Love is beautiful. I've been in a stable relationship for 28 years. I welcome others to this kind of deep and satisfying existence. We are secure, my wife and I, and neither of us could possibly be threatened by what others do.
It's time America grew up just a tad. Throw of the shackles of phony 20th Century morality. Mind your own business: it's the best course to avoid being a busybody.
If you want really traditional marriage then you'll also undoubtedly want to make divorce once again next to impossible. Funny how, for all the talk of the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage, I don't see many straight people clamoring to lose the right to get out of the situation as soon as it no longer pleases them.
What about all the straight people who get in and out of shack-up relationships, having babies willy-nilly (and sometimes having to do DNA tests to see who the father is)..that's not making a mockery of marriage and "procreation"?
You again?
Didn't we explain to you yesterday that language changes all the time?
You're like some pre-modern believer in magical language, as if words had power of us and could be invoked, like magic incantations.
Not "believing" in same-gender marriage is sort of like "not believing" in evolution. Same sex couples engage in long term, stable realtionships every where. They raise children- every where.
When same-gender marriage became the norm here in Massachusetts, nothing much changed for straight people. My marriage has not grown weaker because of gay marriage. The only thing that's really changed is that more people are in families that are recognized as valid by the state. The feds have yet to catch up, but just like rights for people of color, the states make the changes first then the feds will have no choice.
"Civil unions" are only equal if all marriages are considered to be so. Just like having a gold plated, diamond encrusted "coloreds only" water fountain was not acceptable in the 1960's, "separate" is still not equal.
Your argument is falacious. This is NOT about drinking fountains. This is about the meaning of WORDS. According to you, I am a bigot because I do not want you to redefine MY language! Absurd.
This is NOT about civil rights. It is about Words.
Last time I checked, fallacious had more than one L.
Maybe you do have your own language.
The term "gay marriage" may be verboten in AdamXish, but there's no problem with it being considered correct in English.
And your argument is specious. So what if the traditional dictionaries define marriage as a "union between a man and a woman"? English is not YOUR language, it belongs to all of us and it constantly changes. Grow up!
If it ain't your business, keep out of it.
"This is NOT about civil rights. It is about Words."
It's about the US Constitution, unfortunately for anti-gay folks, there is no reasonable argument preventing it, ultimately you will have to amend the US Constitution to stop it.
No, it's about actual human rights. It can mean the difference between whether children are put into foster homes when one parent dies or whether they can stay with the parent who raised them from infancy. It can mean whether a spouse who stays home to raise the children has any recourse if he/she is abandoned by the working partner. It can mean the difference whether your partner is deported or is able to become a citizen.
Yes, perhaps civil unions could guarantee all these rights, but it would require creating a separate but equal system of marriage law in every state, which would be contested at every level.
Besides, language is not static. "Marriage" is from middle English. The idea of a romantic marriage originated with the troubadours and included cermonies bonding two men together. In fact, mr. look-in-the-dictionary, I see this in the Random House unabridged:
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
If gay marriage became legal, you can bet the dictionaries would adapt. I'm sure you would as well.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
