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
The apostles, and others spent years together spreading the word-- they were basically away from women for years at a time--- they may have coupled off...
Didn't get married. Next.
John Boswell discovered and wrote about same sex marriages performed in Europe and elsewhere throughout time. This includes Christian marriages performed in Europe in the 13th century.
Words constantly change meanings - relax.
There are many definitions of marriage already on the books - dictionary.com
including one that seems to upset you
-A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
-any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
-a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
-a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
Well, Erica, this subject is a lot safer than the other one, isn't it? LOL. At least you didn't need to use Nair after writing the last article.
"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."
Unfortunately, the anti-gay lunatic fringe (and not even the lunatic fringe), does not respond to logic. Remember, according to them the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination (and of course, they must believe and obey everything in the Bible literally even though it was written two thousand years ago by human beings), and as far as they are concerned there is an unwritten 11th Commandment that says thou shalt not love someone of the same sex.
No amount of logic is of use there.
It is not biologically possible for gay folks to have kids. Next.
lesbians have kids all the time! what are you talking about? never heard of artificial insemination? hetero couples do all the time. never heard of adoption? hetero couples adopt all the time!
Oh, come on AdamX, I give you more credit than THAT!
For MANY hetero couples, having children is "not biologically possible"!
N E X T ! ! !
Not biologically possible for lots of people who are legally married to have kids. Funny that definition isn't in the dictionary.
I doubt if you really care what is in the dictionary you seem awfully worried that people who are different from you don't get the benefits of marriage.
Fortunately most Americaans are not now nearly so frightened by the thought of people they will never meet having a party thay will never know about.
I have been married to my husband for 33 years and I don't care if gay people get married. The meaning of our marriage is important to us. Other people getting married are no threat to our marriage. You seem quite worried.
Oh Geez...does that mean that my grandfather who is 94 and his new wife who is 93 are not allowed to get married in your opinion? Are you telling me that these two older people who are well past the ability to procreate need to live a life unprotected by our government?
Why are you so intent on worrying about other people reproductive systems and sexuality?
See my other post on this thread.
Next.
"the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination"
Hmmm, let's see the faulty logic here...
Homosexuality exists in nature, among animals. Some scientists even say the percentage of gay animals matches that in humans (some estimates I read had it between 10 and 15%.) So, according to the religious myth, animals were created by the same god who created humans. Therefore god created the "abomination" and then told humans that what he had himself made was an abomination... Doesn't make much sense, does it? But then again, show me where religion EVER makes any sense...
amanda85:
Religion makes sense here
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself"
and
The three most important things are Faith Hope and Love and of these the greatest is Love"
and
any comparable statement from a religion outside of Christianity...
Its the politics that spoil religion over time, when opportunistic people begin to interpret the teaching in a way to profit at the expense of the average believer.
Jesus was a Jew, wanted to throw out Dogma altogether... Basically all he was sayin was we have all these crazy rules, why can't we just all get along? That's all God wants us to aspire to...
They killed him for it...
Now you have Bible-Belters claiming to know the true message of Jesus Christ, though they skip over it every day by teaching that salvation is for the few...
If heaven is anactually place (or a state of being) then anyone with a good heart gets there, you don't need mumbo jumbo....Just Faith Hope and Love
especially Love
SeriousBlack: Oh, if only! They DON'T obey everything in the Bible literally! If they did, they might be more tolerant, as one of the most adamant lessons purportedly taught by the Christ was "love your neighbor as you love yourself"... THAT commandment they do definitely not obey literally.
And do they keep the Sabbath? Plenty of stores, run by so-called Chirstians, are open on the Sabbath! Oh, right now I cannot think of all the things they choose to not obey literally, but I have previouly done so. They pick and choose what and what not to obey, and then claim that the Bible is the word of God, and HAS to be obeyed. . . tough not necessarily by them, oh no!
I keep hearing the right say that if gay marriage is legalized then people will marry monkeys, horses, and, yesterday I heard a "conservative" broadcaster say that the recent California decision means one can marry a 7 year old. As he went to break, the radio host played Maurice Chevalier singing "Thank heaven for little girls" in his trademark French accent.
Could somebody please ask these right wingers to produce the people who are rushing to the pet stores to buy a new wife or husband? Where are they?
Have there been any legal appeals by child molestors seeking protection under the gay marriage decision? Please cite them.
I get the sense that the gay marriage issue plays big with some voters and I have never understood it because when you ask them what effect it has had on their lives they are unable to cite a single instance where their life was perceptibly affected. I guess that is why they feel compelled to turn to their imagination where they concoct strange sexual liasons that you would not even witness in a zoo.
The vast majority of yahoos who oppose gay marriage live lives where they do not even come into contact with gays at all.
there is no limit to how dumb the rt thinks Americans are.
Yeah, which is why they lose all the time.
Oops. Come to think of it....
This issue is NOT about being gay. It is about MARRIAGE. Next.
Now you're just becoming redundant and tiresome...
Most Americans are secure in their marriages, they don''t see the threat from other people having a ceremony. If you do see it as a threat, perhaps you should work on your marriage a bit more.
To be honest as a liberal I have often wondered why the conservative/facist element are always so anxious to have everyone march in lockstep with them. They haven't set much of an example of devotion to their spouses.
"I've never understood the objection to gay marriage."
Ask Obama, he objects to gay marriage.
Since he's a former constitutional law professor I'm sure he'll have a good argument that states' rights include the right to separate, but equal, treatment.
It's my understanding that many in the GOP are self loathing, closeted homosexuals.
How true. The more we see the climate made safe for people to be out, the less we will see of this self loathing brand of gays who are dangerous to everyone.
Yeah, you need to stop yourself right there, my friend. Hillary also objects to legalized gay marriage. Both Barack and Hillary support civil unions, not gay marriage. Hillary and Obama are identical with regards to their views on gay marriage and gay civil rights. So please do not imply that it is Obama alone who objects to gay marriage. The only candidate who was running for president who supports full gay marriage was Dennis Kucinich.
Obama was asked yesterday, following the ban life in CA, by a gay Vietnam War Vet, his stance on gay rights / partner benefits. Obama clearly said, without any qualification, that he supports full civil and governmental rights including rights to Social Security, property rights, hospital visitation rights, all civil and legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples, exempting church/religion (since, as a law professor, he understands the separation between church and state).
Of course, maybe Erica might want to ask her candidate, Hillary Clinton, why she and Bill (since Hillary claims Bill's experience in the WH as her own) made so many promises to those of us in the GLBT community while running for office, but then proceeded to pass both DOMA and DADT.
Hillary has been honest enough to state that gay marriage is not politically feasible.
Mr Hope & Change, however, has never provided any rationale for his position. Of course, he's in a bit of a bind. If he says supporting gay marriage is not politically possible for a viable Presidential candidate, then he's no longer the Transcendent, Yes We Can, Politics of Change; he's just another political hack pandering to voters. If he says he doesn't support gay marriage, even when indistinguishable from civil unions, then he's just a bigot.
Of course, Obama also avoids being photographed with Gavin Newsom like the plague, and had to be shamed into an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.
Thanks for that.
It would be nice if these court decisions could be handed down during non-election years, though. I don't know who or what is responsible for the timing of these things but it's not particularly helpful to the GLBT community in political terms even if it does provide relief in some states or jurisdictions.
actually Obama talks more about gays in mixed audiences and how we deserve equal rts.
You had to try it didn't you?
Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate that pro gay marriage, ""I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice."
He supports extending the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples.
Kucinich is a co-sponsor of the Permanent Partners Act (H.R. 832) which would allow American citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration into the country.
Gay and Lesbian Adoption: Kucinich supports giving gays and lesbians the same rights to adoptions as heterosexuals.
* On Gay Marriage: "Kucinich goes further than supporting civil unions for same-sex couples at the state level; he believes that, much like Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, federal law should protect civil unions, and that no state has a right to abridge basic rights to privacy. "
What a great man. He should have won the primary but I'll take Obama.
True !!
I agree. I wanted Kucinich, but have settled for Obama.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's keeping his own opinions private on this subject. I suppose it's a less courageous stance than Kucinich's, however.
I wonder how many generations it'll take for America to accept same-sex marriage?
It's a weird irony that one of the most advanced nations on earth is so saturated with an almost medieval piety.
I don't need ANY politician to think for me. Look up marriage in the dictionary. It is between a man and a woman by DEFINITION. You want to change the definition. I don't. Come up with a new word - I'll respect it. This is NOT about hate, bigotry, equal rights, etc. It is about the misuse of a word. I am against it, just as I am against calling an apple an orange. Next.
Check your dictionary again - it does refer to same sex marriage.
dictionary.com
Oh, I get it. This is a gag. Good one!
Reminds me of freshman essays in English 101: "The dictionary defines . . . ."
Those are always lucky if they get even a "C"
Just looked it up in the Oxfore OED, and merriam webster. Neither of them mention gended of spouses at all.
I assume your dictionary is issued by your pastor.
So if two people in love want to marry and they are of the same gender then you would step between them and say: "Stop, we cannot have anybody calling an apple and orange or misuse a word in the dictionary. You may not marry. Sorry, words are words and they must be respected. Your feelings about each other must take a back seat to the dictionary definition of 'marriage'"
Reductio ad absurdum. Look that one up.
Ah AdamX our government is a Republic meaning that we elect a representative to vote our interests. 2 Times in the past 2 years the legislature of Calfornia PASSED a bill to legalize Gay Marriage. The governor vetoed it saying he wanted the courts to decide. So are you not in favor of a representative government? Then maybe you are more of an anachist than you realize.
That is a good one.
Gay marriage promotes family.
A joke right.
It is not a very funny joke.
There is hope I guess.
For the most part most people ignore gay marriage as anything but a few people that want to cause more trouble in general without contributing anything specifically.
Take care everyone - don't forget to vote.
:-)
". . . people that want to cause more trouble in general without contributing anything specifically.
. . . "
Just the words I might use to describe you.
It depends on what your definition of family is.
If it can only consist of a core of one man and one woman who come together to reproduce biologically, then OK.
I prefer to regard the definition of family as two or more human beings who reside together and collectively provide a loving, supportive environment dedicated to raising other loving, well-balanced human beings.
But that's just me.
I don't think children are necessary for a marriage or family. Some people want them some don't, some are too old when they get married some are physically unable.
A lot of the gay marriage debate is about creating legally recognized families. The only way that non-related people become families in the eyes of the law are through adoption or marriage. You families made upp of people who care for each other do not, unfortunately constitute legal families.
Ahh yes, the Neo Con hate rears it's head once more.
GOP= G ay O ld P arty?
what would you say?
gay marriage helps promote stable family units.
There are many children involved in these families.
Only the narrow minded would subscribe to the hate attitudes you express.
I resent YOUR hate and bigotry. You don't know me. You make assumptions and prejudge my argument against gay marriage, as if it is an argument against gays.
You are dead right in your analysis, Erica. thank you for the blog. And it's nice to have something to agree with you on!
Ms. Jong, I didn't even bother to read your Blog, you're just trying to redeem your credibility.
Gay marriage has always been a Right, it's just been oppressed by homophobes. Your insight is irrelevant, at least to me.
I'm all for gay marriage, too - unless the gays happen to be pink men.
http://tinyurl.com/23lf4m
You're O.K.-- now-- if you'd only say a few nice words about Obama...
Thank God for the courts. Usually insulated from political incentives that often cause popular but wrong decisions, they are our only hope for ensuring fairness, equality, and justice. Protecting minorities from wrongful discrimination would never occur without the courts. GLBT people will now, at least in CA and MA, be able to enjoy all the benefits of marriage and the joys that that institution can bring to our lives. Unfortunately, there will also be gay divorces in the future - that TV courtroom drama will be a big hit, I'm sure - so the GLBT crowd will also enjoy some of the pain and sorrow of marriage. But to take that risk should be their choice. Without choice, there is no freedom.
Thank god for the courts? What planet do you live on?
Earth, which planet do live on?
Marriage, legal and binding has happened in the past and will in the future.
You just want "special "rights for people like you. Sort of like belonging to a country club defined by who you keep out.
I live in the USA, Planet Earth, where yes, Thank God, we have three branches of government, each there to check the wrong-headed decisions of the other two. What's the matter, you got a problem with other people's freedoms? Feeling threatened somehow? Relax, progress is often frightening, but fear of the unknown is usually just an internal issue. Everything will be fine. And I believe you'll come to realize that as well.
Well stated, Erica. Banning marriage for gays is so absurd it would be laughable if it weren't so cruel in its effects. Hurray for California, hurray for gay people.
One question: If gay marriage can be banned by referendum, why can't interracial marriage? interfaith marriage? None of it makes any sense.
Hate makes sense to Republicans because they can use it to win elections.
Divide and Conquer.. that's their motto.
Something we should all remember!!!
Unfortunately the victory will probably be short lived as the wingnuts already have an initiative for the ballot to deny equality in California.
It won't win. Not insane people will turn out in droves in CA because of Obama's candidacy.
Yes it will.
You know, Erica, eventually you're going to give me whiplash. My mind keeps careening back and forth between HATING you and LOVING you based on your blogs here!
Right now I have to admit I'm loving you again, but I suspect that in the near future I'll find reason to let you raise my blood pressure to boiling and cause my head to spin (and not in a good way).
Thanks for a thoughful and compassionate and pretty accurate assessment of gay coupling---at least from my perspective.
My perspective is totally different. First, I am shocked that ---regardless your sexual orientation and views; I have no idea about either and don't care-- you, a writer, served us such a simplistic, shallow, distorted, black and white and arrogant view of the issue.
So you think that being anti guy marriage equals being anti guy?! --NO WAY!!!!
Not any more than being anti heavy metal equals being anti music.
Not any more than being anti unjust wars equals being anti patriotism. Etc. Etc.
Personally, I am one of those millions of people who believe we should:
1. Stick to a definition especially the one which has survived thousands of years and has served so well the entire GLOBE, all its people.
2. If it ain't broke--don't fix it.
3. If it is not yours--don't use it without permission. Find, build, make your own definition, phrase, idea,name. What's wrong with a "partnership" " You don't like it?--Fine, think of some other word. In English or Greek and Latin if you prefer.
MY ARGUMENT IS ABOUT WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS NOT TO BE CHANGED AND DISTORTED AT WILL. If this unhealthy habit continues soon, very soon we won't be able to understand each other.
What you (and many others) are proposing is as harmful and confusing to our daily life and literature as the unfortunate 'political correctness'.
A "marriage" is a union of A MAN and A WOMAN and it should stay this way.
Wow talk about serving up a "a simplistic, shallow, distorted, black and white and arrogant view of the issue."
You are getting all up in arms about the fact that the court decision changes the lexicon and is "harmful and confusing to our daily life and literature as the unfortunate 'political correctness'.
Your basic position that the rights under the California Constitution of gay citizens in California should take back seat to your sense of literary stability is Laughable - so here goes:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
As to your point that are not specious on their face:
2. If it ain't broke--don't fix it. - It was Broke - it was determined to be unconstitutional discrimination.
3. If it is not yours--don't use it without permission - Sorry this really is specious and laughable. How do you claim to own it?
But thanks for the laugh. Reminds me of an English teacher I had back in school. She'd come to school all up in arms during the Sixties and point out the grammatical errors in newspaper articles as disgraceful distortions and degradation of our culture. She especially loved pointing out the errors in the speeches of many of the Civil Rights Activists of the time. No hidden agenda here nor there, right?
Bozena!
I'm a gay man who desperately tried to change, conform and otherwise adapt for a good twenty years of my life. It's the sort of self-crucifixion you wouldn't wish on anyone!
In the last five years (I'm now 52), I've made peace with my very conservatively-minded parents on this issue. I never thought I'd hear my bigoted, racist and homphobic father say things like: "well.. if two people who love each other want to get married, who cares if they're both guys?" What a blessed thing it was to observe my Dad's mind and heart open in a totally unexpected way!
What would it take to convice you to have a second look at this issue? I'm not accusing you of being mean-spirited or homophobic or some kind of evil monster. It's just that I get the feeling you haven't really examined this with an open mind.
I know there are some rather compelling arguments against homosexual relationships based on literal readings of holy scripture. My advice: be less attached to the literal reading of such texts, and follow the spirit of Jesus' example of unconditional love and tolerance.
What sort of religion is it that creates self-hate, and divides people into the saved and the damned on the basis of things they have no power to change in themselves?
A religion that has lost its love, that's what kind!
thanks for reading.
peace.
If
Bozena, I can see that you are not anti-gay. It's clear that you are Ok with gays as long as the keep to their place and don't demand the same rights as others. I need to refute some of your arguements.
1. Marriage as defined by the church can stay the same for all I care, but government recognized marriage has changed for thousands of years, I'd bet that each country today defines the rights of married couples differently in each country i.e. England vs USA. . This is a leagal definition that grants many legal rights to married couples that gay couples do not have on the Federal level.
2. If it ain't broke...Have you looked at the current divorce rates recently? Marriage is broke. In fact it could use a new prespective gay people bring to refresh the institution somewhat.
3. Not mine??? Marriage is the construct that 99% of people are brought up with as part of family. It is an institution that helps people define thair relationships. To have another thing not called marriage that is the SAME thing is just stupid.
4. I'm sorry to inform you Bozena, that meanings of words DO change over time. It is a part of any current, living language. Remember when GAY meant you were "happy and carefree"? You've been unbder a rock if you thing language and word meanings do not change. It's YOU that needs to change, my dear.
Bozena, I am also a linguist. You should know that meaning is inherently unstable, and that words and their meanings are conventionally defined (by social groups) and do not have static meanings. Your position based on your philosophy of language is unconvincing. Being against gay marriage, whether it means you are anti-gay or not, does have the effect of relegating gays to second class citizens. I personally have no problem with religious marriage being defined according to specific faiths, but federal and state marriage should not have such prejudicial restrictions.
"Voter" used to not include women and those without property; "free" used to not include most of the population; and "marriage" may too evolve.
Try reading, "The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell
From wiki -
Rites of so-called "same-sex union" occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell pointed out such evidence as an icon of two saints, Saints Sergius and Bacchus (at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai), and drawings, such as one he interprets as depicting the wedding feast of Emperor Basil to his "partner", John.
The ceremony performed in the 13th century and documented -
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
1. A community gathered in a church.
2. A blessing of the couple before the altar.
3. Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages.
4. The participation of a priest.
5. The taking of the Eucharist.
6. A wedding banquet afterwards.
All of these are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th to early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
as others have mentioned, she is just vainly trying to redeem herself.
We are still waiting for Hillary to Come to Jesus on this.
Neither Clinton nor Obama support equal marriage rights for gays. Both Clinton and Obama support providing federal rights to gays who are in state sanctioned unions.
There is NO difference in the positions of Clinton or Obama on this.
Neither candidate supports federally MANDATED civil unionis in all 50 states. they each want the states to be able to continue to discriminate if they so choose.
Yes, Obama supports total repeal of DOMA and Clinton supports repeal of the portion that stops the fed govt from giving benefits to gay couples.
But, this is a difference without a distinction. The portion Clinton would not repeal is the part that says states don't have to recognize marriages from other states. And, if you think a total repeal supported by Obama would make states recognize gay marriages from others states, you need to rethink that.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeessss!!!!!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
