While we dance in the streets and pat ourselves on the back for being a nation great enough to reach beyond racial divides to elect our first African-American president let us not forget that we remain a nation still proudly practicing prejudice.
I have heard this day described as one of transcendence where Americans came together to prove that we are, above all, a nation of fairness. World witnesses wrote that we rose above ideology, politics and bigotry to achieve a great moment for America. Meanwhile, on this same Election Day, we great Americans passed laws as heinous as any Jim Crow legislation. We great Americans reached out and willfully put our name to language that denies an entire minority group their equal rights.
Of course I am referring to the states of Florida, Arizona and California passing legislation to specifically deny gay people from entering into the contract of marriage. Actually, that's not true. We can still get married, just not to each other. Yes my friends, Florida and California have now made it legal for gay men and lesbians to marry as long as we don't marry our partners. How much sense does that make?
Now, before you rise up on your high horse to holler, "We're not against Civil Unions, just Gay Marriage", let me once again explain that THE SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS NOT EQUAL. And even if it were, civil unions are simply not equal to marriage.
Let me give you a simple example that anyone can follow. John and Jim are registered as domestic partners and so, just like a married couple; Jim is covered by John's employee health care. That's really nice. BUT... since the IRS does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnership Jim has to pay income tax on the value of this coverage. So, unlike a married couple, John and Jim are penalized hundreds of dollars for not being married. That's not fair. That's not in the spirit of the civil union legislation. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the inequality being offered.
Listen, my fellow Americans, I am only asking that we get sensible about this controversy. Gays are not asking for religious blessings. We are not asking for everyone to come to our weddings. We are not asking the government to force churches and synagogues to perform marriage rituals or even to allow us into their tax-exempt edifices. We are simply and forcefully demanding equal protection under the laws of this nation as tax paying, voting, property owning citizens. I want no more or less protection than granted any heterosexual to control and distribute my holdings.
State sanctioned marriage is a civil contract period. A contract is not a judgment of moral value. It is a legal agreement between two parties that testifies to a meeting of minds between those consenting entities. It is not a religious act or rite and so has nothing to do with Adam and Eve or Steve or even Harvey. I often say that if you want to really want to understand the contract of marriage just ask anyone who has been divorced. The marriage contract is one of property rights. Or maybe you can look in the bible to see what Adam had to say about divorce since Eve was his second wife.
So, while we rightfully celebrate the election of our first African American president, let us take a moment to mourn the passage of three new laws legalizing prejudice. Of course there will be those who claim that voters were only protecting the institution of marriage to whom I would suggest it is just as likely that Obama's supporters were only voting against W. Breaking the lock on my door doesn't make your home any more secure.
Because there is no reason for them not to. We have allowed religion to get entangled with government and civil rights and we should not have. While the religious right attempts to rewrite the founding fathers intent, there really was a wall between religion and government. Religion was to form the values that let you vote your and your constituents consciences, it was not to be a part of the political process as it has become.
I don't want to be married in a church that would not celebrate my marriage to my husband. Why anyone would is beyond me. That doesn't mean that I should not have the rights and priveleges that heterosexual married couples take for granted. It just means I won't be attending certain churches.
For those who say that this is a moral issue, then don't marry a person who is the same sex as you. I won't come to your wedding and you don't have to come to mine. But I don't think you shouldn't have the right to wed the person you love either.
Wake up; stop scapegoating black folks, or anyone else; and get to work to enact LAWS to protect gay marriage rights!
I and my family supports the rights of gay couples to share in marriage. Always will. Marriage is about LOVE. Yes, two persons of the same gender can love each other. There is nothing wrong with this. So why would we deny marriage rights to anyone? Is this bigotry what we need to support to make our children's lives happier when they grow up to make their own choices? Do we deny marriage rights, because we deny marriage rights? OR, we can support the concept that everyone can join in the benefits. Marriage cannot be the disqualifier to equal rights.
Are there African Americans in the gay community? Yes. Are there gays in the African Amreican community? Yes. We will come to realize this, but probably only after some nasty things are said on both sides. It's the oldest Republican tactic: pit your enemies against their friends, and reap rewards. They have done it for years with African Americans,gays, feminists, etc.
As for saying "Do something to enact LAWS" just exactly what do you propose we do right now? We are still reeling from a blow to the stomach, and the coup de grace is that one group we thought would understand, didn't. One group who KNOWS how it feels to be less than full citizens said "But it's ok that you aren't full citizens." Don't you think we have the rigth to be mad?
I would also request insted of saying your are married, you say that you are DP'd, or civil unioned, and that you refer to your spouse as your partner.
Then you are in a better position to decide if seperate is really equal.
I live in Utah. Southern small town Utah. And I'm sick of people being denied their basic civil rights. I now have signs in my front window saying "Gay Rights Are Civil Rights".
I guess it is up to some of us to help drive this home. The religious left played a big role in civil rights issues in the past. I don't think MLK Jr. would approve of this.
I am sure there are a lot of religious folks in the gay community, but let's face it, this primitive thinking goes hand and hand with religion. So long as people in power believe in talking snakes and arks, we can't expect them to think clearly.
Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists and Evangelicals etc. should all pay taxes. This government support of delusional people must stop now.
Against gay marriage? Don't have one!!
Personally, I think consenting adults should be able to legally unite in whatever form they deem best for them, whether that's one man, one woman, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, or a man and a couple of women or vice versa. All should be granted the same rights under the law. But that's just me.
this is a great article. Often I read articles on the huffington post and they make clear much of the issues i try to explain to my conservative family members. Much of my family is LDS and have a hard time separating the issues of church and state. I feel compelled to challenge them to contemplate what exactly they support and why. They are great people who i believe need to be taught and informed is all.
So, when I read this well written article I automatically thought to send it to my family members to explain the situation better than I am able... but then i come to sarcastic sentences such as "Or maybe you can look in the bible to see what Adam had to say about divorce since Eve was his second wife. " which i know will only put them on the defensive-causing them to close their minds.
I think like Obama, if you will approach an article such as this important one while considering people like me who would love to share this with a more conservative audience then maybe its a step closer to change. Just a thought. Great article though.
Put yourself in the self-righteous heterosexual's shoes for just a moment.
Want to to give equal rights to gays and lesbians? Uh.... no.
Want to give equal rights to gays and lesbians or give them a tax break for having to accept less than equal rights, a tax break you can never get? Uh... well... wait a minute here.... let's take another look at this. You know come to think of it, it doesn't hurt me one bit for them to marry....
I've pitched this for 20 years and no one ever answers why NOT focus more on the tax issue.... but I'm glad Melissa Ethridge got the idea whether from me or just out of plain ol' common sense. Why doesn't this article mention her name, let alone work with her to start a real movement of gays who refuse to continue to pay equal taxes for less than equal rights?
Before she stepped up to the plate, my heart went out to all gays and lesbians over this issue, but now that she has and it looks like the rest of you are leaving her out there to try and do this alone I think "Show a little civil disobedience or at least explain to us why you won't."
When some are denied the same basic civil liberty others are permitted to enjoy it's descrimination.
What was at stake was the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage. The tax benefits, health care rights, social security and a host of other privileges provided by the state to committed couples. Somehow bigots translate that into a Religious Marriage. Must be in some new fangled bible: "And he said to go forth and file your income tax heterosexually" didn't get that copy yet and as a good UU you would think I would be up on it. Go figure.
So, let me try again. We currently have 'civil marriage' (sanctioned by the state) we call it 'marriage.' We also have 'religious marriage,' (sanctioned by the state and by a religion), again, we just call it 'marriage." If we clarified that there are two forms of marriage - civil marriage and religious marriage - and that civil marriage was all that was under discussion, it might cool down the tone of the debate. Not for everyone, but perhaps for enough people to tip the vote the other direction.
Also, I wasn't trying to suggest that any religion had a monopoly on inclusiveness, just trying to be clear that not all religions would oppose same-sex marriages.
Hope this is clearer, and all the best to you and your partner!
We could, of course, declare (as a country) that marriage is strictly a legal thing.
And only legal when someone at the courthouse is in charge.
Religious marriages are fine and dandy, but of no legal standing.
By the way, a few years ago I was talking to a nice Baptist woman in a small, conservative country town who agreed with me that with the decline in any kind of marriage in our area that people who really did want to go through the ceremony ought to able to.
Seriously, i don't want marriage lite. I don't want something that looks like marriage, but lacks the substance.
But maybe that is just me. Having grown up in Alabama and having learned about some of the things done to African Americans here because of their race may have influenced me just a little.