I went to a wedding last weekend, a lovely affair. But a couple weeks earlier, there was a party, and at least one of the guests used that “ball and chain” language that I THOUGHT went out of fashion last century.
It seems to me that marriage IS under attack, usually by people who are in it. The standard, now a cliched statement from straight people in “support” of gay marriage is something like: “Why shouldn’t they have a chance to be as miserable as we are?” Meh.
I’m curious about how this Prop 8 case will work out. If it is not appealed, then gay marriage would be permissible in California. If it IS appealed, and Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, then gay marriage would likely be permissible in all of the Ninth Circuit. And if the case goes to the Supreme Court, which most people think is inevitable -though I’m not sure, and Prop 8 loses, gay marriage could be legal across the country. BTW, you can read the transcript of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger HERE.
My thought about the case NOT going to SCOTUS is that if the Prop 8 supporters thought they were going to fail there, perhaps they would cut their losses earlier. Also, there’s the matter of standing; as Arthur and Jason noted in their 2Political podcast recently, only certain parties are allowed to appeal. As the named defendant, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could appeal, but based on his support for gay marriage, that’s unlikely to happen.
In the “it would upset me if it weren’t so predictable” department, Human Rights Campaign reports that at one of their rallies on their anti-equality summer tour, the president of the far-right National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had the gall to compare their bigoted cause to that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “What if Martin Luther King, Jr. would have listened to those who tried to silence him and tell him that his faith has no place in the public square?” he asked. He then told the crowd they were “part of a new civil rights group.”
Conversely, here’s a tongue-in-cheek literal reading of Leviticus 20:13 making gay sex Biblically OK.
So, my questions:
1) Is the culture hostile to marriage? This could be anything you have in mind, from inflexibility in the workplace to tax laws.
2) Would it be better if marriage were separated as a legal function of the church, allowing churches the ability to give their religious blessing, similar to what is being espoused here? I appreciate the point, but, as a matter of strategy, I’m very much against it. Removal of the state function of marriage – and is IS a state function, as in “By the powers invested in me by the state of New York” – runs so contrary to centuries of embedded precedent that it will inevitably be perceived as an attack on the church, even by many who are supportive of gay marriage.
3) Please someone explain to me, how does gay marriage supposedly threaten heterosexual marriage? Seriously. Not how you feel, but what the argument is. Is it that…no, I really don’t know.
4) Will the Perry case make it to the Supreme Court? If so, how will the court rule? I’ve convinced that they will rule to overturn Prop 8.
1. No, I don’t think so. In many respects I think it helps being married. Certain rights and issues just happen and are accepted. When you aren’t, then you have to argue to get special requests for them.
2. I, too, think it should be at the state level. Though part of me thinks that if gay marriage is accepted, it should be accepted country wide in one fell swoop. However, that destroys the idea of letting the states govern themselves.
3. I doesn’t, in my opinion. Gays that want to get married are already living together. How does that destroy heterosexual marriage now? Again, it doesn’t.
4. I hope it allows gay marriage, but I have a funny feeling that it won’t.
I don’t know this case, or anything about the law in the US, but personally, no, I don’t feel threatened by gay marriage, nor do I feel that we as married people are victimised or treated unfairly by the state. I do feel that those who choose not to marry, and also those who are gay and have same-sex partners are treated unfairly, since a lot of the time they can’t even see their loved one in hospital in those critical ‘family only’ situations.
I can only assume that those people who feel that the institution of marriage is under threat by the proposal to allow gay people to marry are suffering from a fragile sense of superiority. ‘Heterosexual couples only’ allows them to feel special and approved in a way that would be devalued if gay people were allowed to join in. Yep, does sound a little bit like playground squabbling, doesn’t it?
Gay people in the UK can have legally recognised ‘civil contracts’ which give them ‘the same legal rights and benefits’, but they cannot be married.
If all gay couples were allowed to get married today, I would still be married to my wife, wouldn’t hurt the sanctity of our marriage one bit.
Same-gender couples should be able to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage.
The only possible rationale for the whole “gay marriage is a threat” thing that I can think of is the argument for marriage from a fairly strict Biblical perspective. As I generally think it’s folly to argue ANYTHING from a fairly strict Biblical perspective, I just end up ignoring such arguments entirely.
http://jingleyanqiu.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/poetry-awards-4thursday-poets-rally-week-26-plus-more/
two awards on the bottom for you,
the most creative blogger award,
u r a rare friend award….
cheers!