So the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is unconstitutional. There’s talk that this issue may be the wedge issue of the upcoming elections. Hmm. Let’s take a look at what the common people are saying about it:
“Marriage” is OUR term, and belongs to the union of man and woman. I have no problem with what two people – man / woman, man / man, woman / woman – do in the privacy of their own homes, and I support all mutually healthy, mutually happy relationships between two consenting adults. If an “alternative couple” (for lack of a better term, and not meant to be judgemental) want to pursue some kind of legal and recognized civil union, I have no problem with that either – but you may NOT call it “marriage”. That’s OUR term; you’ll have to invent your own. To attempt by those alternative couples to commandeer this definition is an offense to the majority of Americans who consider this term to be one seeped in Christian “tradition” (NOT a dirty word, and not a word for which we need apologize), morality and values. “No fair!!”, you and the ACLU cry? Au contraire, it’s VERY fair, because that’s what the MAJORITY says. We ARE a culture of Christian traditions, morals and values, whether some individuals are Christian or not. Our definition of “marriage” is a deep, sacred part of our culture, and one which I and the overwhelming majority of Americans will not compromise. Deal with it.
Which may be the silliest thing I’ve read this week.
That quote was copied from an email forwarded by a friend of mine. He’s a burgeoning angry liberal like me, just now getting himself seeped in the words of Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others. Moore’s new book, “Dude, Where’s My Country” features a paragraph about how to talk to your conservative brother-in-law. My friend sent me the email because the quote therein was the written opinion of his own brother. “How do I talk to him about gay marriage?” he asks me.
So here we go. The following is how I talk to conservatives about gay marriage. It follows my general precept of Ask Them To Defend Their Position. So many conservatives get their talking points spoon-fed to them via Rush and Fox and so on that they can’t defend their positions. And those that try often find their positions are indefensible…
I don’t care what two people do behind closed doors, but marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman!
I see. So you do support the right of gay people to be together, to be in love, to support each other, but they shouldn’t get to call that union “marriage”?
Right.
And marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why is it that we have a legally-recognized state of marriage? Why isn’t marriage just a religious thing?
Well, because society benefits from strong families supporting their children. Government favors those who choose to marry, because their marriage leads to a stronger society.
I see. So we give those married people a tax break, legal recognition of partnership, rights to comfort their sick spouse, collect insurance benefits, protect shared property — we do all of that to promote strong families and their children. Tell me, then, why do we provide these special rights to childless infertile couples? They’re not going to have any family to promote! It sounds like the non-breeders are collecting a benefit they don’t deserve.
Marriage isn’t just for raising children. It’s about protecting the traditional couple as well.
OK, I get you. So, marriage should just be between a man and a woman. So, in effect, aren’t you giving straight people “special rights”?
No, not at all. Like I said, I don’t care if same-sex couples want to be together…
They just shouldn’t have the legal recognition, the tax breaks, the rights and protections of a marriage. One group of people gets special rights, another group doesn’t.
Well, they can get all those protections already. There’s living wills and partner benefits for insurance and so on.
None of which are as easy to get as a marriage, which confers all those benefits in one legal recognition that is recognized throughout all fifty states and other countries. You’re requiring gay couples to jump through hoops that straight people never have to deal with to acquire rights that are inferior to those of straights. Again, you’re giving straight people special rights.
If it’s that big of a deal, then they can have a “civil union” — just don’t call it marriage!
And just what is this “civil union” you speak of? Would this legal state carry with it all of the recognition and rights that straight marriage would provide?
Yes, just don’t call it marriage!
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… let’s call it a goose! All right, I could accept that. A civil union, which confers the same rights as a marriage, well, fine. But why call it a civil union? Why not call it “queerage?” Or how about “marrifag?” Is that all you’re worried about, the word marriage?
Don’t be condescending. Marriage is a very important religious tradition, based in our Christian heritage…
Ah, there’s where the problem lies. It’s about religion. Look, no one is telling you that your church has to perform gay marriages, er, civil unions. You can continue to believe that queers are going to hell and that marriage is for straights only.
But the issue here is legal marriage, a civil state, not a religious state. And as a civil recognition and federal benefit, our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for everyone, and that includes people that don’t believe in your religion and don’t share your sexuality.
Speaking of the Constitution, that’s just how were going to stop this gay marriage thing: a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a state between a man and a woman only! Thirty-seven states already have passed resolutions to that effect, and we only need thirty-eight states on our side to pass an Amendment.
I wish you luck with that, truly I do. I’d like to see such a Constitutional amendment. Tell me, when that amendment goes into effect, will I be able to marry a man?
Of course not.
How about a transsexual? She was born a man, but had surgery to become a woman. Her penis was removed and an ersatz vagina was created and she takes female hormones.
I suppose so…
OK, can I marry a pre-op transsexual? He dresses and behaves and lives as a woman. He even has breast implants and takes female hormones. However, he hasn’t yet had the operation to remove his penis.
No, you couldn’t marry him, at least not until he’s had the operation.
OK, so me and my pre-op tranny go to the altar to get married. He’s beautiful in his fine white wedding dress. How is anyone going to know he’s a he and not a she?
Don’t be stupid. He’d be “male” on his birth certificate.
Sure, but birth certificates can be faked. Me and my pre-op tranny are at the altar with a faked birth certificate. Now how will anyone know I’m marrying a sweet girl with a penis? They wouldn’t. So he and I get married! At what point does the earth tremble and all straight marriages are suddenly sullied by our transgression?
That’s a stupid argument.
No, it’s the heart of the argument! I’m in love with someone and I want to share my life, declare my love, and enjoy the legal recognition and benefit of marriage, and now you are wanting to pass a Constitutional amendment that basically says my wife can’t have a penis! I swear she’s going to get it surgically removed as soon as we can afford it!
But by your amendment, marrying my tranny would be illegal. So, how are we going to police this crime? Should all married couples be forced to drop trou and prove that one and only one of them is equipped with a penis?
This is stupid. You just won’t recognize that this is a Christian Nation, and that the majority of people hold marriage to be a sacred act, tied to our traditions, morals, and values.
Well, first of all, we are not a Christian nation, we are a secular nation populated with a majority of Christians. But that’s an argument for another time. Second of all, traditions, morals, and values change, and just because something is traditional doesn’t make it right.
For example, for many years many states had laws on the books against miscegenation…
Missed Generations, huh?…
No, miscegenation, couples of different races. It was against the law for a white person to marry a black person. That was a tradition. That was seen as a high moral value – keeping the races pure – and they could quote you Bible verses to support it. And even though a majority of good Christian people in the South held that marriage was a sacred act, and their morals and values could not allow blacks and whites to marry, wise judges and lawmakers realized that the law must treat us all equally regardless of race.
This is different. You don’t choose to be black…
And now we’re going to that “gayness is a lifestyle choice” argument of yours, aren’t we? Yeah, I’ll bet all those gay guys were in high school thinking, “gee, what could I do to make myself unpopular and put my physical security and life in danger… I know, I’ll be gay!”
But you know what, it doesn’t matter if it is a choice or if it is genetic. What you are supporting is the awarding of a legal status of rights and obligations to a particular class of people — heterosexuals. This is completely counter to American morals, values, and traditions! You’re saying that if a person wants to marry me, that right is subject to the person’s gender. Allowing only straight marriage is inherently sexist!
I’m not! I told you I’d support a civil union!
Yeah, but it has to have a different name. One’s called “marriage” one’s called “civil union”. Separate, but equal. Does the term “Plessy v. Ferguson” ring a bell? How about “Brown v. Board of Education”
Sounds like a wrestling match and a lawsuit.
Well, you’re close. “Plessy” was a Supreme Court decision that defined the use of “separate but equal” facilities for blacks and whites that led to the Jim Crow laws in the post-Civil-War South. “Brown” was the decision that ruled that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently inferior to facilities provided for all, as separate facilities lead to segregation. I’d argue that a “civil union” is a separate, but equal solution to the issue of gay marriage, and if we go that route, “civilly unified” partners are going to face discriminations that married partners would not. Again, you want the queers to be “seen but not heard.” As long as their cohabitation is called “civil union”, you and your married friends can continue to think of yourselves as morally, if not legally, superior.
And that’s what it is really about, people. It’s homophobia and hatred and segregation. For the Christian Wrong knows that recognition of gay marriage, be it civil union or true marriage, unlocks the door to federal recognition of homosexuality as a protected class of people in this society, and they’ll no longer be able to ignore, mistreat, bash, discriminate against, or deny the existence of homosexuals. They’ll be forced to live beside, work with, and generally mix with [GASP] gay people!
That’s what they fear. They will no longer be able to feel morally superior to those disgusting queers! That their religious pedestal they stand upon to demean the heathens living among them will be knocked out from underneath them, and their spiritual superstitions will no longer be the strongest force in politics. They can’t stand the idea that they are not “the chosen people”, that they will be treated no better and no worse than the queers, pagans, hippies, Muslims, and atheists.
____________________________________________________________________
|
_ | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/
| Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this
| é 2003 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.
