Hear hear, Richard. And here's my "like" button.
I once thought, why mimic a failed heterosexual instititution. Why give heterosexuals a gloat in trying to enter their exclusive club. Why allow your tormentors to dis you for seeking something biblically sanctioned and, apparently, only for the majority? Don't queers know 50% of all marriages end in divorce, but heterosexuals hypocritically claim that gays are "promiscuous." I don't mince words (no pun intended). I don't like alphabet soup (some gay sites actually have it GLBT, while some lesbian sites have it LGBT, as if it mattered: categories are inherently untrustworthy, something I learned from Buddhists). To me, you are straight or queer. I reserved the right to re-appropraite that word much as urban blacks during the Civil Rights movement re-appropriated and freely referred to themselves as "niggers." Yes, niggers. I am not going to be politically correct and type "n***r" or refer to "the 'N' word." Queers and niggers. The objections to use of either are themselves a form of tyranny, deathly to the artist, who must portray, say, a Southern cracker by quoting him verbatim, as in the Otto Preminger movie, Hurry Sundown, where the late Burgess Meredith, lest she once against sip from the "Sacred Chalice," actually refers to a celebrant at Mass as "an old syphilitic nigger woman." But, I digress.
Sooner or later it dawned on me that marriage is a right. It does not make any difference if you are doing it in a church or getting hitched by, e.g. a minister of the Universal Life Church. (We chose the latter: a friend brought a couple of joints, we smoked them, and we exchanged vows to the most laid back non-religious, "spiritual" marriage ceremony in the 1970s. Friends came over for drinks, a wonderful mixture of gay and straight, old and young, three or four races -- it was L.A.) If gay men wish to emulate heterosexuals, have at it. It isn't the business of the government to dictate that one type of people can do something and another type cannot. The Constitution is an expansive, rather than restrictive, document.
Finally, in my early 60s, I began to see that the only possible reasons anyone would have to oppose such things (and things like contraception and abortion) is religious. These people read no science so they would not know that Sodom was built on a time-bomb pocket of mephitic gasses left over from billions of years earlier (not six days in one week circa 5,000 BCE). They do not educate themselves in archeology and anthropology and thus would not know that the story of Lot in Sodom illustrates not that the denizens of that city on the plain were homosexual but that their "sin" was xerophobia. They fashioned procrustean beds to stretch nomadic tribes coming in off the desert and looking for sustenance, a meal and a wife or daughter, freely given, except in Sodom. To claim that Sodom teaches anything justifying homophobia is just plain ignorant. Nor do these people appear to have any problem with Lot impregnating his own daughters after his wife is turned into a delusion. It is like saying, homosexuality is bad but incest is good.
And when the only justification one can find for one's positions on such matters as gay marriage is a biblical (Koranic, Torahnic) proscription, one's position is inherently flawed. Either science is correct and religion is wrong, or science is wrong and religion is correct. It's Darwin or Genesis. I choose reason over superstition. It's that simple. I totally support gay marriage. I have to, I'm a divorce lawyer.
Thoughtful response James. That last zinger made me laugh. Friday my partner and I were at our financial planner who recommended a pre-nup. A bit late - we've been together 15 years. I just responded, if he leaves me I assume I'm screwed - I'll just have to work till I drop, which is probably true anyway. And we seem to be past having any drama - but I understand the issue. When we got together, it was less "Oh I love you so much, Oh roses and hearts and champaigne and violins" than it was "Well, we're comfortable together, it's nice, it would be more practical to combine our resources". That is the practical midwestern farmer in me, and the practical rust-belt chinese in him.
Oh, SB. How I envy you. To be at that stage of comfort with another person. To be past the fire works (which is GREAT by the way) to the state of total acceptance by another. Comforting, warm, all encompassing, like a down comforter on a cold December morning. You know I lost my wife a few years ago, and we were just getting to that stage. I think of you, and others who are there, and it brings a smile to my face and heart. Somewhat wistful, of course, but genuine.
Enjoy, my friend, enjoy. Peace to you, and to your partner. My best. As usual, be well. Peace.
Many conservatives (like Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas) believe that the Constitution is “dead.” Under their “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution no right that is not explicitly in the Constitution is not a protected right; additionally, they believe that the federal and state governments have no rights not clearly enumerated within the document’s four walls. Under this dogmatic, conservative view of the Constitution the only way rights should be achieved is by amending the Constitution. Of course, those three have no difficulty abandoning their supposed steadfast principles when it comes to making sure a Republican becomes president but that’s a topic for another day.
The reason I mention all of this is that I truly believe the Court, as it’s currently constituted, would strike down attempts to legalize gay marriage on a nationwide basis. That’s what makes the Prop 8 case from California so interesting—if the Court hears the case it could limit its ruling to a specific question of State law regarding the validity of the government’s decision not to carry out the “will of the people"; alternatively, the Court could overreach and rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage all together. If that’s the way they go our side will be in some trouble. But conservative judges would never be activists would they?
There are so many benefits to marriage: greater sexual satisfaction, better physical and mental health, less depression and alcohol problems, lower mortality risk. Married people are more likely to volunteer services, make more money, and contribute to the affluence of a neighborhood.
I don't see how keeping anybody from reaping these benefits can be justified.
For it. Anything else is discrimination. I care about this particular subject a great deal because someone very dear to me is gay and hopes someday to be able to marry. I really can't imagine how two people who care for each other enough to make a legal commitment can cause any harm to our social fabric.It would seem to me to strengthen it.
Plumbing is irrelevant to love.
We live in a very progressive area many Gays and Lesbians, we moved here seventeen years ago to escape small mindedness in the suburbs.