Friday, April 18, 2008
freedom to marry ...
Last year around this time I did a little blog post called "thinking of commitment" after attending a wedding with Kay. It got me thinking about a commitment ceremony that I had attended in Ohio several years back of two women, one of whom worked with my ex and who we had biked with once, who had invited us to their version of a marriage. They were both activists for gay rights and managed to have a beautiful ceremony while still drawing attention to the fact that they couldn't get "married" because of the way the law was and they encouraged us to fight against the so-called "Defense of Marraige Act" that Ohio subsequently passed like just about every other state where the Republican Party managed to put it up for a vote. But I digress ... I noticed a link to my blog in my sitemeter report this week that my commitment post has been linked to a website called freedomtomarry.org and specifically the West Virginia section. I just thought that was very cool.My Constitutional Law professor once wrote an awesome op-ed piece (if you can find it) about how he just couldn't see how sharing the word "marriage"with same-sex couples in any way diminished his marriage (one of the frequent arguments against same-sex marriage). Hell, most heterosexual marriages end in divorce now (mine did) so what are those folks trying to protect? Before you say "the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution" then let me say that the same folks who want to deny same-sex "marriage" also want to deny "civil unions" and gay adoption so I'm not buying that argument. These Defense of Marriage Acts tend to reach farther than prohibiting same-sex couples from the legal benefits of marriage but also seek to make it more difficult for them to adopt, to get insurance together, to own property jointly, to visit each other in the hospital, and various other aspects of life that we just take for granted as so-called "normal heterosexuals". I don't understand the types of animosity and unkind actions that the so-called "moral majority" likes to throw around while cloaking themselves in the belief that they are following the teachings of Jesus while still digging into the Old Testament whenever they want to burn someone at the stake of dish out some "eye for an eye" type of retributive justice. Honestly, if Jesus himself showed up at many of today's fundamentalist/evangelical (or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves now) churches he would be tarred and feathered for being a communistic, bleeding-heart, hippie-liberal son-of-a-bitch for daring to speak out for those who are least cared about in society and advocating peace and love over hatred and dogma.
But I digress again ... I'm reading a very interesting book right now. It's called American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century by Kevin Phillips. Interestingly enough, when the author talks of "radical religion" he doesn't mean Islam ... he means American fundamentalism/evangelism and all of it's intolerant and emotionally charged teachings and preachings. I'm currently in the second section about the way that American religion grew to be so fractionalized with so many different sects rather than with larger churches and organizations of Europe. It's very interesting stuff ... and frightening too how these groups have amassed so much power rising out of southern reconstruction and eventually wheedling their way into politics ... particularly through the Republican party in the American south. It just makes my skin crawl. It has been a very informative read though ... the section on American dependence on oil and our foreign policy as it relates to the oil problem was fascinating as well.Anyway, to finish my original point. I'm thrilled to be listed on a page that is dedicated to freedom to marry. I think that this country needs to be more open and less closed. That is supposed to be what America was all about when it first started. Yet, somehow we seem to be more about creating conflict and amassing wealth anymore ... and perhaps historically as well. Perhaps the moniker of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" was more of an ideal and less of a practical reality. That would certainly seem to be the case from what I see in my court every day. But I digress ... for the last time ... for now.
Oh, and today is my one year anniversary of getting my law license in West Virginia (though I'd been a lawyer for over 5 years at the time).
Check out other posts in this series:
- thinking of commitment ...
- hokey religions and ancient weapons ...
- adventures in gay marriage (california version)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Jedi, Jedi, Jedi -- it is so good to have friends you disagree with. Otherwise you might as well be a cult member.
Let me say this upfront, I have no problem with same-sex unions and allowing committed couples to carry insurances, joint bank accounts, homes, etc. The "LAW" should recognize a committed union regardless of the gender. What I don't understand is the fight over the word "marriage" by either side.
While you scold those who don't want to share the word "marriage" you give a pass to the others who insist they can change the historical definition of the word. There are people protesting in the streets of this county to maintain thier cultural identity. They want their own schools, their own communities, their own holidays; and yet, when another group wants to maintain part of their culture, the social definition of a word, so many people want to deny them.
I see two very differnt battles here. One that says "We are good people and should have what all good people have." Which is correct. I also see "We are also good people, and we want to keep something that is very traditional to our culture." Which is also true.
Why can't same-sex marriages, which are not traditional in this country, brand their own, special, unique ceremony. Why are they opposed to committed union ceremony or, I don't know, PR professionals come up with lasting brands, I'm sure there is something that can be developed by Hallmark, David's Bridal and the convention and visitors bureau of Las Vegas that could mean as much.
Why must they argue over a word?
Let me say this upfront, I have no problem with same-sex unions and allowing committed couples to carry insurances, joint bank accounts, homes, etc. The "LAW" should recognize a committed union regardless of the gender. What I don't understand is the fight over the word "marriage" by either side.
While you scold those who don't want to share the word "marriage" you give a pass to the others who insist they can change the historical definition of the word. There are people protesting in the streets of this county to maintain thier cultural identity. They want their own schools, their own communities, their own holidays; and yet, when another group wants to maintain part of their culture, the social definition of a word, so many people want to deny them.
I see two very differnt battles here. One that says "We are good people and should have what all good people have." Which is correct. I also see "We are also good people, and we want to keep something that is very traditional to our culture." Which is also true.
Why can't same-sex marriages, which are not traditional in this country, brand their own, special, unique ceremony. Why are they opposed to committed union ceremony or, I don't know, PR professionals come up with lasting brands, I'm sure there is something that can be developed by Hallmark, David's Bridal and the convention and visitors bureau of Las Vegas that could mean as much.
Why must they argue over a word?
Muze, if everyone always agreed it would be a boring place and you raise a good point. In my original post on this topic I talked about how perhaps what needs to happen is that the law and the religion separate their definitions. Churches keep "marriage" while the law recognize only "civil unions" and everyone is happy right? Wrong! There will be one group, a small one, but one group who will say we want the whole thing and just because we're gay it shouldn't matter. A much larger group will say "I don't want to give up my legal status as 'married' and substitute it for some 'civil union' title even if my church agrees that I'm 'married'." And an even larger group will say "what's the issue, why do I have to change, I'm frightened, someone call homeland security and stop this so the terrorists don't win."
Words change all the time. Meanings of words change all the time (look up the way that "bimbo" and "geek" have changed). Laws change all the time. But when you get religion into the picture it is like lighting a match near gasoline.
Post a Comment
Words change all the time. Meanings of words change all the time (look up the way that "bimbo" and "geek" have changed). Laws change all the time. But when you get religion into the picture it is like lighting a match near gasoline.
Links to this post:
<< Home
