Will the Monkey Go to Jail?
There are so many things wrong with the arguments uttered in support of the marriage ban that I truly don't know where to start. Bush says "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." So, obviously 10% of the population (the approximate percentage of gay and lesbian folks) is excluded from "all."
Honestly, people, if you want to sanctify marriage, outlaw divorce, don't stop loving couples from getting hitched. The heterosexual divorce rate is 50%. All those marriages! Gone! Poor childen, not being protected! The fabric of society eroding! You'd think that if someone was removing 50% of anything you'd want to protect, say business assets, or even Godiva chocolates or your favorite socks, you'd figure out why and then take a measure to remove whatever was causing the shrinkage, right?
Not that I'm for outlawing divorce, mind you, I'm just saying that, to me, this is a more logical "protection of marriage" stance than discriminating against consenting adults whose only crime is craving the legal and social protections afforded all other adults--including child molestors, convicted felons and, in some states, 15 year olds.
Plus, for centuries, marriage wasn't about love, it was an economic and familial bond set up to protect the interests of the married people's families. So, the "roots" of marriage in Western society might not be exactly what the conservative right would have you believe.
Marriage, like every other social institution, changes over time. Women didn't used to have the right to vote. And interracial marriage? Forget it. In fact, Tara's parents (who, btw, are very supportive of our union) would not have been able to legally marry before Loving vs. the State of Virginia. And that was in 1967.
Don't even get me started on kids. "Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised" the article says. Alas, studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents are equal to heterosexual parents, and that our kids, well, most of them are straight, just like everyone else's.
I can't imagine a more loving set of parents than my friends Andrea and Liz. Their newborn (May 16th!) is adorable, and they are thrilled to be parents. They didn't get drunk and do the deed in the back of some car and then "pay for it" 9 months later. They thought about this carefully, for a long while. And they arranged their lives around this wee being, to make sure she's well-cared for, like any good parent would do. If marriage does a great job of protecting kids, okay, sure, but then let ALL families have that protection.
An aside: As for people who say GLBT foks shouldn't have children because the kids will get teased, let me assure you that every child gets teased. Buck teeth, a name that rhymes with something unfortunate. Weird clothes. A stutter. Being Chinese. Saying something stupid one time in 4th grade science class. Being fat. Being Jewish. Having the wrong haircut. Being poor. Being devoutly religious. Are the kids of straight parents absolved from playground tyranny? I think not. Sure people say "why add one more thing to the mix?" Me? I think that a loving homelife is sometimes worth a bit of razzing on the playground.
But I digress...
If you want to learn more about the fight for marriage equality, please check out the Marriage Equality site. Currently, gay and lesbian people can only legally marry in Massachussets. Those rights do NOT transfer back to one's home state, and there is action pending that will reverse the Massachussets decision, so even those people aren't necessarily safe for the long term.
My pressing question, however, is will the Monkey go to jail for performing an unlawful marriage or is it okay if we couch it as a religious, rather than secular, ceremony? (Hee hee.)
Honestly, people, if you want to sanctify marriage, outlaw divorce, don't stop loving couples from getting hitched. The heterosexual divorce rate is 50%. All those marriages! Gone! Poor childen, not being protected! The fabric of society eroding! You'd think that if someone was removing 50% of anything you'd want to protect, say business assets, or even Godiva chocolates or your favorite socks, you'd figure out why and then take a measure to remove whatever was causing the shrinkage, right?
Not that I'm for outlawing divorce, mind you, I'm just saying that, to me, this is a more logical "protection of marriage" stance than discriminating against consenting adults whose only crime is craving the legal and social protections afforded all other adults--including child molestors, convicted felons and, in some states, 15 year olds.
Plus, for centuries, marriage wasn't about love, it was an economic and familial bond set up to protect the interests of the married people's families. So, the "roots" of marriage in Western society might not be exactly what the conservative right would have you believe.
Marriage, like every other social institution, changes over time. Women didn't used to have the right to vote. And interracial marriage? Forget it. In fact, Tara's parents (who, btw, are very supportive of our union) would not have been able to legally marry before Loving vs. the State of Virginia. And that was in 1967.
Don't even get me started on kids. "Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised" the article says. Alas, studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents are equal to heterosexual parents, and that our kids, well, most of them are straight, just like everyone else's.
I can't imagine a more loving set of parents than my friends Andrea and Liz. Their newborn (May 16th!) is adorable, and they are thrilled to be parents. They didn't get drunk and do the deed in the back of some car and then "pay for it" 9 months later. They thought about this carefully, for a long while. And they arranged their lives around this wee being, to make sure she's well-cared for, like any good parent would do. If marriage does a great job of protecting kids, okay, sure, but then let ALL families have that protection.
An aside: As for people who say GLBT foks shouldn't have children because the kids will get teased, let me assure you that every child gets teased. Buck teeth, a name that rhymes with something unfortunate. Weird clothes. A stutter. Being Chinese. Saying something stupid one time in 4th grade science class. Being fat. Being Jewish. Having the wrong haircut. Being poor. Being devoutly religious. Are the kids of straight parents absolved from playground tyranny? I think not. Sure people say "why add one more thing to the mix?" Me? I think that a loving homelife is sometimes worth a bit of razzing on the playground.
But I digress...
If you want to learn more about the fight for marriage equality, please check out the Marriage Equality site. Currently, gay and lesbian people can only legally marry in Massachussets. Those rights do NOT transfer back to one's home state, and there is action pending that will reverse the Massachussets decision, so even those people aren't necessarily safe for the long term.
My pressing question, however, is will the Monkey go to jail for performing an unlawful marriage or is it okay if we couch it as a religious, rather than secular, ceremony? (Hee hee.)
posted by wen at 10:19 AM
2 Comments:
since the monkey can't speak for himself (it would be a marriage done by puppets!) i think you're in the clear.
I think the real question is can 51% of the population evolve intellectually and spiritually enough to understand the propaganda that the right wing is spoon feeding them? And if so, when? Sometimes I get complacent with being out and I forget that more than half the population of my own country things of me as a 2nd rate citizen. Sometimes I am painfully reminded. I still get called dyke and "sir" on a regular basis even with my 38 triple D's in view. Even members of my own "family" are uncomfortable talking about "it", as well as Donna's family who are right wing Christians living in Orange County. We have to be out, and flamboyant, attention seeking, and logical, and persistent. I'm glad Bush is bringing this subject up because we have to deal with it now. If there is a consitutional ammendment (doubtful now) then there will be a legal battle that our country has never seen before. The pendulum will swing back to middle ground dammit!
Post a Comment
<< Home