This week we're witnessing a great moment in gay history, as thousands of gay and lesbian couples are saying their wedding vows in California. Being a Californian by birth, the state has always been one of my homes, and it made me proud this week.
In today's LA Times, there's a must read editorial about gay marriage. Here's just a bit of it:
Opponents of same-sex marriage often deplore this expansion of the meaning of marriage because they view it as threatening to traditional unions. As they use this day as a rallying point for a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to ban such marriages, it's time to ask them directly: How does marriage of one type threaten others? Why do many heterosexuals feel that the beauty of their own marriage vows is in no way changed by today's weddings, while others feel theirs have somehow been diminished?Perhaps the next few months will ease these fears, as same-sex couples begin their married lives together. Those couples will settle into communities without disorder or threat; they will bring legal protection to their bonds of love. Those bonds can only be good for society -- children gain from being raised by married parents, and communities are stronger when residents are legally committed to one another. As more and more Californians marry, society will grow stronger, not weaker.
 Phyllis Lyon (right) and Del Martin cut their wedding cake as Mayor Gavin Newsom and a crowd of onlookers cheer in San Francisco's City Hall. |
Personally, I plan on writing a big check this summer to Equality For All, the lead group that will be fighting the November ballot initiative. I donate to various gay groups each year, but I'm giving them all a year off, and sending the money to EFA instead -- it's that important.
If you are unable to donate, there's a handy "tell a friend" button on their website, so you can help spread the word.
I'm well aware that many in the gay community are lukewarm at best about the concept of marriage. I'm not running to the altar myself. The bf and I aren't feelin' that kind of tradition... yet. But the very fact that those who hate me -- those who hate us -- are insisting my relationship is unworthy of this option, makes my blood boil. I reject any view, implication, law, or ballot box vote that tells me my relationship is less than anyone else's.
So gay marriage isn't the most important right we've ever fought for. But the bigoted religious right has decided this is their heaviest club for beating us down. It's time to shatter that club for good. If we win this fight, it will be the biggest "in your face" the religious right has ever received. And it will go down in history as the first nail in the coffin of the Bush-fed culture wars.
THE NATION MAY GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MARRY BUT GOD WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THE UNION .
Hey, Bobbydoll, welcome to my blog!
Question, don't you think it's slightly presumptuous to claim that you can speak for God?
Did Jesus not "recognize" and actually socialize with prostitutes? If I had been, like Mary Magdalene, a friend of Jesus, would he have cursed me, as you do, for being in love?
Very unchristian, Bobbydoll.
Great Response Peter!!!
I am not sure what I would do regarding marriage if I had a partner. But as you feel, so do I in regards to the tactics of the religious right and plan to make a donation to EFA soon. Thanks for sharing that info.
I find it very hard to understand Christian mentality because when I read the Bible, Jesus would go to the leprosy colonies to comfort (and some believe cure) the sick. Leprosy was the plague of the time and people were shun from society much like we were when the AIDS epidemic started. So why don't Christian act/follow their leader and show kindness to the sick instead of condemning us to hell? And if I am not mistaken, isn't one of the laws not to take the name of GOD in vain? Where did they get the permission to say AIDS is the cure sent by GOD and that GOD hates fags? Not sure GOD would be happy with them taking his name like that.
I always like what Wanda Sykes, one of my favorite comedians, says about same-sex marriages. This not an exact quote, but it's some along the lines of 'if you don't believe in same-sex marriages, don't marry somebody of the same sex'. When one gets down to it, it really is that simple.
As to Bobby's comment, perhaps many are wanting the same legal protections and benefits of marriage; they really may not care about the religious aspects (separation of church and state?).
Okay, Okay, you're absolutely right. I forgot my major qualifier, "in the United States."
Now, would you care to comment about the issue itself? I'd love to hear your take on it.
HI Peter.
How about if I give you my take on it? Michael and I live in Red Bluff, about 2 1/2 Hrs N. of Sacramento and 4 hours N. of SF. Yesterday a couple of men from Gerber (p. 4,146) got married and today two lesbians from Red Bluff. Makes me feel proud. Just ordinary people doing ordinary stuff even out here in Tehema County.
Michael's been out of town for the last week. ummmm....think he'll want to get married? I guess I'll never know unless I ask.
robert
I don't know man... I don't trust those law makers in Cali Pete. They never said anything about same sex divorce did they?
Which makes it illegal.
Seriously though I think it's great and wonder why things like this need legislation in 2008. Hard to believe it took this long.
Yes, the point is made yet again ad nauseam. We get it: People are dying in Zimbabwe, etc. We know...but we are not IN Iran, Zimbabwe, etc. We are HERE - in the US. And as dire as those things are in other parts of the world, it does not automatically render any other fight on any other level in any other part of the world automatically moot and silly. Yes, we know...some people consider marriage frivolous. Then don't get married. For others, it matters quite a lot. It is a valid fight on multiple levels - if nothing else, simply on the principle of equality for which THIS country stands. They are hanging gay kids in other parts of the world, but WE have the opportunity - the responsibility even - to be different. We have the responsibility to set the bar. And let's not undercut the psychological impact this sort of thing has. The legal recognition of this unions - and the sense of validation that this legitimizing of unions can bring - can have a tremendous beneficial effect on the esteem and emotional and psychological well-being of children HERE. And I realize that some people consider marriage to be an altogether faulty institution and one that ought to be cast aside by society altogether. That's dreadfully wonderful arachistic thinking. Viva the revolution and all that. Meanwhile - back on planet earth...marriage is here and is practiced all around the world and it ain't going anywhere anytime soon. And as marriage is tied up in all sorts of legal areas (from not only the much decried "property" issues, but employment benefits, adoption rights, and on and on), this fight is an unbrella issue for THIS country. Winning here can bring about a domino effect in all sorts of other areas (hard to deny adoption rights to couples who are now in legally recognized unions, for example). And as previously mentioned, it has immediate ramifications in areas like health benefits and spousal rights - so how it can be so quickly and casually dismissed in a forum such as this kinda boggles the mind, to be honest.
I could talk further about this, but I would also hope my point has been made.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Hunter
PS: I would also like to pose this question...
Was Loving v. Virginia also a silly fight without merit for the black civil rights movement? Just curious.
(Although in the case of gay rights, I would argue that perhaps the stakes are even higher since the nature of the discrimination here is not with the color of our skin but the nature of our relationships.)
I often bring this subject up at dinners and gatherings of breeders,and to date I have not heard one single person say they have a problem with it. NOT ONE.
The problem is most people who are stridently for gay marriage are opposed to other values and issues just as important and critical to other individuals. Thats the fucking problem. Sorry, but I am more interested in my government wanting high oil prices for some insane reason, me wanting lower taxes for obvious reasons,trying to understand why any American would want US to fail against our enemies,free markets,and trying to make a living. I am worried about my kids and their future. I am worried about my wife and her health. Fuck,I have so many problems, I forget I am HIV positive most days.I hate to say it,even though I have no problem with gay marriage and think it was despicable and just plain stupid for W to attempt to ban gay marriage,its not something on my short list of priorities. If you are against everything that I am for, how is it possible to ever get anything done or accomplished? How does it effect my life if gays marry? It doesn't! If you hate and despise everything about conservatives(and that isnt the religious right or W)how do expect them to be at your side on this issue?
Yes the mysterious all powerful Religious Right,so powerful they don't have a horse in this election,is against gay marriage. So fucking what? Who are they? Are they some creation of our media? I live in Texas. I know baptists,catholics,jews,methodists,lutherans, and no one seems to care if gays marry or not. So maybe the Religious Right are the wingnuts with bad hairdos on TV everyday? I don't know.
Now we all know the culture wars started long before W got in the picture. You don't remember LBJ,Carter, or Clintons attempts to divide our country over class and color? Or the recent Democrat primary where one ex-president did everything in his power to denigrate another candidate because of his color? Or where the other candidate made a disgusting comment about white democrats in Pennsylvania?(which is true, I am from Pa. and it is without a doubt the most racially bigoted state in the country) Or one Republican candidate was crucified for being a Mormon, and a Democrat candidate who attends a church that preaches hate speech of the worst kind is deified? Yeah W started it all and is the problem. That is so silly. Our Country is broken. It is no longer a country of rugged individualism, it is a country of interest groups seeing who can yell the loudest to get something from some other group and the Politician who will stoop the lowest level in the gutter to grant those powers or entitlements to those groups gets the vote. We have a country where a very small amount of the population pays most of the taxes. There is no way to ever raise taxes or take entitlement from these large groups of people,so we are fucked and the producers and wealthy are demonized because the Politicians will not admit their part in this destruction of our society.
Like I said,I empathize and have no problem with it and wish you luck but I and most others have our own problems.
Quote: 'Like I said,I empathize and have no problem with it and wish you luck but I and most others have our own problems.'
Oh really? Your own problems? Like jointly filed income tax returns? Inheritance? Hospital visitation (I can see how this would be important to many HIV+ people)? Health insurance benefits (again, important to those with HIV).
No, the real problem is that all the things you've brought up do not have simple solutions. Same-sex marriage DOES have a simple solution. I think part of what is being overlooked is that denying us the 'right' to marry is one of many discriminations gays and lesbians experience.
It's easy to get caught up with what's wrong in ones personal life and the world in general. Certainly there are a lot of things. Few, however, are easily solved. I get the feeling that what is being felt here is not empathy so much as indifference. On a positive note, an indifferent personal can be less of an enemy than those actively fighting to deny us the right to marry.
Not sure why gays want to mimic the institution of marriage, but if they do, so be it. Give me my civil rights.
Good to see Jake still has his nose pressed up against the AIDSMEDS window. He's slipping though, he didn't mention Charlie Wilson or Vince Foster not nary one time.
Sorry to veer but it sure is nice not to have his drivel clogging up serious political debate in the forums. God I sure don't miss him.
For the record: I doubt I will want to walk down the aisle anytime soon either. My primary interest in marriage here in the states is for how it impacts standing in all its civil areas - particularly the peripheral ones I mentioned.
It never ceases to amaze me that when discussions of SAME SEX MARRIAGE get started there is always someone who starts saying it mimics the straight version of marrige, or that we should be ashamed of ourselves for demanding our rights: { "It is no longer a country of rugged individualism, it is a country of interest groups seeing who can yell the loudest to get something from some other group and the Politician who will stoop the lowest level in the gutter to grant those powers or entitlements to those groups gets the vote."}
I think the LGBT community is doing a great job of making this a civil rights issue. I never thought I'd live to see the day when two men or two women would be married in a courthouse civil ceremony. So, to some extent, we are already there ( the goal is already in our grasp) and it cant go back to being the way it was 30 years ago. If me and my partner were to get "married" (hitched, betrothed, whatever you want to call it) we would do it in a courthouse. I have nothing against church weddings even if it is not my choice. Don't heterosexual people have to have a piece of paper called a marriage LICENSE before spending a lot of money for pomp and ceremony in a church? Sort of like having a DRIVERS LICENSE isnt it?
I'm sorry matty-le-damné, but while I understand what you're driving at it's a bit of a false dilemma, no? There's no reason that one can't support domestic equality issues while simultaneously working against the repression of homosexuals in despotic Muslim shit holes.
On a personal level I could care less about getting hitched, and will simply state I share your views about the institution (though I want the gifts) but as a political issue of equality I find it essential.
ps: when discussing this issue I refrain, at all times, from using the word "marriage" because that's not the issue - the issue is equality so I only use that word. I've found when you frame it in this manner to the plebeians it's understood better.
I agree with Philicia, the real issue is about equality.
I somehow doubt I would ever want to be married, but I want the same rights as everyone else.
Good luck to you guys.
I'm so over all these queens & dykes who don't give a shit about equality. I'm talking about those who "On a personal... could care less about getting hitched."
All of you will be the first in line to get married once the U.S. Supreme Court rules gay marriage a civil right across all 50 states.
May I say this to all gays & lesbians: get off your asses and fight the good fight while we all have the upper hand. Cali is just one step along the way. Lookout Texas!
New Zealand has legislated for Civil Unions between same sex couples since 2002. Interestingly marriage was denied same sex couples because it might bring discredit to the sanctity of the state of marriage between a man and a woman. This seems amazing in that 66% of marriages between men and women today fail and result in seperation and divorce. Whilst only legislated from 2002 civil unions have had not one legal termination.
If the State of California has marriage then I would encourage all the citizens of California to oppose any removal of the piece of equality.
Ok enough of all this negative rhetoric about the " sancity of marriage " !
I am a gay man with a partner now of 22 years who is also living with AIDS .
Now said partner has also been a loving man since that day I lay in the hospital and got the determination that I was POZ and has never faultered in his love for me .
I have seen him thru quadruple heart by-pass surgery and after getting him thru all the myrid complications of said surgery I was not even allowed to visit him in the ICU recovery room .
This is the same man who brought me home from the hospital after three days to care for me himself which cost him his at that time employment because the " family medical leave act " could not be invoked because I was not an immidate blood relative .
Now not having been able to see him in the ICU recovery room was devistating enough but for him to lose his employment because I was not a blood relative was even worse !
That took it's toll on my mentality to the point that at one time even considered suicide to make things better for him ( just glad that read the life insuance policy and found tha it would not have paid off if I had gone thru with the over dose of my monthly meds ).
Now if this is not a reason to fight for the many benefits that marriage gives to those that take them for granted on a daily basis then some one tell me what reason is there to fight for aids or marriage as a whole in the use I mean with the increase in aids cases on the rise due to meth use in msm and going out having sex with all those closeted cases each one infecting lord only knows how many others including their current partners / mates et al I think it's just plain heinous to keep us from being able to marry because the religous right is lying to it's self because the parishioners are being told what to do from the pulpit and then going behind the preacher's back and having any of the following ,
1) unprotected sex ( with a partner or an unknown person in rest rooms truck stops or even in the halls of Congress .
2) gambling.
3) indulgine in kiddie porn.
4) Incestious rapes .
5) incest period .
6) adultry .
7) sodomy ( in part or as a whole )
Now if those things are forbidden by the bible what does it say about gay marriage nada thing because as was quoted in another response "God went forth to visit the lepers to save them if not cure them ".
Now if the religous right would get behind this concept then things would progress smoothly .
I heed this old saying to this day and I think it is aptly applied to this rant I have just made .
" let he who is with out sin cast the first stone ".
Now if the religous right and good old boy " dubbya " could cast the first stone then I say Irag is the first stone and it's being thrown back as opposition to him throwing it because he is surley telling a flase hood that HE is with out sin !
Amidst all this political back-and-forth, is it okay to cheer for and get a tad weepy about Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the two little old ladies in the picture? That's what it's all about, isn't it? Two people who've stuck it out all these years and finally get to do what so many of us do almost carelessly: Marry the person of his/her dreams.
What's this "in your face" vibe about? ??????
Don't you think "in your face" could possibly lead to backlash or retalliation, e.g. an increase in gay bashings, more wasteful oneupmanship, etc.?
I'm with Martin Luther King in saying "yes" to methods that are as calm as possible.
Eric Roberson needs to re-read my response and buy a clue.