Six states are busily approving initiatives and amendments to their constitution banning gay marriage today. This makes me sad.
I used to be opposed to gay marriage until I sat down and examined my own feelings about it and realized that my opposition was rooted in emotional and moral judgements fostered by my Catholic upbringing. I supported the idea of extending the same benefits married couples enjoy -- insurance, property rights, etc -- but I didn't like the idea of Adam marrying Steve.
Then one day I set my feelings aside and looked at it without judgement and realized that I couldn't think of a single rational reason why I should care one way or another how two people who love each other express that love. It's between them and doesn't affect me at all. In fact, it's none of my business. So I changed my mind. And now that I'm an ordained minister, I wouldn't think twice about presiding over their wedding if they asked me to. In fact, I'd be honored.
The whole argument and mindset against gay marriage is, I think, based on "icky-poo". It's knee-jerk prejudice, being uncomfortable with the thought of men kissing men (and more -- eek!), it's hating them for being different. In my mind, it's exactly the same prejudice that made blacks second class citizens before the civil rights movement. That was wrong and so is this.
Calling this opposition "defense of marriage" is asinine. Hell, if marriage as an institution needs saving, it's from the friggin' straights. Can gays do any more to hurt the institution of marriage than straights are with their current 50% divorce rate or Britney Spears is with her revolving door to the annulment? If anything, I think maybe gays could teach us a thing or two.
And how does Adam and Steve exchanging vows weaken my marriage? Is Beth going to serve me with divorce papers when they say "I do"? How does it threaten the institution? Will marriage be completely gone by the time Zoe is old enough for it? Will we turn into a nation of singles bars? Please, spare me.
It's prejudice, plain and simple. Why not let them marry? Why not let them share the same legal benefits Adam and Eve do? Your church can keep right on being narrow-minded and refusing to perform the ceremony for them -- nobody's trying to change that, but why not let the Elvis impersonator in Vegas marry them, or a justice of the peace? Or me?
They love each other and want to pledge their lives to one another. How can that be bad?
Posted by Chuck at November 2, 2004 07:13 PMSounds like someone is trying to take their mind off the returns. On your subject I'm all for dogs marrying cats as long as it they don't expect me to feed their pupkits. In other words, this conservative doesn't care who marrys who(or is that whom?).
Posted by: Don at November 2, 2004 08:43 PMSounds to me like someone's getting their gloat on before all the results are in.
I'm glad to hear that you agree with me. I'll assume, then, that you don't support your side's efforts and vote against it whenever it comes up.
Not sure why you threw in that business about the pupkits, but it sounds straight out of the conservative playbook. Everybody knows that as far as social concerns go, saying "screw you, Jack, I got mine" is the best way to guard the common good.
Posted by: Chuck at November 2, 2004 08:59 PMI do agree with you about gay marriage. I probably agree with you on some other issues. I did say conservative, not Republican.
Show me in the Constitutution where it says the government is supposed to take what I earn and give it to whoever they think is needy. That's the problem with most Democrats and Republicans. Democrats do it because they think they know best and Republicans do it to get votes.
Posted by: Don at November 2, 2004 10:06 PMI don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that I agree with you, Chuck. Thank you for this entry.
I just got home from my writing group meeting and have not looked at anything news related. I'm too nervous. But what I'm starting to sense is that the news is not good.
Shit.
Posted by: Carol at November 2, 2004 10:38 PMYou're a good man, Charlie Brown (for examining the origin of your own prejudices and addressing them with such aplomb.)
Posted by: Lesley at November 3, 2004 12:16 AMTake heart.
Every law ever passed based on the "icky poo" reaction was later overturned.
For example, in the 1950s, England had a law that banned the re-use of dead people's eyes into living people's eyes. After all, if you think about it -- "icky poo poo!"
But now that just seems silly. In awhile the laws banning gay marriage will seem silly as well.
Because they are.
Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2004 08:02 AMHey, Chuck. I'm a refugee from the closing down of the other Chuck's blog. I like yours. Regarding gay marriage: I think the government has no business defining the M word at all. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is all about taxes and property rights, a contract between two people about who gets what. All marriages, gay or straight, should be civil unions as far as the government is concerned. Leave the definition of the M word to whatever church, synagogue, cult, or Amway group you choose to frequent.
Now as to "Mawwiage".. I'm trying to place it. Monty Python? Which flick?
Posted by: choolie at November 5, 2004 12:28 PM1. Who's the other Chuck?
2. It's from The Princess Bride.
1.)Laquidara
2.)The Princess Bride! I should've known. (I have a cat named Inigo Montoya.) Thanks. Now I can stop playing the "mawwaige" quote over and over in my head.
"Mawwiage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangment, that dweam wifin a dweam..."
I love dweams wifin dweams!
Posted by: Carol at November 5, 2004 03:52 PM