Friday, October 31, 2008

"Seperate but Equal" Bigots-

Once again, I will ask -- Since when does religion have a monopoly on marriage? If you believe that the government, and society, should recognize a gay couple's union as "equal", then why create a separate institution? Separate but equal does not work, and it's wrong, no matter how you try to justify it. Did we not learn our lesson from when we tried to create separate but equal institutions when it came to race? It's ironic that the very people that are denying gays the right to marry are actually the ones doing WAY more harm to the "institution" of marriage. If marriage isn't extended to gay couples, a separate institution and label will be created, and there's no way that it will only be accessible to gays. Because right now, straight couples can form a domestic partnership, and I'm sure a lot of straight, non-religious couples will want to be "unioned" (or whatever they end up calling it besides "marriage"), because it's basically "marriage" minus the religious connotations. Sounds fantastic! :) I know my atheist, straight, identical twin brother would love to get "unioned" to his wife some day. :) So, you see, by not including gays, the institution of marriage will be fragmented and splintered. Maybe that's the way it should be? Because you know that even if there is a separate institution created, we're all still going to call it "marriage" anyway. Ha! :)

Again with the double-speak and convoluted logic. You can’t have it both ways as in “feel equal rights should be granted to same-sex couples” but unwilling to “redefine marriage”. If don’t believe gay people have the civil right to marry, you do not support equal rights. But keep on patting yourselves on the back for not being like those “bigots who support prop 8 out of hatred towards gays”. Seems like you keep throwing in a lot of that to make yourselves feel better about your vote.

And, in Farrah's defense, I don't think her logic is convoluted at all. It would actually be a valid concern in my opinion -- if it weren't COMPLETELY based on lies and misinformation.

Thanks for your response below. It’s an interesting POV, and I disagree with you completely for reasons similar to what Nathan laid out, but I’m proud of you for standing up for yourself. If Prop 8 passes, it will be a devastating blow to the overall gay rights movement nationally, and I don’t see how religious institutions are currently affected by the gay marriage law in effect in California. Gays will always be different from heteros, but the semantic insinuation that gay ‘marriage’ vs. ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ will help normalize gays in the eyes of straights. California enacting gay marriage is a small step forward in providing gays equal rights, as it puts pressure on other states to provide similar rights to gays (or in some cases limit the rights to gays in states that have already altered their state constitutions limiting marriage to be between a man and a woman), and puts pressure on the federal government to consider doing the same at some point.

I could go on and on, but I plead with you to reconsider your stance. If Prop 8 passes, I, Bradley Matthews, won’t have the right to get married in California…so throw an old friend a bone.

Perhaps convoluted logic is not the correct term. But it seems to me that there is some twisting around of who is really being discriminated against. And justifications to separate out what Farrah and Jordy see as the Good Prop 8 Yessers from the Bad. (!!!!) However, a Yes on Prop 8 is a Yes on Prop 8, regardless of how one comes to that conclusion. The “I accept gay people but…..” argument doesn’t make the Yes vote bottom line inequality go down any better in my opinion. It will amend the California State Constitution in a way that will be very difficult to change. And it will continue to further divide us on our differences rather than recognize how we are all a blend of similarities and differences.
Thank you Nathan for providing facts.


brent said...

Religion has a monopoly on marriage because marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of years. The concept of marriage is a fundamentally and irrevocably religious one. So, if anyone is going to define what a marriage is or is not and who can participate in marriage or not, it's going to be religion and not the state. The fact that the state issues marriage licenses does not grant it the authority to impose its definition of marriage on religion. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the first amendment.

Playa!!! said...

Separate but equal may not work, but voting and saying that two different things are equal doesn't work either. There is something unique about the relationship between and a man and a woman. Each gender brings something special to the table, and same-sex relationships are just different. Call it gay marriage if you will, but its apples and oranges.