* As long as you’re not gay.
I have not yet read much reaction on the passage of California’s Proposition 8 or of the bans of same-sex marriage in other states or of the Arkansas ban of unmarried couples adopting. I first wanted to get my initial reactions out of the way, and then I am curious as to what part of my outrage is inappropriate or misplaced.
I heard Barack Obama say last night that, “In America, anything is possible,” and I heard a lot of people echo the cavalier notion that anyone can now, more than ever, be whatever they want to be in the United States of America. While I recognize–and rejoice at–the elevation of a black man to our nation’s highest office, the pinnacle in breaking down racial barriers, my suspicion is that gay people must be having a horrific time coming to terms with the realization that Americans also voted, on November 4, 2008, to put up new barriers to essential rights that were not previously explicit. Furthermore, gays cannot be whatever they want to be; they cannot legally be spouses to those they love with all their hearts. They cannot be loving parents, according to their fellow citizens. Their families are inferior.
Why do I care so much? I am not gay, and I don’t really have a lot of gay friends. Of course, I don’t have a lot of friends, period. So why do I care? Why do I take this slight so personally?
I may not be G, B, L, or T, but I am Different, different enough from your average straight guy that, at the age of 32 and for the past many years, I’ve been having one lousy time finding a partner to spend the rest of my life with, despite all the warts and all the bile, being a fairly decent guy, all things considered. However, supposing miracles do happen, and do I find this amazing woman who is out there, I can legally marry her. Assuming I find a woman who wants to marry me, the courts will be more than happy to sanction it.
Meanwhile, there are millions of Americans who have found the partners of their dreams. But the law states–and in many cases, validated by one’s own community–that marriage to their partners is invalid, that somehow it would be impure or simply wrong.
As a moral issue, I find it unconscionable.
“But the Bible says it’s wrong”. So if that is your interpretation, you should not enter into a gay marriage. We clearly cannot legislate everything that is forbid in the Bible. Everyone, I should hope, is aware of some of the absurd laws we would have to enact if were to take literal directives from the Holy Book and legislate them.
“Simply put, marriage is the union between one man and one woman. I’m not a bigot. They can have civil unions”. Everyone, I should hope, is aware of some word or words in the English language for which the meanings have changed over time. I don’t have a handy example. But etymologists spend their lives studying these words. So the definition of marriage will change. Two consenting adults will form a union that they wish the government and its citizens to recognize as a familial unit. Usually it will be one man and one woman. On occasion, it could be two women…or two men…or man and someone who does not want to identify with any gender. (Not man and dog, Rick Santorum). Not really a huge change. No one will insist that you approve of their marriage as a matter of personal opinion. Lots of married couples probably don’t belong together for lots of reasons. But are laws to prevent some consenting adults from marrying really necessary?
Anyway, the exit polls in California show that young people overwhelming were against the proposition banning gay marriage, and national polls have mirrored this sentiment. Sometime in the next 50 years, gay marriage will be a legal option in all 50 states, I am fairly certain. But it’s sad and it’s ironic to hear one group of people rightfully celebrate a dramatic milestone in their fight for equality while, at the same time, another group gets a collective slap in the face from its country, essentially told that their equality isn’t the cards for another 5 or 15 or 50 years.
I realize that most people with progressive values are not choosing today of all days to view the glass as half empty. I am different than most. So be it.
ADDENDUM Again, I don’t meant to gloss over the big picture of Obama’s win. I’ll let Colin Powell speak to that.
i couldn’t agree more. if we really cared about the separation of church and state, i think “civil unions” would be the only thing governments sanctioned or recognized, and “marriages” would be something you worked out with your religious guides according to your faith. Unfortunately, I doubt that telling all of married America that their union is now considered a term that has been classically used to signify ‘less than’ would probably not go over all that well.
I don’t even know where to start in the semantic war. It’s so stupid. but i’m proud of you for pointing this out, and hope that those 5 or 10 or 15 years turn out to be fewer.
and then the polyamorous can start their fight, ha ha.
I agree that it theoretically makes sense to just call everything a civil union for the sake of government recognition, but the key word there is “just”, as, like you said, people connote “civil unions” with being “less than” marriage. Now, that could change over time, if lots of states sanctioned civil unions, and lots of straight couples decided that, in solidarity with their gay and lesbian neighbors, they’d “just” get a civil union, too. Over a very long period of time, the notion of marriage might carry just a religious connotation. But that’s about as likely as atheists taking over, I think.
I do believe, as I have read somewhere, that Californians should next vote on the rights of Mormons to marry. Not the polyamorous ones specifically…all of them!
(To their credit, Hall-of-Fame NFL quarterback and famous Mormon Steve Young (descendant of Brigham) and his wife donated a bunch of money to the No-on-8 campaign).