Wednesday, June 07, 2006

No Gay Marriage Amendment This Year

The Senate didn't even come close to the 60 votes needed, though proponents are heartened by the increase in numbers who voted yes.
“The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose state legalized gay marriage in 2003. “A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”

Hatch responded: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”
Suggest nothing, I will say straight out: anyone who opposes same sex marriage does so solely, utterly, for no other reason than bigotry.

There are many reasons for opposing same sex marriage, and they are all BS covers for bigotry.

Threat to marriage - BS argument. Further, I would say that everyone who spouts this garbage knows it's a BS argument, or haven't thought about it at all and are just spouting mindless drivel that they cling to as cover for their blatant unreasoned bigotry. Divorce is the greatest threat to marriage. Hell, not stoning disobedient wives to death is more of a threat, since it's obviously those damn feminists who destroy marriages.

Threat to "traditional" marriage - a slightly better argument since homosexual marriages aren't traditional, but still BS, because no one has explained why "traditional" marriage is 1)more desireable or necessary to a stable society, 2)not more threatened by divorce. And, hey, how about interracial marriages? Or marriages where the husband stays home and takes care of the kids while the woman works? Or open marriages? Those aren't traditional, either.

A sin - so is wearing wool and cotton together. And? Not all sins are equal, and no act is legislated against simply because a religion considers it a sin. It is not our government's business to force people to follow any religion's precepts, especially when those precepts defy science and reason. Of course some sins are threats to society. But it's the threat to society that is legislated against, not the sin.

Increasingly, homosexuals are earning equal rights because they have no negative impact on society as a whole except for causing the "cringe" factor of people uncomfortable with who they are, which is no reason to deny what should be a civil right.

Further, there is nothing preventing religions from marrying gay people, which some religions do. But those aren't civilly recognized marriages with the rights and benefits that come from the state. The state certainly has no business denying people civil rights simply because some religions think it's a sin.

Homosexual relationships don't propagate society, so there is no compelling reason for the state to sanction them - neither do marriages of the elderly or those who are incapable of or choose having no children, and yet society can find room for them. If it's not universally applied to all who cannot propagate society, then it is applied with discrimination, and our society has an even greater interest in not propagating discrimination, inequality and bigotry.

If we allow homosexual marriage, then we'll have to allow people to marry horses and dogs (and box turtles) - the biggest BS, not to mention stupid and insulting, argument of all. But this argument exists (actually coming out of the mouths of elected officials), so I actually have to answer it. Animals cannot, under law anywhere, give their informed consent. That hinges on the fact that they do not have human brains. Humans without brains can't give their consent, either, so also can't get married. But a human can choose to dress like a horse or a dog during their wedding ceremony.

This argument comes from people who apparently view homosexuals as subhuman.

But what about the children? - What about them? They can't get married, either, unless they're of a certain age in certain states and are given parental consent. Oh, you mean what about children being raised by homosexuals? Children do better in homes with happy, stable, healthy parents. Period. Gay or straight. If marriage helps to create happy, stable, healthy parents, then it will work equally for gay and straight parents. And there's that word again. Equally.

And that's what this is all about, equality under the law.

But I do think there's truth to the argument that a ban on same sex marriage would protect "traditional" marriage of a man and a woman. It's true to the people who make it, because if gay marriage were legal, then the men who oppose it wouldn't have an excuse to give to their gay lovers. "I'd divorce my wife and marry you in a second. But it's just not legal."

Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next