My interest in Barbara Ehrenreich began with her book Nickled and Dimed, a definite MUST for anyone who thinks that it's entirely on the shoulders of the hourly-wage employee if they're not affluent and successful. I also suggest following that one up with her look at white-collar work, Bait and Switch. She shows what really goes on in the attempt to survive--or join--the world of work.
Cheeky to a near-fault, Ehrenreich has provided some of the most biting social commentary in her book This Land is Their Land. And one of the reasons I bought the book was because of her take on same-sex marriage.
I actually read this book a few months back, but I found my copy in the backseat of the car. And my thoughts immediately went here.
In the form of satire, Ehrenreich posits that what's missing from the PR effort in gay marriage is to show how we're doing just great without the legal rights. We can stay up all night partying, even if we're well past our party prime. We can leave relationships on a whim. Forget debates on kids! As one couple I know pointed out, they don't want a marriage: their mortgage is MUCH harder to get out of!
All this sound like too much? I understand...and laugh heartily at her humor!
My relationship is valid with or without the government stamp of approval. Unfortunately, what's not okay with me isn't simply the fundamental legal benefits of marriage. It's the fact that if my partner gets killed in an auto accident (Heaven forbid!), and has not established a health care directive, his estranged sister has more right to make decisions than me. In the event of his death--unless he has taken extreme precautions to set up the legal aspects--all of his belongings default to his family...despite our consistent communication, and his family's--well--lack, thereof.
There's a lot that won't be resolved by simply giving same-sex marriages the name "marriage". Churches will still debate the moral implications. Fights will still ensue. But are we arguing a moral point?
I noticed this idea today, too, because of Les's post on the DOMA lawsuit coming out of MA. Yes, it's time. And certainly, this has an infinitely better shot of passing the bar than anything else. But we need to be honest, here. Just getting DOMA off the record is a start--not a finish line.
And I have my own take on "DOMA", for its semantic implications...but that's another post entirely.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Getting married?
If you're planning a wedding, you're likely finding lots of dreck for same-sex couples out there on the web. Most of us find bits and pieces here and there and look to straight sites for guidance and it just doesn't work. Never fear, help is on the way.
Check out queerwedding.com. The web master and her partner just got married and she decided to help other couples plan their perfect ceremony. The site is still a work in progress. She's looking for any and all advice or info folks have to share.
I'll provide a link to her site on the side bar so you can easily go there and keep up with the progress!
Check out queerwedding.com. The web master and her partner just got married and she decided to help other couples plan their perfect ceremony. The site is still a work in progress. She's looking for any and all advice or info folks have to share.
I'll provide a link to her site on the side bar so you can easily go there and keep up with the progress!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Gay Clout
In the movie “Angels In America,” Roy Cohn’s character scoffs that in years of trying homosexuals have been unable to pass an equal rights amendment. He says this is because they lack clout. And it often feels we are relegated to a second class citizenship.
Only seven states allow gay marriage. In 30+ states, we can still be fired from jobs and evicted from homes. We cannot sponsor people from abroad as spouses. The refrain “marriage is between a man and a woman” has even issued forth from a beauty queen’s lips …
…and it bit her in the ass.
It would seem our cloutless status may be changing. But forcing Miss California to rethink her words is child’s play compared to the “clout” we wield economically. As proponents of Prop 8 found, we aren’t without gay teeth and will bite.
When the list of major donors to Prop 8 became public, many of the businesses who gave their financial support to the initiative found their gay patrons no longer supporting them. In some cases, these businesses found themselves with a host of picketers outside their doors. The reaction may not have had a public policy impact immediately, but I’m sure those folks are thinking really hard about publicly supporting something of that nature in the future.
Our pocket books may have an even greater impact on the issue of Gay Marriage. In the June 3 edition of Newsweek, the magazine reports that Massachucetts has seen a positive economic impact from same-sex marriage:
On a recent trip to Kansas City, I picked up the gay weekly paper there and learned KC is actively courting same-sex newly weds from Iowa to honeymoon there.
If the UCLA study’s numbers are right, at $7400 per wedding, few states can afford not legalize same-sex marriage or at the very least civil unions. If they don’t, they’re costing their states tens of thousands of dollars … given that 10 percent of us are gay.
In fact, Congress evaluated the issue back in 2004 and came to the conclusion that if all 50 states legalized same-sex marriage the federal government would see tax revenues of $1billion. The simple fact of the matter is there are lots of gay dollars to be had out there and so far seven states have a monopoly on that revenue.
Human nature being what it is, I can’t imagine many states will continue to let those states be the sole beneficiaries. It may be queer as a three dollar bill, but those queer Benjamins still spend at Wal Mart.
Only seven states allow gay marriage. In 30+ states, we can still be fired from jobs and evicted from homes. We cannot sponsor people from abroad as spouses. The refrain “marriage is between a man and a woman” has even issued forth from a beauty queen’s lips …
…and it bit her in the ass.
It would seem our cloutless status may be changing. But forcing Miss California to rethink her words is child’s play compared to the “clout” we wield economically. As proponents of Prop 8 found, we aren’t without gay teeth and will bite.
When the list of major donors to Prop 8 became public, many of the businesses who gave their financial support to the initiative found their gay patrons no longer supporting them. In some cases, these businesses found themselves with a host of picketers outside their doors. The reaction may not have had a public policy impact immediately, but I’m sure those folks are thinking really hard about publicly supporting something of that nature in the future.
Our pocket books may have an even greater impact on the issue of Gay Marriage. In the June 3 edition of Newsweek, the magazine reports that Massachucetts has seen a positive economic impact from same-sex marriage:
In the five years since legalizing same-sex marriage, Massachusetts has gained $111 million in spending from gay weddings, according to a new study published by UCLA's Williams Institute, which studies sexual-orientation law and public policy. "That's money buying flowers, hotels, caterers, hiring a band—all the things that go into a wedding," explains M. V. Lee Badgett, a coauthor of the study.
On a recent trip to Kansas City, I picked up the gay weekly paper there and learned KC is actively courting same-sex newly weds from Iowa to honeymoon there.
If the UCLA study’s numbers are right, at $7400 per wedding, few states can afford not legalize same-sex marriage or at the very least civil unions. If they don’t, they’re costing their states tens of thousands of dollars … given that 10 percent of us are gay.
In fact, Congress evaluated the issue back in 2004 and came to the conclusion that if all 50 states legalized same-sex marriage the federal government would see tax revenues of $1billion. The simple fact of the matter is there are lots of gay dollars to be had out there and so far seven states have a monopoly on that revenue.
Human nature being what it is, I can’t imagine many states will continue to let those states be the sole beneficiaries. It may be queer as a three dollar bill, but those queer Benjamins still spend at Wal Mart.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Gwedded!
Where have I been?
Well, for starters I got married. Or had a commitment ceremony. However you choose to look at it the GF is now the Wife.
The morning of our ceremony we had some last minute details to work out. Of course a trip to Wal Mart was involved. As we sashayed in, the Wife saw a former classmate from high school.
She didn’t want to talk to this person, not someone she was close with and I think there might have even been the hint of fear that this person would be judgmental about us. But then the Wife announced, “If we had more time I think I would go up and inform her that we’re getting gay married today.”
And that’s when we decided, it’s not enough to say we’re married. We have to tell people we’re GAY married.
My mother, bless her heart, only had one high speed come apart that day … the cake lady was late and the cake was wrong. Now, not dreadfully wrong. It didn’t say, “Happy Wedding Brent and Trish,” like a certain item did at my first marriage.
No the cake lady got two of the layers mixed up so that the chocolate layer was smaller than the Creamcicle layer and in Mom’s eyes that was a crime. I think she was ready to go after the lady with an ice pick.
But the ceremony was lovely. Very small, just family. My blond twin performed the nuptials, then we all ate too much cake and drank really good champagne.
And then, because I love the Wife, we went for beers and to the cage fights at the Shrine. Ah romance.
The Wife enjoyed herself immensely. I had fun but was so worn out from all the wedding prep, I fell asleep in one of those oh so comfy chairs. Ahem.
Moving on.
I’ve also been working on some other personal projects, oh and I once again have the Vulcan Death Flu, not to be confused with the H1N1 virus. No this is just general hacking, wheezing and swallowing dozens of Mucinex, chased with the Wife’s magic chicken noodle soup.
So once I’m completely back on my feet, I’ll be back to the snark you’ve come to know and love. I’ve got a smackdown coming on Fedora as well as a rather famous barbeque joint in KC, but praise for an amazing pizza joint there.
And a word of congrats to the seven states where gay marriage is now a reality legally. Let’s face it, there are those of us who don’t need the government’s blessings over our union, but it is the right thing … and bit by bit we’re losing small battles but winning the war.
Well, for starters I got married. Or had a commitment ceremony. However you choose to look at it the GF is now the Wife.
The morning of our ceremony we had some last minute details to work out. Of course a trip to Wal Mart was involved. As we sashayed in, the Wife saw a former classmate from high school.
She didn’t want to talk to this person, not someone she was close with and I think there might have even been the hint of fear that this person would be judgmental about us. But then the Wife announced, “If we had more time I think I would go up and inform her that we’re getting gay married today.”
And that’s when we decided, it’s not enough to say we’re married. We have to tell people we’re GAY married.
My mother, bless her heart, only had one high speed come apart that day … the cake lady was late and the cake was wrong. Now, not dreadfully wrong. It didn’t say, “Happy Wedding Brent and Trish,” like a certain item did at my first marriage.
No the cake lady got two of the layers mixed up so that the chocolate layer was smaller than the Creamcicle layer and in Mom’s eyes that was a crime. I think she was ready to go after the lady with an ice pick.
But the ceremony was lovely. Very small, just family. My blond twin performed the nuptials, then we all ate too much cake and drank really good champagne.
And then, because I love the Wife, we went for beers and to the cage fights at the Shrine. Ah romance.
The Wife enjoyed herself immensely. I had fun but was so worn out from all the wedding prep, I fell asleep in one of those oh so comfy chairs. Ahem.
Moving on.
I’ve also been working on some other personal projects, oh and I once again have the Vulcan Death Flu, not to be confused with the H1N1 virus. No this is just general hacking, wheezing and swallowing dozens of Mucinex, chased with the Wife’s magic chicken noodle soup.
So once I’m completely back on my feet, I’ll be back to the snark you’ve come to know and love. I’ve got a smackdown coming on Fedora as well as a rather famous barbeque joint in KC, but praise for an amazing pizza joint there.
And a word of congrats to the seven states where gay marriage is now a reality legally. Let’s face it, there are those of us who don’t need the government’s blessings over our union, but it is the right thing … and bit by bit we’re losing small battles but winning the war.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Where did you learn about marriage?
I posted about this in my Wildelife blog a week ago or so, but after having a conversation this evening, it seemed appropriate to write something here.
After the latest decisions in favor of equal rights for LGBT citizens of the US, the attack ads are already in the works. Gay marriage is a terrorizing endeavor, bent on taking away the rights of the rest of society and leaving it in the hands of the small few.
Okay, I have a few problems with this anyway. For one, I've heard pundits and politicians alike suggest giving it to the people to decide. That was done in California last fall. It had bad results. There were a LOT of people who didn't realize that voting no was in FAVOR of gay marriage, but voting yes was AGAINST it. Call that stupidity on the part of the bill writer or whatever, when we "leave it to the people" to decide, it's not going to go well. Besides that, historically, people tend to mediocrity and the status quo, not for progressive ideas--you know, like equality.
All that said, one of the latest attack ads has been touting that kids will be taught in schools that gay marriage is equal.
My initial reaction is "AND???", but there's a basic premise that is entirely faulty here. My mom taught for 35 years in a public school system. I was raised around teachers. I even have a degree in education--which has been totally wasted, but for entirely different reasons. Many of my friends are educators. And there's a surprising fact, here...
NOT ONE OF THEM can remember ever teaching about marriage in any of their experiences. Not in elementary, not in high school, and not in most college courses. For that matter, not one of them can remember learning about marriage from their schools.
So, my question is plain and simple: Who is teaching marriage?
After the latest decisions in favor of equal rights for LGBT citizens of the US, the attack ads are already in the works. Gay marriage is a terrorizing endeavor, bent on taking away the rights of the rest of society and leaving it in the hands of the small few.
Okay, I have a few problems with this anyway. For one, I've heard pundits and politicians alike suggest giving it to the people to decide. That was done in California last fall. It had bad results. There were a LOT of people who didn't realize that voting no was in FAVOR of gay marriage, but voting yes was AGAINST it. Call that stupidity on the part of the bill writer or whatever, when we "leave it to the people" to decide, it's not going to go well. Besides that, historically, people tend to mediocrity and the status quo, not for progressive ideas--you know, like equality.
All that said, one of the latest attack ads has been touting that kids will be taught in schools that gay marriage is equal.
My initial reaction is "AND???", but there's a basic premise that is entirely faulty here. My mom taught for 35 years in a public school system. I was raised around teachers. I even have a degree in education--which has been totally wasted, but for entirely different reasons. Many of my friends are educators. And there's a surprising fact, here...
NOT ONE OF THEM can remember ever teaching about marriage in any of their experiences. Not in elementary, not in high school, and not in most college courses. For that matter, not one of them can remember learning about marriage from their schools.
So, my question is plain and simple: Who is teaching marriage?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Domestic partnership registry in Columbia
Just days after Iowa overturned their ban on same sex marriage, Columbia, MO made a baby step in that direction. The City Council unanimously voted for a Domestic Partnership registry.
While this step is a far cry from Iowa's momentous decision, here's hoping our own new City Council members take steps in this same direction.
The registry, which would allow unmarried couples to register as partners, is open to couples of any sexual orientation for a $25 fee. But most of the people who testified spoke of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community’s need for such a registry.
The registry, administered through the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services, would not obligate employers to give domestic partner benefits or force hospitals to allow partners access to patients, but it would serve as proof of partnership for institutions that already recognize those relationships.
While this step is a far cry from Iowa's momentous decision, here's hoping our own new City Council members take steps in this same direction.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Outraged yet? Then keep paying attention...
While it's fine and I will readily admit that my folly is to laugh at stupidity, I have to point out that this particular idea is not funny at all. It's entirely too scary. Because somewhere, someone believes this to be an accurate image of reality. If this doesn't terrify you to your core, I'm scared for you!
http://www.wvformarriage.com/
Yeah. Check out the YouTube video attached to the front page of this.
Until the last election, I wasn't aware that wanting to be with my partner in a committed, legally-recognized relationship was a threat. To anyone. Anywhere. I didn't realize that a legal relationship with my partner would do anything to my bosses or their children, who are grown. Didn't realize that their grown sons' relationships, too, would be defined only by how my relationship was recognized.
I also was not aware, despite being both a church-goer and a gay man, that my relationship would put at risk any other couples from being able to have marital counseling from a church. According to the video, this is a fact. We also will keep couples from adopting. Or churches from having services.
And if we don't stop it now, apparently the Earth will implode.
Scared yet? Read on.
What amazes me (and terrifies my very core) is the audacity that some people have to agree with this so clearly misguided view of marriage. If marriage is sacred and worth fighting for, then I leave it to a very humble suggestion--one that in no way originated with me. Attack the real enemies of marriage: divorce, abuse, neglect, and infidelity. Leave a healthy relationship out of the debate--it's not breaking yours.
Want a real kicker in this one? I know more straight people staring down the barrel of divorce (or divorced within the last 2 years) than committed gay or lesbian couples (and I know several).
I'm astounded. Really. If your marriage is degraded by my partner and I being able to be legally recognized as a couple, then my only guess is that your faith life must be as challenged by the whole Da Vinci Code debate. If either case is true, you're a moron. I can't be nice about that. You clearly have lost the capacity of using your brain.
http://www.wvformarriage.com/
Yeah. Check out the YouTube video attached to the front page of this.
Until the last election, I wasn't aware that wanting to be with my partner in a committed, legally-recognized relationship was a threat. To anyone. Anywhere. I didn't realize that a legal relationship with my partner would do anything to my bosses or their children, who are grown. Didn't realize that their grown sons' relationships, too, would be defined only by how my relationship was recognized.
I also was not aware, despite being both a church-goer and a gay man, that my relationship would put at risk any other couples from being able to have marital counseling from a church. According to the video, this is a fact. We also will keep couples from adopting. Or churches from having services.
And if we don't stop it now, apparently the Earth will implode.
Scared yet? Read on.
What amazes me (and terrifies my very core) is the audacity that some people have to agree with this so clearly misguided view of marriage. If marriage is sacred and worth fighting for, then I leave it to a very humble suggestion--one that in no way originated with me. Attack the real enemies of marriage: divorce, abuse, neglect, and infidelity. Leave a healthy relationship out of the debate--it's not breaking yours.
Want a real kicker in this one? I know more straight people staring down the barrel of divorce (or divorced within the last 2 years) than committed gay or lesbian couples (and I know several).
I'm astounded. Really. If your marriage is degraded by my partner and I being able to be legally recognized as a couple, then my only guess is that your faith life must be as challenged by the whole Da Vinci Code debate. If either case is true, you're a moron. I can't be nice about that. You clearly have lost the capacity of using your brain.
Friday, February 6, 2009
What marriage do you want?
Probably, I won't say anything new here, and that's okay. Still, I want to rant about the marriage concept the predominant culture seems so inclined to "protect." And if we actually looked at those silly things called "facts", everyone might notice that maybe--just possibly--nobody would want marriage in the first place.
Please understand, before I get started and before you send angry emails to me or to Les Bian, I'm a full advocate of equal rights. It won't be equal until it's 100% equal, as far as I'm concerned. But we're arguing over a term that may not be of interest to any of us, if we really understood it.
Let's say, for the poor sake of argument, we wish to fight for marriage equal to that indicated in Scripture. I don't think any of us who want marriage rights for the LGBT community really want that for ourselves. And if we do, our partners may disagree with the option on other grounds! Let's start at the very beginning, because if Julie Andrews taught good gay boys and lesbian girls anything, the beginning is a very good place to start!
Adam and Eve. The only reason they ended up together is because otherwise Adam would've resorted to beastiality. I somehow doubt that'll fly for most of the LGBT community.
Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sarah). Okay. That'd be all right, if we totally ignore how Abraham had sex with Sarai's servant girl in order to have an heir. By the way, that's what eventually led to the split between the Israelites and the much-later followers of Islam. Do we really want that in our mix? I'm thinking no.
Samson and Delilah. Okay. Bad example from the outset. She tricks him so she can cut off his masculinity...in the form of his hair. This one's self-explanatory. (Men everywhere just crossed their legs while considering this one.)
Joseph and Mary. I'd probably go for this, but we might want to be a little cautious. According to Catholic lore, Joseph got no nookie. Ever. I'm guessing that won't go over well. (I don't even think heterosexuals would go for that option.)
The Wedding at Cana. Really great party. We know nothing of the marriage that followed. NEXT.
We can't even mention Jesus. According to traditional understanding, Jesus was a loner. Now, there are a few theologians who argued differently...some even positing that Jesus may have been gay. Hence the whole thing about John being a "beloved disciple". Still, that's no concrete example of what marriage is or should be.
If we are to look to Scripture as a guide--and I'm speaking to the men for a moment, here--there's the whole Joshua and David thing. Vaguely, I recall something being mentioned about "closer than a brother." Looking at linguistics, "brother" was often considered WAY more than what we mean now. In addition the option of sharing parents, the term would equally equate the closest male companion of a male (or, in fewer cases, a female). In some cultures, "brother" or "sister" even referred to one's spouse.
So maybe we decide Scripture's not the best source. That's okay, too. Let's go to history and see how marriage looked.
Marriage as a contract. Purely a legal term, we want only to be able to take our partner's property, and be able to have control over their rights. Generally, this aligns pretty closely with what we seem to be arguing for with "civil unions." The only problem with this idea is that is has nothing to do with love or a recognition of commitment. It's purely a legal concept and could be annulled.
Marriage as a relationship. Add to the contract concept that we are a committed couple. Okay, that works. Except that even with marriage identified as a "special relationship", it doesn't say anything about the historical or traditional concepts of marriage. When marriage was seen as a special relationship, men often had additional women for sexual gratification. While this appeals to some, I'm guessing there will be people in an uproar over that.
We can also add to this the ideas of polygamy (or rarer cases of polygyny). That throws a big kink into our hose of marriage. Personally, that doesn't appeal to me--but if it works for other people...I guess they have their own battle to fight.
History shows that Marriage as a sacramental union didn't really happen until sometime between the 11th and 13th Centuries. The argument is over a term that wasn't in existence a LOT longer than it HAS been in exsitence. (You know, if you consider a few hundred thousand years a "long time", that is.)
Let's understand where we are now:
As a spiritual/religious person, yeah. I do. I want to be able to look at my partner, know he's mine in both my eyes and God's. That's a personal understanding, between me, my partner, and God.
I want my church to recognize our relationship as special, as blessed, and as fully committed. But that's my argument with my church. Not the state.
I want my family to recognize us as a unit, one pair that is always a pair, not simply two seperate entities who get sexual release from one another. (Though somehow, I kind of doubt my family even wants to think about me having sex. Period. Male or female doesn't matter here. I'm pretty sure they think I'm still chaste, despite having been partnered nearly a year!) And despite all that, that's my argument with my family.
More than anything, I want my state and my country to admit that my partner and I deserve equal rights under the banner of the law. We deserve to be able to visit one another in a hospital without hassles. We deserve to be able to interview for positions without the fear of discrimination based solely on our sexual preferences, just like any other couple.*** We deserve being able to get health coverage for one another through our jobs, just like any other couple.
Maybe it would simply be better if we did go to Switzerland's form of the argument. Take marriage out of legal vocabulary. EVERYONE gets civil unions. That's it. You want a "marriage", something sanctified by your church? Take that part up with your church, and fight with them for that concept. If you want equal rights under the law, fight with your state and your country.
And a note to church leaders who might be reading this--though I doubt that's a likelihood. If you want to get involved in the debate, that's fine by me. But before you do, check your tax-exempt status with the IRS, and start paying taxes like me. You can preach all you want about "saving marriage" then, and be a taxpaying person doing it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself or your after-service coffee & donught hour. Leave my bedroom out of this...I don't come to your church and tell you who you can't sleep with. Don't come to my state and tell me who I can't sleep with.
(I'm a bit bitter today. It's been a rough week.)
***As a total aside...while typing that line, I immediately went to the gutter. If you aren't mad about nondiscrimination policies, consider this. A guy who likes it when his girlfriend uses toys on him doesn't get discriminated against for that, but in some work environments, you can be discriminated against for being a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls. Glorious, ain't it?
Please understand, before I get started and before you send angry emails to me or to Les Bian, I'm a full advocate of equal rights. It won't be equal until it's 100% equal, as far as I'm concerned. But we're arguing over a term that may not be of interest to any of us, if we really understood it.
Let's say, for the poor sake of argument, we wish to fight for marriage equal to that indicated in Scripture. I don't think any of us who want marriage rights for the LGBT community really want that for ourselves. And if we do, our partners may disagree with the option on other grounds! Let's start at the very beginning, because if Julie Andrews taught good gay boys and lesbian girls anything, the beginning is a very good place to start!
Adam and Eve. The only reason they ended up together is because otherwise Adam would've resorted to beastiality. I somehow doubt that'll fly for most of the LGBT community.
Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sarah). Okay. That'd be all right, if we totally ignore how Abraham had sex with Sarai's servant girl in order to have an heir. By the way, that's what eventually led to the split between the Israelites and the much-later followers of Islam. Do we really want that in our mix? I'm thinking no.
Samson and Delilah. Okay. Bad example from the outset. She tricks him so she can cut off his masculinity...in the form of his hair. This one's self-explanatory. (Men everywhere just crossed their legs while considering this one.)
Joseph and Mary. I'd probably go for this, but we might want to be a little cautious. According to Catholic lore, Joseph got no nookie. Ever. I'm guessing that won't go over well. (I don't even think heterosexuals would go for that option.)
The Wedding at Cana. Really great party. We know nothing of the marriage that followed. NEXT.
We can't even mention Jesus. According to traditional understanding, Jesus was a loner. Now, there are a few theologians who argued differently...some even positing that Jesus may have been gay. Hence the whole thing about John being a "beloved disciple". Still, that's no concrete example of what marriage is or should be.
If we are to look to Scripture as a guide--and I'm speaking to the men for a moment, here--there's the whole Joshua and David thing. Vaguely, I recall something being mentioned about "closer than a brother." Looking at linguistics, "brother" was often considered WAY more than what we mean now. In addition the option of sharing parents, the term would equally equate the closest male companion of a male (or, in fewer cases, a female). In some cultures, "brother" or "sister" even referred to one's spouse.
So maybe we decide Scripture's not the best source. That's okay, too. Let's go to history and see how marriage looked.
Marriage as a contract. Purely a legal term, we want only to be able to take our partner's property, and be able to have control over their rights. Generally, this aligns pretty closely with what we seem to be arguing for with "civil unions." The only problem with this idea is that is has nothing to do with love or a recognition of commitment. It's purely a legal concept and could be annulled.
Marriage as a relationship. Add to the contract concept that we are a committed couple. Okay, that works. Except that even with marriage identified as a "special relationship", it doesn't say anything about the historical or traditional concepts of marriage. When marriage was seen as a special relationship, men often had additional women for sexual gratification. While this appeals to some, I'm guessing there will be people in an uproar over that.
We can also add to this the ideas of polygamy (or rarer cases of polygyny). That throws a big kink into our hose of marriage. Personally, that doesn't appeal to me--but if it works for other people...I guess they have their own battle to fight.
History shows that Marriage as a sacramental union didn't really happen until sometime between the 11th and 13th Centuries. The argument is over a term that wasn't in existence a LOT longer than it HAS been in exsitence. (You know, if you consider a few hundred thousand years a "long time", that is.)
Let's understand where we are now:
- Marriage is a person-to-person thing...not like it was when it originated as a family-to-family contract.
- States can choose to acknolwedge any contract they so choose.
- The church only acts as an agent of the state in the matter of marriage. They serve merely as a witness.
- We're arguing over a church-based understanding of a term, not a legal understanding.
As a spiritual/religious person, yeah. I do. I want to be able to look at my partner, know he's mine in both my eyes and God's. That's a personal understanding, between me, my partner, and God.
I want my church to recognize our relationship as special, as blessed, and as fully committed. But that's my argument with my church. Not the state.
I want my family to recognize us as a unit, one pair that is always a pair, not simply two seperate entities who get sexual release from one another. (Though somehow, I kind of doubt my family even wants to think about me having sex. Period. Male or female doesn't matter here. I'm pretty sure they think I'm still chaste, despite having been partnered nearly a year!) And despite all that, that's my argument with my family.
More than anything, I want my state and my country to admit that my partner and I deserve equal rights under the banner of the law. We deserve to be able to visit one another in a hospital without hassles. We deserve to be able to interview for positions without the fear of discrimination based solely on our sexual preferences, just like any other couple.*** We deserve being able to get health coverage for one another through our jobs, just like any other couple.
Maybe it would simply be better if we did go to Switzerland's form of the argument. Take marriage out of legal vocabulary. EVERYONE gets civil unions. That's it. You want a "marriage", something sanctified by your church? Take that part up with your church, and fight with them for that concept. If you want equal rights under the law, fight with your state and your country.
And a note to church leaders who might be reading this--though I doubt that's a likelihood. If you want to get involved in the debate, that's fine by me. But before you do, check your tax-exempt status with the IRS, and start paying taxes like me. You can preach all you want about "saving marriage" then, and be a taxpaying person doing it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself or your after-service coffee & donught hour. Leave my bedroom out of this...I don't come to your church and tell you who you can't sleep with. Don't come to my state and tell me who I can't sleep with.
(I'm a bit bitter today. It's been a rough week.)
***As a total aside...while typing that line, I immediately went to the gutter. If you aren't mad about nondiscrimination policies, consider this. A guy who likes it when his girlfriend uses toys on him doesn't get discriminated against for that, but in some work environments, you can be discriminated against for being a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls. Glorious, ain't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)