Thursday, August 28, 2008

Problem: Gay Marriage

California is one of the worst possible states for a traditional conservative to live. Case in point: Prop 8. Eight years ago now 61% of Californians passed Prop 22 which defined marriage for legal purposes as the union between male and female. The California Supreme Court overturned the vote in a 4 - 3 decision and the voice of the California populace was silenced even though the majority of voters passed the initiative. Now it's back on the ballot. Mind you, it passed before, so really, there should be no reason to have to vote on it again...but it's back. I'm not entirely certain to what end because, if passed, the state Attorney General (who reworded the proposition, but more on that shortly) has already stated that he will not recognize the voice of the people, and the California Supreme Court will inevitably overturn it once more.

But it won't pass, in great part thanks to the California Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., more commonly known as Jerry Brown. Because rather than have Prop 8 state what it stated before - that the proposition would define marriage as a union between man and woman - Jerry has thrown in his two cents and reworded it to state that Prop 8 would "deny homosexuals the right to marry." Changes everything, doesn't it? Obviously that was the point.

You see, the new wording implies many, many things. First and foremost, it implies that homosexuals - based solely on their sexual preference - have a RIGHT to something. They are gay, and therefore they have RIGHTS. So they're gay. Whoop-dee-doo. As far as I'm concerned, their sexual preference does not set them apart from anyone. At all, ever. Because people's bedroom activities don't (and SHOULDN'T!) impact my life. And if someone chooses to "act gay," ie. take on all the horribly stereotypes of a homosexual ranging from lisps to weak handshakes to any number of other stupid things that make homophobes' blood boil, again, they're silly personality or behavioral differences that don't really set them apart as a whole new species (other than to appear a little stranger than the "norm", and since many homosexuals refuse to be viewed as "flamers", for lack of a better word, it is certainly a choice). In other words, just because someone chooses a particular bed mate doesn't inherently grant them specific rights.

The wording of the "new" Prop 8 also suggests something more criminal: that those who would pass such a proposition actively seek to DENY a percentage of the population their basic human rights...and are therefore BIGOTS. And since the vast majority of those who would seek to pass Prop 8 are doing so based on religious conviction, the insinuation is that THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS REPLETE WITH BIGOTRY. I would argue that the religious right wing populace is no more bigoted than any member of the left, but that's another blog entry. As it stands now, according to Jerry Brown, my voting to pass Prop 8 makes me a bigot. (I can't say racist, as gays are not of one particular ethnicity, so I'm going to use the word bigot a lot. Sorry.) This means I cannot vote my conscience without suddenly being labeled a gay basher.

But what is it about my conscience that would cause me to vote for Prop 8 instead of against it? The dictionary definition of a marriage includes the union of two people in a legal or religious ceremony, and in my religion - and so very many others - God sees fit to unite male and female and decry male and male or female and female relations. Whether or not I believe that two men or two women could or should engage in an emotional or physical relationship is entirely beside the point; instead, according to my faith, male-male or female-female sex is inappropriate to the point of sin, and as I believe in the tenets of my faith, I therefore believe that God would not condone a "marriage" of two individuals of the same sex. My faith will not ever perform religious ceremonies to unite same-sex couples and instead sides with the traditional, Christian view of opposite-sex marriage. For anyone to pass a law that might force my faith to deny its own first amendment right to neither perform nor recognize same-sex marriage is to me wholly unconstitutional.

That's not to say that I don't understand the need to extend some of the privileges of traditional marriage to nontraditional couples. I personally feel that if two people - of any sex, ethnicity, religion, etc - wish to devote themselves completely to each other and none else, they should be allowed to share in certain family-related benefits like health insurance, and their inheritance from the other in case one of the two passes should not be questioned. But I believe that of all people, plural marriage, people who leave inheritances to animals, and other nontraditional family situations included. I have no problem with civil unions, but marriage is a completely different story. You want me to legally recognize your "right" to join yourself with another human being of your choice? Fine. Recognized. Have a happy life together. But you want me to say that God approves of your selection and will bless your happy home when He has stated that He disapproves? I'm sorry. I will not do that. And asking me to is immoral.

Why does the gay community require the heterosexual community's stamp of approval? (Oddly enough, we generally find that the gay community actively seeks the straight community's stamp of DISAPPROVAL, perhaps because it makes them feel more persecuted and therefore more justified in their complaining, but again, that's another blog entry.) Why does the Christian Right have to call a civil union a MARRIAGE?

The answer is...it doesn't. They don't need our stamp of approval. Jerry Brown and the California Supreme Court will call civil unions "marriages" and apply their personal approval stamps anyway. Unfortunately, Prop 8 is just one big opportunity for the Christian Right to be made into bigots, and it is incredibly likely that Prop 8 will not pass. And no one will be surprised.

But I will get out of California if and when it comes to that. I will not have my children taught in a public school that homosexual relationships, polygamous relationships, and that bestial relationships are normal and acceptable. I will not allow my children to be told that their parents are the heterosexual equivalent of the KKK because their religious beliefs tell them that same-sex relations are wrong. And though I will continue to love and interact with my gay and lesbian friends without thinking twice about their sexual relationships (which DO NOT CONCERN ME!), I will not pretend that my religion would approve of their bedroom activities...and they are okay with that. I don't have to discuss sexual intimacy or watch my friends make out with and grope each other - homo OR heterosexual! - to love them as friends and respect them as individuals with individual needs, wants, and passions, and they do the same for me.

And should the state wish to pass a law about civil unions allowing gays to be united and share in the benefits of being united legally, I would be willing to vote for that. (I realize that displeases the Christian Right, but the bottom line is that marriage is male-female, and civil unions require the legal recognition of any number of types of unions, by which laws I will abide.) I don't believe civil unions are a religious issue...but they certainly become a legal issue when people start attempting to marry their dogs. Again, a whole different blog entry.

So what's the solution here? Californians: Vote your conscience. VOTE. Get registered NOW if you're not yet registered, and GO TO THE POLLS on election day. Obama or McCain? Who cares? We're screwed either way. But Prop 8 is really important. Vote on it. If you'd like to do more, or are not a Californian but would like to support Prop 8, check out http://www.protectmarriage.com/ and sign up for emails, volunteer work, etc. I made about a hundred phone calls today for Prop 8. It took less than 2 hours. I've still got more to go, but at least I'm doing something.

And when Prop 8 fails to pass, which, let's be honest, is likely, express your disgust to the California Supreme Court, to Jerry Brown, (heck! Why not express it now???) to your senate and house reps, and then do what we're planning to do: Get out of California. Red states are looking more and more attractive all the time...

Problem Solved,
Mommy

PS. It was incredibly difficult to find photos of gay couples for this blog entry that were not sexual in nature. I could put forth a few paragraphs-worth of conjecture on why that is, but I think I'll just allow my incredibly intelligent readers to draw their own conclusions.

3 comments:

Tom said...

"You see, the new wording implies many, many things. First and foremost, it implies that homosexuals - based solely on their sexual preference - have a RIGHT to something."

It's not a "preference," it's an orientation. Being gay is no more of a choice than being left-handed is.

"They are gay, and therefore they have RIGHTS."

No, we are HUMAN and therefore we have rights.

"As far as I'm concerned, their sexual preference does not set them apart from anyone. At all, ever."

Agreed. It doesn't. We're as different from straight people as left-handed people are from right-handed people.

"you want me to say that God approves of your selection and will bless your happy home when He has stated that He disapproves? I'm sorry. I will not do that."

I think you misunderstand the issue. God doesn't enter into this. This is strictly about civil marriage.

"For anyone to pass a law that might force my faith to deny its own first amendment right to neither perform nor recognize same-sex marriage is to me wholly unconstitutional."

That won't happen. No one is forcing the Catholic church to marry divorced people. Up until 1979, the Mormon church denied temple marriages to black people -- solely because they were black! The church was legally able to do this because of the First Amendment.

"Why does the gay community require the heterosexual community's stamp of approval?"

We don't. All we are seeking is equal treatment under the law.

"I will get out of California if and when it comes to that."

Do you need any help packing?

Mommy said...

We do indeed disagree at to preference or orientation, unfortunately. I feel one with inclinations tends to orient themselves based on a million factors. As humans, rights are a given...I did point out, though, that the new phrasing of the proposition makes it sound like those rights are inherent in gayness as opposed to humanness, so we can thank Jerry Brown for that. I'm glad we agree on preference not setting up apart, for I am, like you said, about as different from you as I am from a lefty.

As for misunderstanding the issue, perhaps you misunderstand me; for me, the issue is that marriage is a sacred and holy covenant between a man and woman. The phrase "marriage" to me suggests a holy rite. So again, as far as I'm concerned, if the word marriage were deleted and union replaced it, God then WOULDN'T enter into the conversation. My faith will still be required not to perform but to recognize gay "marriage" by virtue of it being legal, so I'd much rather (it's all the phraseology here!) they recognized civil UNIONS.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my stamp of approval statement properly, or perhaps again you misunderstood: I think the gay community in general likes to play the victim, so if we refuse to condone gay marriage, well then, oh, poor gays. If we condone it, well, gays were right all along. It's a moral dilemna for the Christian Right. (And so you don't misunderstand, I mean right wing, not right-correct.) Perhaps you'll notice that I was actually arguing for equal treatment under the law. Just skip the word marriage (which to me suggests, again, God-approved) and we'll all be just fine.

As for needing help packing, I just might...(that was really quite funny, by the way. Thanks for the laugh!) I'll be sure to let you know via this blog when the time comes! Thanks for commenting!

Kim said...

Ok so I had wrote a long comment the other day, but for some reason it did not post. So here is a shorter version. God made a male and a female. One goes with the other. Hence the fact that a male has a penis and a female a vagina. They fit together as one. They make another human together. I have friends that are gay. I do not approve of their lifestyles and they do not like some things that I do. But we still enjoy our friendships. I love them. As for the controversy of, "Being gay is no more of a choice than being left-handed is." Give me a break!!!! People can choose to be something against the norm. The whole thing about marriage...It is a sacred union between a male and a female. My child will not be taught as early as kindergarten that being gay is ok. Sorry it is out there. It is not ok. Just as much as me having sex and having a child before being married was not ok. I will tell my daughter that it was not ok that I disobeyed God and His commandments that I should have waited until marriage. She is a blessing in that I have learned so much from her and that is why we are able to learn. So many people push the limits to what is right and what is wrong. That is Satan working his "magic". Oh and God enters into everything we do!!!