Filed Under : 
Nov.6,2008![[cameraphone] Gay Marriage - San Francisco City Hall](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2588811025_14bc521880_m.jpg)
We elected our first black President this week.
On the same day, we in California denied the civil rights of a segment of the population. The irony is not only palpable, it’s repugnant.
The language in Proposition 8 was, and I quote, “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Period. That’s it. Do not pass Go. The wording implies that there is a right, and then seeks to remove it.
I wonder if “those queers” will be able to drink from the same water fountains after the next election if the bigots have their way.
Here’s how the chips fall:
States whose constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions (such as domestic partnerships, etc): Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida
States whose constitution bans same-sex marriage: Alaska, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi
States who have statutes banning same-sex marriage: Wyoming, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and North Carolina
All this because some people don’t approve of who other people have sex with.
These are not evil people. All they want is the right to be with the person they love, and be recognized as such.
This morning, I heard a fundamentalist black minister claim that there was no parallel between racial civil rights and homosexual civil rights. I was astounded, yet somehow, completely unsurprised. It’s sad how often people who preach love and compassion are the first to condemn people that they fear.
America should be different. America is better than this shameless unapologetic ignorance.
All men are created equal, except those who don’t own land. All men are created equal, except if you’re a Catholic or a Jew. Or if you’re a nigger. Or a chink. Or a woman. Or a jap. Or a spic. Or if you’re a fag.
Or…
All men are created equal.
Which is it, America?
[special thanks to J.C. Hutchins and Kris Johnson]
Tags : Politics, proposition 8, same sex marriage
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I don’t think I could’ve put it better if I tried.
Civil unions and/or marriage should be considered neither a right nor a privledge that requires a law to place into effect. They are about love & committment & should be available to EVERYONE! Race. Religion. Gender. None of these things should be sufficient to deny someone the option of joining with their chosen partner.
Right on, Chris. People have always come up with justification for injustice. That doesn’t make it right. If people were saying a black person couldn’t legally marry a white person, we would rightfully be hammering them. We’d consider that we had an obligation to not tolerate such racism and bigotry.
Is this different? Well, not really. is it because marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman? So, slavery and women not voting had a tradition dating back millenia also. Is it biological – because same sex couples can’t procreate? Well, if it’s biological, we certainly don’t need to legislate it. Religious? Well sure, and to a large extent religions have the right to decide where they come down on this in their own practices. But laws of course cannot be based on religious beliefs other than in the most general sense.
It’s quite simple – a majority of Americans believe gay marriage is wrong and are willing to impose their view on other people’s private affairs. And make no mistake, not granting all various rights associated with marriage to same sex couples IS absolutely saying we want to use government to control your personal life. Now, to some extent, we all expect government to impose our personal views onto other people. If I believe in taxing the wealthy more, for example, I am proposing that my views directly impact other people.
But with the issue of gay marriage, there simply is no possible justification other than “I don’t like it” or “It’s against my religion”. And that’s a pretty goddamn pathetic reason for discrimination.
In 20 years Americans are going to look back on this and be ashamed at themselves. Of course, at the same time they’ll be doing something equally appalling to another segment of the population that we’re not even thinking about right now.
My only solace is that at least we’re discussing it now. Social change takes time as attrition in the opposing group takes its course.
It’s just so painful to watch.
There’s nothing more for me to say at this point other than I agreee with you whole-heartedly.
Okay, that part about me having nothing more to say isn’t true. I have much more to say on this, but I’ll save it for a post in my own blog.
I do want to add this, though: I agree with you now, but I didn’t always. There was a time not too many years ago when I felt that a civil union should be good enough for same-sex couples, that they didn’t need to have their union called a “marriage”.
I was—despite my rather vehement assertion otherwise—narrow-minded, defensive, wrong-headed and, to put it bluntly, bigoted.
A friend convinced me that I was wrong. This same friend had to move to another state in order to be legally married. There’s no equality in that; not even the half-assed version of equality offered by civil unions (which, as you well know, are now also illegal in Ohio).
Chris, your remark about the water fountains hits the nail directly on the head: America is no place for this “separate but equal” bullshit (I was going to say “baloney”, but let’s call it what it is). It wasn’t okay then and it’s certainly not okay now.
“This morning, I heard a fundamentalist black minister claim that there was no parallel between racial civil rights and homosexual civil rights. I was astounded, yet somehow, completely unsurprised. It’s sad how often people who preach love and compassion are the first to condemn people that they fear.”
I’m not claiming to agree with the fundamentalist black minister, but I think it is important to understand his statement. Just as tolerance is being asked for in the case of gay marriage, I ask for just a little breathing room to comprehend the possibility as to WHY the preacher said there is no comparison.
Keep in mind that he is a FUNDAMENTALIST. Fundamentalism refers to a “deep and totalistic commitment” to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (excerpt from Wikipedia).
There is a passage in the Bible claiming that same sex unions are an abomination. There is no way around the statement, according to the Bible. It’s not an “interpretation”. It doesn’t require creative license to declare it as something Biblical. It’s written rather plainly. If you aren’t familiar with it, here it is:
Lev 18:22-25
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
As a Fundamentalist, that preacher cannot escape that passage. He doesn’t have the license to argue with the Bible.
Again, I’m not asking you to agree with him. Not at all. I’m merely asking you to understand the position he is in. According to his faith, being gay is an abomination. I don’t recall the Bible stating that being African American is an abomination. Thus, to him, there is no comparison.
Expecting that preacher to take a different point of view on gay marriage is asking him to renounce his faith. That can be just as difficult as asking a gay person to renounce being gay.
That’s all I’m saying.
I respect your point, Bridget, but I think it’s a flawed argument. Fundamentalists cherry-pick from the Bible to suit their purposes. For example:
Exodus 35:2 “On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.”
Unless fundamentalists are killing people for mowing their lawns on Sunday, then they are, in some fashion, ignoring what it suits them to ignore. So..apparently he can escape this one. As well as the other passages about selling our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and eating pork (Leviticus 11:7).
There is no law that says it is illegal for same-sex partner to HAVE a relationship. If you want to have a same sex relationship; fine. But why should I be forced to accept it being called a MARRIAGE? Why should an obvious minority be able to change the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships? Just as the people have spoken and Obama is president, the people have spoken and don’t want the definition of MARRIAGE to include same-sex relationships.
Forget eating pork or working on Sunday, there’s plenty about marriage in the Bible that fundamentalists conveniently overlook when condemning same-sex unions.
Vaugn Roste outlines the 12 Principals of Biblical Marriage in an article titled Biblical marriage: a bad source for debate. Turns out there’s very little about marriage in the Bible that is adhered to by modern Christians.
Chris, the Bible is cherry picked by just about every Christian based faith.
There are those who believe in the forgiveness of sin, ignoring all the passages which spell out sin’s punishment (this is a slippery slope). There are those who believe in the punishment of sin, overlooking all the passages which spell out just how far reaching forgiveness of sin goes. By that I mean, they recognize God being able to forgive THEIR sins, but not the sins of everyone on the planet (also a slippery slope).
The sword cuts both ways. I believe there is both punishment of sin and forgiveness of sin. And I’m referring specifically to my own sin! I believe I will be forgiven my sin, but I also believe there are consequences for that same sin that will be forgiven. To me, the sword cuts both ways. I don’t get to escape condemnation for my sin, but I am also not denied the opportunity to be forgiven. Both apply to me, as far as I understand it.
With regard to mowing the lawn on a Sunday:
Jesus Himself called the ruler of the synagogue a hypocrite on the issue of “not working” on the Sabbath in this passage:
Luk 13:15
The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering?
So, as far as mowing the lawn on a Sunday goes, I think the preacher has a “Biblical out”. hehe.
As for selling daughters into slavery… it wasn’t about slavery as we think of it in America. This “selling” was about betrothal, either to the master of the house or one of the sons. (Explained in the verses immediately following the one you mentioned):
Exd 21:7-9 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
Essentially, the “selling” was an arrangement of marriage.
With regard to slaves, Biblically speaking, slavery is not an abomination. However, treatment of slaves was outlined as far less cruel than that which is depicted in American history or what we know occurs in the world today.
In one explanation, the slave was only to be a slave for seven years. Then the slave was given an option, to go out as a free man or to remain with his master – by his own choice and continue to serve him for the rest of his life. That option didn’t appear to apply in American slavery. Thus, I could argue that slavery in America was not of the biblical variety.
I admit that I do not know enough about “Biblical slavery” to make any kind of definitive statements, so I will not attempt to do so beyond what I stated above. I’m not scholarly enough.
Let it also be clearly understood that my comments above do not suggest that I condone slavery, nor do I wish to own slaves.
I would hate for a discussion of things found in the Bible to be translated into a distortion of my personally held beliefs.
As for eating pork, the preacher has another “Biblical out”, should he choose to use it, where Paul states that to him all things are clean. But, there is still one very large caveat to the freedom Paul claims to possess. Although all things are clean to Paul, Paul must consider the thoughts of another. If another person were to believe something to be unclean (such as pork), then Paul is to respect that person’s belief and not eat pork in their presence.
The point is — even in “freedom” there are limitations.
I think that brings me back to my earlier point. While you or others who have responded here feel that tolerance should be provided to gay couples seeking to marry, there are plenty of folks who do not possess the ability to do so. While you may be “free” to support such things, to others such things are still unclean. Therefore, while you are “free” to support gay marriage, in the presence of those who are “not free” to do so, their concerns should be taken into consideration.
That doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t state your opinion. As an American, you were given a right to free speech. You should exercise that right! As well, those who disagree (the preacher) are given the same right to free speech and have the right to exercise it.
Let the debate continue!
Excellent post, Bridget! I need to chew on that for a bit.
I commend Bridget for her thoughtful, well-organized, carefully cited — and, above all, respectful — posts. This type of presentation does far more credit to people for whom the Bible is a sacred text. I would ask my fellow Christians to please heed what I am saying.
There is one point that Bridget made in her latest post on which I would like to comment. She wrote: “Therefore, while you are “free” to support gay marriage, in the presence of those who are “not free” to do so, their concerns should be taken into consideration.”
I am not sure I understand what Bridget means. I feel that the concerns of those who are opposed to gay rights as well as the concerns of those who support gay rights have indeed been taken into consideration each time a gay rights issue such as Prop 8 has been put to a vote. Every voter, no matter which side of the issue he or she is on, has the same right — no more and no less — to decide whether to vote “yes” or “no” based on his/her personal judgment on this issue.
We do live in a democracy, so for better or worse the side with the most votes prevails, despite the beliefs or concerns of the other side. But that’s not the same thing as failing to take those concerns into consideration. If that were the case, there would be no voting. In the case of Prop 8, the side in opposition to gay marriage simply got more people to vote that way. This time.
We all know that some social/cultural changes take much longer than others. Those of us who are frustrated by what we view as bigotry toward gays … well, the work is cut out for us, isn’t it? Those of us who feel victorious in having upheld our cherished moral tradition … well, the history of social change is really not on our side.
Well put.
“Cherry-pickers”.
May all of us who cast such an accusation taste the bile of our own hypocrisy the next time we knowingly break the speed limit.