msagara: (Default)
[personal profile] msagara
I pretty much expected it. I was ready for it. This is what I told myself last night, when I finally went to sleep.

But I am thoroughly depressed by what I, in theory, expected, so obviously I had silently hoped for a different result. I don't live in the US, and I don't live in CA. I live in Ontario, in Canada, where gay marriage is a simple fact of both law and daily life. Prior to the advent of legal marriage for gays, I knew a number of people whose SO's were in the hospital dying of AIDS -- and who were denied the ability to be with their SO's in their last days because of the narrow-minded and ultimately evil (really, truly, imho) decisions of the rest of their family, even though, right up until the point that hospitalization was required, they were the ones who were physically caring for them -- a right that could not be denied a legal spouse.

Pointing to the ways in which a "separate but equal" commitment does not detract from daily life misses that single point. Think about it: If your SO's mother is denying you all access to her son because you aren't kin, how exactly, in CA, are you going to prove that you have the right to access? What are you going to say to the hospital staff? You can argue that you are, in fact, legally entitled to visit and to be there -- but what are you pulling out of your pockets to drop on the staff's desk? When you are already reeling in shock and pain, how are you building up your bureaucratic arsenal to be there to comfort the dying -- and to gain, for yourself, possibly the last hours you will ever have with the living?

No cut-tags here, because, honestly? CA, I do not get it. I understand the ways in which the Supreme Court was hampered -- but they should never have been hampered that way in the first place. To those who voted for prop 8: I don't understand your fear. I don't understand your bigotry. I don't understand your hatred. No one is telling you what to do. No one is telling you who to marry. Or who to sleep with. No one is pointing their mocking teen-age fingers at you and calling you gay. Okay? (I may, at this point, be calling you a whole host of other things, but my fury is not entrenched in law.)

It is not as if the lesbian and gay communities are asking for something outrageous. They are not asking for your jobs, your homes, your children, or your money; they're not demanding equal sexual time with you or your spouse; they're not trying to secede. What horrible and agitating thing are they struggling to achieve? They want to get married. Wow. That's it. They want to be able to get married. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around why this is considered so ultimately terrifying because if you actually unpack the fear... there's not a lot there. They want the chance, in front of friends, family, and their entire community, to put their money where their mouth is: to make the public commitment.

I am, absent obvious racial characteristics, as middle-of-the-road as one gets. I am married, I have two children, I have a mortgage. My husband works full-time; I work part-time and write. I hate housework. My parents are in and out of my house all week. I am not writing from any radical fringe or any radical mode of thought. My marriage, and my family, are not lessened by gay marriage; they are more threatened by a society that continues to attempt to entrench bigotry in its constitution. I understand bigotry. I know what my parents lost--as children--in the internment camps of the second world war. I know what their parents lost, as adults with families they couldn't even keep together, so I understand bigotry. I understand the costs.

There is enough loneliness and unhappiness in life that denying people the chance at a public, successful marriage seems petty, small, cruel. Will all of the marriages survive? Probably not; many marriages don't. But the profound hope and promise of the beginning is one of the ways one gets through the storms and the upheavals. We promised. It was witnessed. It meant something. Denying people this happiness and this hope just spreads misery and isolation.

Please, do not do this. Do not continue to do this.

Date: 2009-06-05 02:57 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Marriage is for man and a woman only. God wanted man and woman in the sacrament of marriage to reproduce, and gays can't do that. sure, they can adopt, but how are their children going to feel, extremely confused. by refusing gay marriage, they aren't expecting to cut off a gay person's happy ending. everyone should be happy and deserves to be happy, but marriage is for a man AND a woman.

Date: 2009-06-05 03:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] msagara.livejournal.com
By this reasoning, anyone who gets married with the intent to have zero children should also, in fact, be refused marriage.

I'm all for skipping the sacrament, by the way.

I'm not for excluding people -legally- from the body politic which in theory is not religious, from the civil ceremony known as -- yes! -- marriage.

By all means, if they don't revere your god, they don't have to marry in your Church. They can find someone else's god to revere, and someone else's church to be married in. But they live here, abide by the laws, and, significantly, pay the taxes upon which all of our civil services are in the end based. Given that they are part of society, why should they not benefit from the legal protections of said society?

In other words: the force of civil law should apply to gay couples in exactly the same way it applies to every other couple. If you want to deny them the religious ceremony, if you want to refuse to condone it as a core religious tenet, it's your clubhouse, and I have no problems with that.

But separate out Church and State here. The State should have the right to recognize marriages absent religious attitudes; the Church should not be required to be an avenue for performing those marriages.
Edited Date: 2009-06-05 03:17 am (UTC)

Date: 2009-06-29 01:40 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The best solution (in my opinion) would be to strip the word "marriage" out of civil law entirely. Make everyone a "civil union", whether it's between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or man and chicken. If the couple then wants to be "married", they can go to whatever local church recognizes their sort of union and get married there.

This would completely strip the issue of bizarre and antiquarian religious arguments offered by the fruitcakes who voted against gay marriage.

Profile

msagara: (Default)
Michelle Sagara

April 2015

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 20th, 2026 05:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios