Can of worms

[Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous!]

This topic has been rattling around in my head for while and I will most likely be opening a can of worms here, but here goes. I support gay marriage. There, I said it. I think that two consenting adults should be able to marry if they choose regardless of their orientation. I have been reading so much lately about this with the Supreme Court deciding on Prop.8 from C.A. Now,the idea here is that the court is only deciding on one law,not creating national policy as states rights are being debated vs. federal rights. That is the core of this issue, but since the issue regards gay rights, it seems to span more than that basic idea.

I have heard gays and gay marriage be blamed for everything under the sun from natural disasters to 9/11. I keep hearing the stale argument that if you allow this, then what will keep people from wanting to marry their cat, or their phone, etc. Marriage has been defined as that of being between a man and a woman for thousands of years because of social comfort levels,religious suppression, and other factors. I can see the argument for this idea from a basic scientific point of view. If you take the idea that you have to have a male and a female (of some sort) to create offspring, then yes, that is correct.

If you are are so sure that this concept of a man and woman making a marriage is because only a they can make a baby, then does that make a marriage invalid if they do not produce children? And what about children of parents who have not married? The notion of a marriage is not what it once was. (Common law spouses are no longer formed by law, which was created to make "honest" women out of couples who lived together without marriage and to make any children that were produced "legal".)

So,if a couple chooses not to have or cannot have a child, does that negate the marriage if it's purpose is not served? In nature we see examples of homosexuality among animals. I feel that it is natures way of population control,along with infertility, to keep EVERY species in check. We must remember that we humans are also animals and are subject to the same laws, yet we interfere with those laws. We use science to help the infertile, we deny birth control to those who want it and we keep education about sex hidden under carpets to shield innocence.

We have too many unwanted children in this world and too many children who are harmed by "parents". Yet, gay parents are harmful to children as the argument goes, so to allow marriage would further allow adoptions. So, you're telling me that two people who REALLY WANT this child will do more harm to them vs. the parents who had said child by accident and loathe it so much that they don't take proper care of it?


As usual fear is what is motivating people to hide behind their religious works to denounce this issue, as they did to justify slavery, and later on discrimination against blacks/native tribes/any one they didn't like. This legal issue,like abortion, has been turned into a moral issue. To me, there is only a moral issue if you are personally adverse it for yourself, but you have no right to stop someone else from doing it if they want. I don't agree with gambling,so I don't go the casino, but I won't stop you from going. (Unless you have a gambling problem.)

So what gives me or anyone else the right to say "you can't get married because my personal belief system says you can't"? If this was the government saying you can't marry because you are fat and you might have kids who may become fat? Or you can't marry because you may pass on a genetic predisposition for cancer or diabetes?

We have to ask ourselves what is so bloody bad about two adults in love and who want to spend their lives together? Marriage as we know it has changed over the years and so have benefits, such as domestic partner coverage (for those who live together without marriage). So why shouldn't same gender couples have the same rights?

You are not going to please everyone every time. But I say who am I to stop you from something that, if chose to do, I could?

I don't think that letting two consenting adults of the same gender marry will unravel the fabric of our society, cause parents to marry their children, make beastiality become de'riguer, or any other of the fiddle-faddling arguments I keep hearing. What it will do is further HUMAN rights and will allow more loving parents to have children, and more loving couples to grow old together in love and legal security.

That is not a bad thing, nor is it the end of the world as we know it, so we will all feel fine.

[Paul]

The thing is, marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legal one. A couple can choose to have a religious ceremony in a church or elsewhere with a minister, but that is NOT a valid, legal marriage UNLESS two criteria are met. The first thing is the could wanting to marry must get permission from the government to get married. The second thing is that the minister MUST be registered with and have permission from the government before he or she may legally solemnize a marriage. Just being ordained does not grant this legal privilege.

On the other hand, a couple can chose to have their marriage solemnized by a judge, a mayor, a justice of the peace, or in some cases the captain of a ship. None of these people need anything from the Church to legally solemnize the marriage. In fact, in such cases, the Church has no standing whatsoever. Thus, marriages are a legal institution and NOT NOT NOT a religious one.

Now those of the public in general that want to fallaciously cry about there religious beliefs being infringed on, I reply BULL. NO ONE can force a minister or church to perform a wedding now. Any couple can be refused service for any reason with no recourse. legalizing gay marriage WILL NOT change marriage, it will merely equalize marriage for all adult US citizens.

And to address the issue of going back to Biblical marriage.... ok. Which VERSION of marriage found in the King James Bible do you want to go back to? There are several, and they include:
a) two slaves married regardless of their wishes
b) a rapist and his victim
c) an older man and a young teen girl through an arrangement between him and her father
d) a man and the woman that he has bought (or worked for 7 years in exchange for)
e) a harem (King David had multiple wives, and King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines at the same time

if we are going there, lets not forget to add of a woman gets married and is not a virgin, she is to be stoned to death on her father's doorstep

So, there you have it. There are no valid logical reasons to stop same sex marriage. The religious arguments are invalid because marriage is not a religious institution and same sex marriage will have no impact on religion in any way, shape or form.

If you do not believe in same sex marriage, wed someone of the opposite sex. But do not try to turn your religious beliefs/views into my laws.

Thank you.

[Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous!]

All English versions of the bible are derived from the King James version and he was a well known misogynist and homophobe. I also want it noted that I did not say this was a religious matter. I feel that this, like abortion, are legal matters that have been muddied by stanchions of morality. I too feel that if you do not agree with abortion,don't have one, but do not keep those who feel that they need one from having a safe and secure one. This issue falls under the religious perview only as they see it affecting them,such as having to pay for birth control pills under their insurance plans or not distributing birth control pills (this includes ALL pills not just morning after pills) because your religion does not allow for these things.

The constitution states that church and state shall not mix. Period. Yet, the church and state have mixed so much over the years that it is hard to tell which is which. Sure, put up a picture of Jesus in a public school,a nativity scene on public property, or a star of David in a courtroom and you will be slapped with a lawsuit so fast, your ancestors will feel the slap. Yet, when it comes to perceived morality,the defenders of the faith rush down the mountainside enforce, wielding their religious texts like swords to protect the innocent.

The problem with that is, I don't need their protections nor would any of my children, should I have any, need their interference either. Paul said that there "are no valid logical reasons to stop same sex marriage", but since when is religion based on logic? It is based on fear and faith. He is correct on HOW you may choose to marry. A Catholic church would not allow me to marry in one of their churches because I'm not Catholic, and I cannot force them to let me marry there either. It is their right and I have to respect that.

Respect. Aretha demanded it. It can be earned,lost, hard won, and can be ignored. Tolerance is called for several times over, yet no one seems to really understand that tolerance requires respect. Respect for others opinions, even when it goes against yours, other faiths, and yes, legal issues as well. Not every one is going to agree with you, but an "all or nothing" stance helps no one.

Humans have demonstrated a low tolerance for "other" throughout our history and we are the only species to enslave our own kind. We have taken xenophobia to startling heights and we have also perpetrated some of the most tragic events all in the name of keeping those who do not agree with us/look like us/think like us/etc. from changing us. But that is the thing. We need to change in order to survive. We need to keep evolving and accepting new concepts or we will fade as a species.

I know that I dig in my heels over change many a time, but that is usually reserved for technological invasions into my life and not social changes,which I tend to embrace.

I guess I am unique to some of my generation, that despite the religious school background, I never saw what was so wrong with gay people. On one hand, I was not taught that prejudice at home. On the other, I grew up with 2 gay men in the peripheral of my young life. My grandma had a drapery business for years. (She still made small jobs until a few years go). She worked with several interior designers making draperies,pillows,johnny seat covers, bead spreads, dust ruffles, vanity skirts (for women's vanity tables which were big), valences, pillow shams, and much more. About the only thing she didn't make were slipcovers. Enter Ken and Norman. She worked for them for years. They were wonderful to her and to my mom and me as well. Mom and I would see Ken at the grocery store and he was always nice to me. Years later when I would go to their store at a local high end shopping plaza, they would always come out from the back to greet me and would slip me an unasked for discount on anything I bought. Ken passed away several years ago,from a heart attack. Ken and Norman shared 50 years together as life partners and business partners. Norman ran the store for many years and it's still there, I think he owns it in name only now. Maybe because I had such a positive example growing up, I felt that gay people were just people.

Paul and his partner are dear friends to me now, to me they are people. Wonderful,loving,smart,funny,sweet,(cranky on occasion),people who mean a lot to me.

I do not see why these people should not be allowed to legally share a life together.

It is like 2 bumper stickers I am seen. "Keep your theology off my body" and "Religion should stay our of politics or be taxed."

Love is love and who are we to say different?