| My Feathers Are Still Ruffled. |
[May. 31st, 2009|02:12 am] |
OK. I'm stepping on my soapbox now because of a few conversations I've had on Facebook. Let's make this perfectly clear just so everyone is on the same page when dealing with those idiots that are against same-sex marriage. (Yes, I'm rehashing stuff we already know, but a refresher seems to be in order.)
1) Marriage was a civil arrangement LONG before religion got involved. When religion appeared (in polytheistic societies) marriages were often blessed but the approval of the church/temple/whatever was WAY down the line on the list of priorities following the approval of the fathers of the bride and groom and the government. Marriages were created (and most often arranged) to increase wealth and land holdings and to ensure lineage. This made heirs a bit easier to track, too, and is why adultery and marrying a virgin were such huge deals from ancient times to about half a century ago. (In regular society, anyway. The royals are still sticklers for that sort of thing. No word on that whole droit de seigneur dillio, yet. Some lords were just horndogs, I guess.) Marriages are still arranged to this day and extramarital sex and adultery laws still exist. (They're blue laws because they can't really be enforced but, for example, adultery in Michigan still carries a life sentence and it is still a class 1 felony in Wisconsin.) It is a recent development that we began marrying for love over everything else but marrying for love is no less valid. It's also a recent development that women were allowed to choose their own mates and participate in the legal and political process which just goes to show us that some traditions and laws were meant to be changed.
2) The separation of church and state seems to be the largest issue in regards to same-sex marriage. We must gently remind people that our country was founded by deists that MADE SURE to include this in the Constitution because the government they seceded from also ran the church (thank you, Julian). Also, folks should be reminded that states that allow same-sex marriages do NOT force religious organizations to officiate a ceremony. We don't want to step on values or religious views. We just want what is right and fair. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment also prevents this from happening and prevents the government from recognizing one religion over another. Basically, your religion/spirituality/morals end where my nose begins. Oh, and one more thing? The church performed same-sex weddings in Europe around the Mediterranean regions up until about the 15th century. In France the arrangement was called "affrèrement" and documents exist to prove it.
3) Sad, but true, federally, the right to conjugal marriage was defined as that between a man and a woman out of the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. Granted, interracial marriage was a huge deal in the 60's HOWEVER, this said, the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, passed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, is a bigger deal. This law allows that no state has to treat a relationship between two people of the same gender as a marriage even if the relationship is recognized as such in another state and that the federal government may not treat such relationships as marriage for any purpose. This second part is the real bitch because all of those married couples we know in Massachusetts and Vermont and such can file their taxes jointly or "married but separate" in their respective states but must file separately as "single" federally. Plus? If a gay couple from California marries in Massachusetts and subsequently divorces in Massachusetts, California doesn't have to recognize the marriage but MUST abide by the divorce decree from Massachusetts.
Legally, and I'm not a lawyer, mind you, DOMA is unconstitutional based on the 5th and 14th amendment rights to Due Process including the Equal Protection Clause (as well as the 14th defining marriage and parental rights) and the 9th amendment which grants unenumerated rights and states that no law can be created or upheld that removes rights from any person or grant rights to one person over another. It can also be said that it is unconstitutional according to the 1st amendment which grants us freedom of expression and marriage is the ultimate expression of love for another human being (beyond sex).
Now, opponents of same-sex marriage will tell you that you still have exactly the same rights (all 1,138 of them) as everyone else when it comes to marriage. Technically, they're right. A gay man can still marry a woman, and vice versa, and obtain all of the rights and privileges that come along with that union. But, technicalities aside, this is bullshit. If someone says to you that this is a case of special rights over civil rights, ask them if they had any choice in the person they love.
4) Many opponents of same-sex marriage argue that marriage is for the purposes of procreation. Again... bullshit. If that is the case then are we supposed to separate those couples that choose not to have children? What about those couples that, for some reason or another, can't have children? With (historically) recent medical advances, gay people are just as able to have children of their own through artificial insemination, or surrogacy (whether through natural or artificial means) and in many areas are permitted to adopt children. The definition of "family" has always been a fluid thing. Besides, the Supreme Court has already allowed that laws cannot be made to prohibit married couples from using contraception.
5) This issue is not about sex. Opponents of gay rights in general like to tell us that our mode of getting our rocks off goes against the natural order of things. Say it with me, now... Bullshit. We now know that there are 3 key genetic markers for homosexuality (this is not to say that they are the defining factors... there's other stuff involved) and humans are not the only species to display this behavior. Beyond all the biological stuff, everybody has their kinks. Straight guys occasionally like it up the butt and you hardly go a day without hearing about some Hollywood starlet airing out her lesbian fantasies or experiences yet they can still get married to their heterosexual mate of choice. In any case, Lawrence v Texas took care of sodomy laws in 2003 so nobody has any right to tell another person what they can or cannot do consensually in their own home.
Now that I've spewed my nerd load all over the intersprockets, I urge everyone who supports the cause to use this knowledge to continue fighting for our equal rights. Rights that are granted to inmates on Death Row over honest, decent (well, maybe not decent, but you know what I mean), tax-paying citizens. In our system of checks and balances in which the judicial branch of the government is meant to protect the fundamental rights of minority groups against the tyranny of the majority, we continue to be let down. This is our lives they're fucking with. We can't just wait for the shit to hit the fan, we have to take the flaming bag of poo and launch it ourselves.
And I'm out. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
booboobob's journal