Equality or "Special Privileges"?
Last February, Gavin Newsom, the photogenic mayor of San Francisco, threw caution to the winds and announced that gays and lesbians could get married. I don't know a whole lot about Newsom, compared with what I know about Willie Brown. He just seemed like another rich politician with a moderate bent (moderate for S.F., that is!), and I wasn't really sure if he was making this move out of the goodness of his heart, or because he truly believed in equality for gays and lesbians, or if it was a political move. I decided to give him credit for opening up the city marriage bureau, but I also saw it as a shrewd ploy. At a time when the coffers are going dry and the state has been stealing money from local and county governments for its own expenses, collecting marriage license fees seemed like a brilliant stroke: earn points with the gay/lesbian community, and go to the bank at the same time.
Boy, I don't think that the response he thought he was gonna get is the same as what happened. Everybody and anybody who could, jumped onto planes, trains, and automobiles, hot air balloons, motorcycles, Segways, cable cars, and Muni trams in their mad rush to City Hall. In the melee were people I knew: an old high school friend of mine (he's known me the longest, if not the best, of all my friends), and friends of my wife (friends of mine as well, but more her friends). Joy and Keltie not only had beautiful wedding gowns, but for some reason they showed up at exactly the right time: for the next few days, I could not go anywhere online without seeing them. Keltie and Joy on Slate, Yahoo, and a number of other sites. They even wound up in People Magazine's coverage.
I talked with Keltie and Joy soon afterwards, to congratulate them. At that time, they were excited, but slightly wary: after all, it remained to be seen if the state would recognize Newsom's declaration, and hold all the marriages that had occurred to be valid. Joy felt that it would be at least a generation before gays and lesbians could get married anywhere in this country. I told her I thought it would be less, maybe five years. Some days I think I'll be right, while other days, I think Joy has a better handle on what's going to happen.
So far it looks like California's marriages will remain valid. Since then, Massachussetts, Oregon, and now possibly Connecticut have jumped on the bandwagon. Oregon, unfortunately, has since invalidated the original decision. Vermont has civil unions. There's a groundswell-- slow, sure, but it's there. On the other hand, quite a few "red" states have passed statutes declaring marriage to be the sole province of a man and a woman, and nothing else. So it's a tossup as to what will happen next, but my feeling is, the genie's out of the bottle. It may not happen as quickly as I predicted, but someday things are going to change.
Personally, I don't care whether gays get married or not. Contrary to the hysterical, emotional arguments of bigots everywhere, gays and lesbians do not "threaten" my marriage. Any philandering I or my wife do, or a third person trying to get in between us is far more of a threat than Joe and John down the street, or Susie and Vicki at the grocery store. I also don't feel that "they" will change the "meaning" of marriage. Throughout history, marriages have far more often been initiated, conducted, and ended based on power, kinship, and that great Mammon, money, than they have developed out of love or genuine feelings of friendship. Even today, among "straights," marriage is wrapped up in class and ethnicity. It's okay for Billy and Susie to be friends with Shamieka and LeChester, but woe to them if they decide to date, or worse, get married. Nowadays, Mary Margaret getting married to Moses isn't as big a deal (especially if Moses is richer or in any way better off than Mary Margaret's folks), but interfaith marriages were usually frowned upon until pretty recently (and even then, there are people out there today who will only marry "our kind"). It wasn't until fairly recently that the notion of romantic love stepped out of the pages of the medieval chansons and fairy tales and grounded itself in reality. There are still regions and cultures that practice arranged marriages. As for the canard that procreation is a holy function between a man and a woman and a great dividend of marriage (and gays and lesbians are just wasting themselves in the eyes of God), check around with the thousands of single mothers out there. You don't have to go down to City Hall to take your pants off, and it certainly doesn't take a ring to bring a new life into this world.
My opinion is that marriages in the strictly legal sense (call them civil unions if you want) should be open to any man or woman of majority who are not closely related (I'm not gonna get into the whole kissin' cousins thing right now, 'kay?). I think the social, legal, and ethical responsibilities and protections are far too important to deny to people. Granting legal rights to marriage isn't going to diminish or threaten anyone, and it will place everyone on a legal footing. As many thousands have said before me in other writings, blogs, and the like, we "straights" have really done a great job (*snort*) with the institution of marriage; how could gays and lesbians do any worse?
But I do think that insisting on the right to marry within a religion or in a house of worship is an entirely different matter. As much as I wish all churches were flexible and open-minded about equality and the celebration of love and humanity, religions are not cafeterias where you can pick and choose; each faith reserves the right to its own tenets, and if their beliefs exclude marriage for same-sex couples, then that's the way it goes. If it means that much to have a church wedding, then I think the individuals in question should take a long, hard look at the church they belong to, and decide whether they're better off with or without it. Spirituality and devotion do not have to be confined to four walls; there's nothing that says that if you don't go to church, you don't believe in a deity or deities. At the same time, churches should expect that if they're going to discriminate, they run the risk of losing adherents.
So, personally, I really don't care if John and Joe want to get hitched. More power to them. What I *do* care about is when mean-spirited behavior, ill-advised rhetoric, and discriminatory legislation gets in the way and destroys people. This particular case hit home, because I know the people involved. I cannot understand for the life of me why two loving people have to be separated because society can't get a handle on the concept of two responsible people of the same sex raising a child. I don't think the definition of marriage needs to be changed so much as the definition of FAMILY does. What is a family? How do you define a successful family? For that matter, how do you define a successful parent? It really gets to me that you have to have a license or get permission or an education for tons of things, but you don't have to meet any standard before you become a parent. I know that reproduction is a fundamental, biological issue, and that the human race has made it this far despite the varying degrees of dysfunction that has prevailed in millions of families throughout the ages. But when you have parents physically, verbally, and sexually abusing their children, when you have foster children starved and neglected, when you have parents leaving their kids at home alone for days at a time, or in locked cars in midsummer, not getting involved in their education or lives, or letting them stay at places like Neverland with a man who has had years of allegations swarming around him, then they are unfit for parenthood. As with marriage, "straights" have done a terrific job of parenting; how could gays and lesbians do any worse?
I don't see the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood as special privileges; if anything, I see them as solemn duties and sometimes, as burdens. The joys are mixed in with the sorrows, but overall, the experience is part of what makes us human, what defines our lives. Why should any healthy, loving, responsible person be denied that?
Boy, I don't think that the response he thought he was gonna get is the same as what happened. Everybody and anybody who could, jumped onto planes, trains, and automobiles, hot air balloons, motorcycles, Segways, cable cars, and Muni trams in their mad rush to City Hall. In the melee were people I knew: an old high school friend of mine (he's known me the longest, if not the best, of all my friends), and friends of my wife (friends of mine as well, but more her friends). Joy and Keltie not only had beautiful wedding gowns, but for some reason they showed up at exactly the right time: for the next few days, I could not go anywhere online without seeing them. Keltie and Joy on Slate, Yahoo, and a number of other sites. They even wound up in People Magazine's coverage.
I talked with Keltie and Joy soon afterwards, to congratulate them. At that time, they were excited, but slightly wary: after all, it remained to be seen if the state would recognize Newsom's declaration, and hold all the marriages that had occurred to be valid. Joy felt that it would be at least a generation before gays and lesbians could get married anywhere in this country. I told her I thought it would be less, maybe five years. Some days I think I'll be right, while other days, I think Joy has a better handle on what's going to happen.
So far it looks like California's marriages will remain valid. Since then, Massachussetts, Oregon, and now possibly Connecticut have jumped on the bandwagon. Oregon, unfortunately, has since invalidated the original decision. Vermont has civil unions. There's a groundswell-- slow, sure, but it's there. On the other hand, quite a few "red" states have passed statutes declaring marriage to be the sole province of a man and a woman, and nothing else. So it's a tossup as to what will happen next, but my feeling is, the genie's out of the bottle. It may not happen as quickly as I predicted, but someday things are going to change.
Personally, I don't care whether gays get married or not. Contrary to the hysterical, emotional arguments of bigots everywhere, gays and lesbians do not "threaten" my marriage. Any philandering I or my wife do, or a third person trying to get in between us is far more of a threat than Joe and John down the street, or Susie and Vicki at the grocery store. I also don't feel that "they" will change the "meaning" of marriage. Throughout history, marriages have far more often been initiated, conducted, and ended based on power, kinship, and that great Mammon, money, than they have developed out of love or genuine feelings of friendship. Even today, among "straights," marriage is wrapped up in class and ethnicity. It's okay for Billy and Susie to be friends with Shamieka and LeChester, but woe to them if they decide to date, or worse, get married. Nowadays, Mary Margaret getting married to Moses isn't as big a deal (especially if Moses is richer or in any way better off than Mary Margaret's folks), but interfaith marriages were usually frowned upon until pretty recently (and even then, there are people out there today who will only marry "our kind"). It wasn't until fairly recently that the notion of romantic love stepped out of the pages of the medieval chansons and fairy tales and grounded itself in reality. There are still regions and cultures that practice arranged marriages. As for the canard that procreation is a holy function between a man and a woman and a great dividend of marriage (and gays and lesbians are just wasting themselves in the eyes of God), check around with the thousands of single mothers out there. You don't have to go down to City Hall to take your pants off, and it certainly doesn't take a ring to bring a new life into this world.
My opinion is that marriages in the strictly legal sense (call them civil unions if you want) should be open to any man or woman of majority who are not closely related (I'm not gonna get into the whole kissin' cousins thing right now, 'kay?). I think the social, legal, and ethical responsibilities and protections are far too important to deny to people. Granting legal rights to marriage isn't going to diminish or threaten anyone, and it will place everyone on a legal footing. As many thousands have said before me in other writings, blogs, and the like, we "straights" have really done a great job (*snort*) with the institution of marriage; how could gays and lesbians do any worse?
But I do think that insisting on the right to marry within a religion or in a house of worship is an entirely different matter. As much as I wish all churches were flexible and open-minded about equality and the celebration of love and humanity, religions are not cafeterias where you can pick and choose; each faith reserves the right to its own tenets, and if their beliefs exclude marriage for same-sex couples, then that's the way it goes. If it means that much to have a church wedding, then I think the individuals in question should take a long, hard look at the church they belong to, and decide whether they're better off with or without it. Spirituality and devotion do not have to be confined to four walls; there's nothing that says that if you don't go to church, you don't believe in a deity or deities. At the same time, churches should expect that if they're going to discriminate, they run the risk of losing adherents.
So, personally, I really don't care if John and Joe want to get hitched. More power to them. What I *do* care about is when mean-spirited behavior, ill-advised rhetoric, and discriminatory legislation gets in the way and destroys people. This particular case hit home, because I know the people involved. I cannot understand for the life of me why two loving people have to be separated because society can't get a handle on the concept of two responsible people of the same sex raising a child. I don't think the definition of marriage needs to be changed so much as the definition of FAMILY does. What is a family? How do you define a successful family? For that matter, how do you define a successful parent? It really gets to me that you have to have a license or get permission or an education for tons of things, but you don't have to meet any standard before you become a parent. I know that reproduction is a fundamental, biological issue, and that the human race has made it this far despite the varying degrees of dysfunction that has prevailed in millions of families throughout the ages. But when you have parents physically, verbally, and sexually abusing their children, when you have foster children starved and neglected, when you have parents leaving their kids at home alone for days at a time, or in locked cars in midsummer, not getting involved in their education or lives, or letting them stay at places like Neverland with a man who has had years of allegations swarming around him, then they are unfit for parenthood. As with marriage, "straights" have done a terrific job of parenting; how could gays and lesbians do any worse?
I don't see the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood as special privileges; if anything, I see them as solemn duties and sometimes, as burdens. The joys are mixed in with the sorrows, but overall, the experience is part of what makes us human, what defines our lives. Why should any healthy, loving, responsible person be denied that?
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:34 PM
<< Home