Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Gay Marriage...again...

Ok, not to beat a dead horse but I am gonna rant a little about the issue surrounding gay marriage again.

I read a blog earlier today, God Bless America , from a woman who was glad that proposition 8 had passed in California and I found myself becoming furious.

As usual, the way I handled that anger was to channel it into writing, so here we go…
I voted Yes on 8 as all of you know. And I am proud to say that 5,725,000 other people feel the same way I do. Once again the Sanctity of Traditional Marriage is sacred again. But, as one spokeswoman for the Mormon Church says in an interview this morning, "This measure in no way changes anything for Gay Rights." It's true. We will continue turning a blind eye to same sex couples co-living together and setting up housekeeping. They will still be covered in the insurance offered by various companies. Even though I disagree with couples living together outside of Marriage this also covers those who do. This woman continues on by saying, "...All this measure does is define that the Sate of California can only recognize a Marriage as Traditional, between a man and a woman.

First off, marriage as we know it today is not “traditional.” Traditional marriage is long gone (and good riddance).

Husbands are no longer required to fully care financially for their wives without reciprocation, no matter how rich she is and how poor he might be. In traditional marriage, women were not able to enter into independent contracts without consent and their husbands could sell off any of their property without any form of permission. Not too mention that there was no way to prosecute a husband for raping his wife, no matter the circumstances, since it was considered the same as “raping oneself.”

That's traditional marriage and I don’t know about you, but for me there's no sanctity in that kind of ownership masquerading as partnership.

I also think the overall idea that marriage in itself is sacred is completely false. For me, it's the LOVE inside a marriage that’s sacred and that must come from within and be realized over time through little sacrifices in the day to day trappings of being with a person.

The true problem is we don’t know how to define marriage. (All dictionaries do is track common usages of terms, so that is not the place to go looking.)

We know what it does; it turns strangers-at-law into next-of-kin, but not what it is.

The most popular forms of marriage until the 19th century were common law marriages. Common law marriages are acknowledged by the law without being a creature of it and show us that neither the content of marriage (day to day) nor the legal form (rights) requires different genders.

Yet, even knowing that, the law still can't find a way to define marriage.

I also don’t think that civil unions are the answer. Because what does it really say about society when the law offers civil unions with the perceived same amount of rights, but without the “sacred” title of marriage? That is more offensive than no rights at all because the civil union scheme intentionally distinguishes differences between homosexual couples from heterosexual ones. We are essentially degrading gays by offering a separate-but-equal civil union while still denying them the social form of marriage.

(I do want to point out that civil unions are no where near equal to marriage. you can find a great summary here.)

Moving on to another issue that will soon be coming up in this State. Gay couples being allowed to adopt or foster children. The State of Arkansas voted Yes on Prop 8, also took it to another level… It will soon become clear if we need to follow Arkansas lead on Gay Couples being able to adopt or foster children. As for me, I disagree with the whole adopting thing. I believe that a child should be raised in Traditional Home with Traditional Values. Being Gay is a choice. Your choice. And I commend you for that. But, it does not mean that being Gay is Right.

Ok, wow. I don’t even know where to begin.

First off, the traditional home means very little today what with divorce, single parenthood, standard adoption, family guardians, and in-vitro fertilization.

Second, a lot of these couples already have children through past relationships. In fact, the 2000 census reported 594,000 households as being headed by same sex couples (that number doesn’t even take into consideration all the people that didn’t divulge that information) with 55 percent having children under the age of 19 in the home. Yet heterosexual families are still going about there daily lives just fine.

People need to understand that the true threat to marriage is DIVORCE. That’s right people; not what gay couples do in the privacy of their homes, but what you do in yours. And yet, where are people raising millions of dollars to outlaw divorce? Or shotgun weddings in Las Vegas? As long as that continues the “sanctity” of marriage will never be more than a joke.
Voting Yes on 8 does not make anyone racist it only defines what California wants, No Gay Marriages Allowed.

That definitely is true. It is not racist, but it is bigoted since this is clearly an attack on gay marriage using the pretense of "saving" heterosexual marriage.

It's also unequal, as any law is unequal if it draws upon or enhances the view that some group is held in morally less regard.

So lets call a spade a spade and be honest with ourselves.


  1. alana...nvm..i found ur blog. lol.

    ok. where to begin? ur rite about beating a dead horse. so here we go

    i read ur blog and u raise some very good arguments. though i am proud that u quoted me word for word, (u didnt leave my blogspot site. lol. j/k.) i find myself feeling a little guilty and bigoted myself...i've alsways thought of myself as liberal and accepting of most things.

    for instance-i ws raised down south, NC. SC. TN. GA. and witnessed first hand the racism of blacks. i myself hav been rasied color blind. i do not see race or color and i believe that evey man answers for his own actions on Judgement Day. (incl gays.)

    I do agree on ur point, or definition of "traditional marrige" but u r talking about marriages in the 19th century. not the 21st. now a days, Rape is Rape. makes no difference if it was ur lawful husband who did it or another man. but, i do have to agree that it is harder to prove rape inside of a marriage. that's one very good point. but, don't women still get raped by their common law husb just the same? and do those women report it?

    i had a friend once who for two years refused to hav marrital sex with her husb. he was bringing street whores home to their bed. who can blame her? one day he raped her. violently and brutally. she left him and filed for Divorce. i dont kno if she was able to get him on rape.

    in the 19th century women had no rites. they were her husb property to do with wht they will. in the 21st century women hav more rites. they can demand equal opportunity in their jobs as well as their homes. women today r standing up for those rites. Domestic Violence is more of an issue in any relationship. And Divorce is the destroyer of most marriages. but, should a woman stay with a man who continues to b unfaithful? or should a man stay with a woman who is abusive? what r the grounds for divorce? to me, it is infidelity and violence. those r truly the real reasons for divorce.

    My biggest hang up with same sex marriages is this~the bible tells us that "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord." Has God changed? Does He still feel the same way? Or is it us that hav moved forward and accepted the very thing that would send our souls to hell?

    Being Gay is a Choice. A personal Choice. And it is left up to you to decide if it is rite for u. In the end we all hav to work out our own salvation. We all hav to answer to a higher power...

    But, regrettably, though u raise some very good points. i can not in good concience accept same sex marriage. though i will not deny anyone "Love" in whatever form that may b. i say, what ever makes u happy is up to u.

    In closing i will like to say..Let's agree to disagree..Ok?

    Come see me again. I hav really enjoyed this debate. I am now a follower of ur blog and will visit everyday. ur an excellent writer and i find ur views very refresshing and upbeat.

    Thank u.

    Laree D.

  2. alana...u r so rite. if a woman's life is in danger then yes they should abort. i can not argue with that. and yes, i do agree that is ultimately the womans choice.

    even though i do not agree with a fetus having the rite to exhist until it is able to stand on its own. i do see ur point.

    and. lol. its really np. i did not see it as an anargument. i actually enjoyed the heated debate. i found it very refreshing.

    thanks again...

    i will give u a hint. in my book, The Dark Wolf. the main charactor is asked to make a choice. btween the wife he loves more than anything or the unborn children he doesn't know. What do u think he will do? What choice does he make?

    anyway, hav a good day.

    Laree D.

  3. I didn’t list your blog because I didn’t want you to get any negative traffic due to me. I am also crossed between feeling bad for making you feel like a bigot and elated about making you question the place where some of these ideas are coming from. lol

    Laree: You are totally right about the difference in marriage today and in the past. That is exactly the point I was trying to bring up, that “traditional” does NOT mean right. Marriage has evolved and I believe equal rights for heterosexual and homosexual couples is the next step in marriage evolution.
    You also brought up the topic I didn’t approach in this blog, religion. If religion is the only reason you can’t in good conscience allow gays to marry, then you just made my argument for me. Using religion as a justification towards bigotry is a common occurrence and it always has been. Whether it’s rich/poor, white/black, catholic/protestant (you can actually insert any two religions here), male/female, gay/straight, or theist/atheist, you cannot make laws based on those beliefs even though most religions have had at sometime something negative to say about them. Shit any of the votes made specifically because of the bible should be thrown out because it violates the separation of church and state. (Don’t go crazy people, I am being facetious….kind of…lol)
    In fact, I think using religion as a means just degrades your religion as a whole. For one, you are circumventing the idea of free will. Second, you are making judgments that are supposed to be reserved for you god. Third, we live in a SECULAR society and by imposing your beliefs on people who don’t agree you are eroding any thoughts of tolerance or understanding your church might claim. I could even go on and attack the bible for promoting slavery, child abuse, and murder but I will exhibit some self control for once.

  4. lol. ur r rite about a number of things. religion, bigotry, and even the bible promoting slavery. the church itself can b very discriminating and does tend to hide behind outdated beleifs.

    i ws raised as a Seventh day adventist. i do not practice the faith. in fact as of now i am not part of any organized faith.

    i hav seen the evidence of both sides. the Dark and the Light. even though i hav nevr seen the devil's face to face i hav felt his breath on the back of my neck. and at the same time i hav withnesses the power of prayer.

    my argument against tru faith is null and void. i hav come to the conclusion that all ppl will hav to answer for there own actions in the end. the church still will not hold steadily to any particular beleif. the churches of today r more interested in filling the pew and will adopt whatever position or oponion that comes their way.

    so, the church/religion thing as a whole holds no merit with me.

    i will not argue the definition of marriage to anyone. what makes you happy is up to u. whatever that may define.

    and thnks for keeping my feelings in the fore front by not listing my blog. however. i can not b a real writer if i can not take critism. i am very interested in what anyone says about my views/oponions. be it neg/pos. afterall, i am for First Ammendment Rights. the right to speak one's mind.

    Laree D.

  5. You've been tagged! Check out this blog to find out what that means:

    Have fun ... and don't forget to let me know when you've completed your 8!

    Musings of a Would-Be Writer

  6. Looks like you got tagged twice. Sorry.

    I got tagged twice today, too.


  7. The definition of marriage is precisely what two (or three or more) individuals agree it is. Government has no place in it other than to recognize signed contract regarding property rights (what stuff goes to who in a divorce, etc.) The fact that the word "marriage" even appears in any law book is itself a trivialization of the union in my mind.

  8. well, well, well what a discussion we got going here. :)

    one note about an aforementioned comment. laree d stated:

    "My biggest hang up with same sex marriages is this~the bible tells us that "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord." Has God changed? Does He still feel the same way? Or is it us that hav moved forward and accepted the very thing that would send our souls to hell?"

    well laree d I prayed, and god said he has indeed changed his mind about gay people. So it's okay for gay people to get married now! It turns out god was just really pissy when he ordered his peon humans to write that stuff in the bible.


What's on your mind?