The Way It Is, Like It Or Not...
I’m sure this is obvious to people who are wiser than I am, but if you have a choice between finding a solution to a problem immediately or putting the solution off for a few years, it’s far better to fix the problem now ― even if it’s painful. Serious problems rarely fix themselves and they usually get harder to solve with time.
I read this on my friend’s Facebook yesterday and it got me thinking…
During the marriage debate (when it was at its peak), many people (whom I agree with) argued that the state should be out of marriage entirely and leave marriage to religious institutions. This is something that I agree with wholeheartedly.
That being said, however, society is not ready to move in that direction. They simply aren’t. There’s no grassroots movement for marriage to be abolished from the states purview, so that has lead me to ask (with no answer) numerous times what then? What is the solution? If the state does have the power to endorse a marriage and allow legal and financial benefits for those who are married, then those benefits should be applied universally and following David’s recommendation from the quote above, wouldn’t a good short term solution be the government recognizing all marriage in a non-discriminatory fashion?
Because, after all, the longer we let gay couples be discriminated against, the harder it becomes to not discriminate against them.
I’m not picking on David here, because as I said, he’s a friend and I nearly always agree with him, but he brings up an interesting point here that’s very contrary to what I’ve heard in the past few weeks (although I’m pretty sure he didn’t intend it to be).
"For a long time, many opponents of same-sex marriage relied on a non-argument to defend their position: Asked why they opposed letting gays marry, one of most common responses was something to the effect of “I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.” The problem was that this didn’t tell you why the legal definition of marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. It was not really an argument at all; it was a restatement of the original position. The lack of an argument didn’t matter very much when the public was also overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage. But as public support has shifted, and legal challenges to the marriage status quo have worked their way through the court system, a handful of same-sex marriage opponents have attempted to actually defend their opposition. They still don’t have much of a case."
"The question, however, if equal protection analysis is done properly, is not whether marriage has a rational basis but whether government discrimination against some of those who want to marry has a rational basis. Once the presumption is properly reversed and the matter properly put, the question then becomes, what is a “rational basis” for the government’s so discriminating?"
"After overwrought pressure from the usual gay “anti-defamation” lobbyists, the Associated Press has caved in and made another new statement approving the use of “his husband” and “her wife” in news stories. as if they’ve taken a stand for neutrality, instead of rewriting the gender dictionary."
~ With all due respect, it’s laughable that people get so bent out of shape about this. If someone is married, the person they’re married to is their husband or their wife. End of story Stop the idiocy. I really don’t see Graham’s point here, unless it’s “regardless of the legal status of these marriages, they’re not ‘real’ marriages,” in which case Tim Graham can fuck off.
With all due respect, it’s laughable that people get so bent out of shape about this. If someone is married, the person they’re married to is their husband or their wife. End of story Stop the idiocy.
I really don’t see Graham’s point here, unless it’s “regardless of the legal status of these marriages, they’re not ‘real’ marriages,” in which case Tim Graham can fuck off.
I’m never surprised by stories like this any more. It’s always the most raging ridiculous conservative shitbags who proclaim to anyone who will listen how gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage who end up cheating, divorcing, having love children, or seeking gay sex in a bathroom stall.
Pete Domenici used to be a Senator and a conservative one at that, so conservative in fact that he managed to staunchly oppose anything that might benefit gay citizens. The Defense of Marriage Act? He was for that. A 2004 Constitutional Amendment that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman? He was for that. A 2006 Constitutional Amendment that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman? He was for that too. He enjoyed a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. He was a man who stood athwart history yelling “Stop!” as the saying goes, steadfastly advocating the morality that he grew up with, swearing that marriage as an institution was the sort of thing that must be defended against the mongrel horde.
Funny thing though about Pete Domenici: he was so busy caring so much about the sanctity of marriage that he just could not find the time to tell anybody about the secret son fathered as a result of an extramarital affair. Nor, unfortunately, could he bother to find the time to tell the world any details of his partner in this: she was 24 (he was 46 at the time*) and the daughter of another serving Senator, Nevada’s Paul Laxalt. In fact, Domenici was so otherwise preoccupied that he also did not bother to inform either his wife Nancy (a woman he’d only been married to since the 1950s) or their eight children about his new child; they found out only several months ago.
So tell me, Senator… How does fucking someone who isn’t your wife affect the institution of marriage? And, since we’re on the subject, how does that not affect marriage while loving couples being denied that right does?
Just saw on Google+ a group of people assembling to fight a ban on gay marriage in some midwestern state. That isn’t what caught my eye.
What caught my eye was the appeal for people to join that group, saying “we can use all the help we can get, and everyone even if you’re not from _____________ is welcome.”
Now some of you might have short memories, but I do remember a metric humpton of outrage about the gay marriage votes in California, including tons of accusations that out-of-state anti-marriage campaigners had invalidated the votes and opinions of California residents.
Now anyone who knows me knows I stand solidly in the court of gay marriage, but as I always say, when your side is being dishonest or disingenuous, you have as much of an obligation to call them out as you do to call out the opposition for the same. If out of state “interference” is bad when getting gay marriage banned, it’s just as bad getting it unbanned.
Frankly, I don’t care about either, which is why I didn’t engage in the silly politicking around who was “influencing” the California vote, but the people who did really need to examine their integrity and their conscience.
I love when people say we can’t allow gay people to marry because it changes the definition of marriage. These are mostly people who live in and love a country where the defintion of “person” didn’t include black people until the mid 1800’s and “voter” didn’t include women until the early 1900’s.
Definitions change, people. That’s the way it works. If they didn’t, things would be really interesting to say the least."
"Barack Obama might have gay voters to thank for his reelection, especially right here in Florida. A new analysis suggests that if only straight people went to the polls here, Romney would have pulled off a win by something like two percentage points. “Similarly, analysis of preliminary returns from Florida show that the 420,000 total LGBT votes cast in the state may be a deciding factor in President Obama’s projected lead in Florida,” reads a new analysis by the Williams Institue. “Though final results aren’t yet known, an estimated 300,000 LGBT Floridians voted for the president — a margin many times larger than the current vote difference between the two candidates."
~ And what’s he doing for the LGBT community? Leaving it up to the states; a position many Republicans have been called bigots for supporting. Me? I think the government should be out of marriage entirely and I’m not opposed to a states rights solution (absent a constitutional amendment) but how many LGBT voters voted for what they thought was happening rather than what Obama was actually offering? He’s already said he won’t pursue it as President, so what precisely did the LGBT community vote for?
And what’s he doing for the LGBT community? Leaving it up to the states; a position many Republicans have been called bigots for supporting.
Me? I think the government should be out of marriage entirely and I’m not opposed to a states rights solution (absent a constitutional amendment) but how many LGBT voters voted for what they thought was happening rather than what Obama was actually offering? He’s already said he won’t pursue it as President, so what precisely did the LGBT community vote for?