On the nature of marriage

[mithriltabby]

obsessivewoman and I started dating in late 1994; we bought a house together in 1998, got a couple of Maine Coon kittens in 2000, and finally got around to formalizing our relationship in 2003. At the time, my friend and groomsman the_weregamer, a devout Catholic, remarked that in his view, the spiritual bond was already there and this really was just a formality.

At no point along this entire timespan could gay marriage have ever posed a threat to our relationship. My marriage doesn’t need “protection”; if anything, having more marriages out there provides more protection for my own marriage.

If I were able to set policy on this issue, I’d invoke the First Amendment and declare that government has no business defining “marriage” and it was gender-neutral civil unions for everyone, with all of the rights and responsibilities that were previously in the package with the M-word. But when I’m given a choice between legalizing gay marriage and outlawing it, I come down on the side of legalizing it, and that’s why I voted no on Proposition 8.

Comments

[chuckles48.livejournal.com]

I've said elsewhere that I'd rather be voting _for_ an amendment that explicitly recognizes the rights the LGBT community are seeking.

I think I've also said before that there are, AFAIK, two kinds of "marriage". There's the government-recognized, legal kinda, which falls under the equal protection clause. And there's the "stand up in front of the people who matter to you and pick on person as a partner" kind. Which is marriage.

My biggest problems with this whole debate, honestly are:
- the LGBT community, to my perspective, has done damn near everything possible to alienate the people voting on this, the entire time. Less of a "we think these are our rights, too, and we want you to join us in that appreciation", and more of a "these are our rights, and we're going to TAKE them, and screw you and the horse you rode in on whether you support us or not" thing. Never seen folks do their best to antagonize supporters before.
- The same folks who've been so vocal in demanding that we respect their rights under the 14th amendment (equal protection) are just as willing to abridge explicitely stated 2nd amendment rights.

Yeah, it's a sticking point for me. If they aren't willing to recognize my rights that they don't like, why should I recognize their right, whether I like it or not?

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

The way I see it is this: Marriage by its very definition is a religious ritual and I am not comfortable with the government stepping in and dictating to a church what the rules are with their rituals. And I don't like the idea of doing away with marriage in favor of gender neutral civil unions. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with allowing civil unions, which is something that California already does.

Also, the response from the gay community has really pissed me off, as evidenced by my earlier ranting. I notice that the Mormon family in the article didn't put up a banner on their house until their yard sign, posted on THEIR property was stolen along with other signs that were in support of Proposition 8. They want my support for their cause? Stop acting like assholes and start behaving like civilized human beings while recognizing that the First Amendment doesn't apply just to you.

[silverstreak.livejournal.com]

In almost every community of people with certain view points, there are always going to be radicals. People that are so loud and obnoxious and "in your face" about their views that it seems to do more harm than good. It is true of the religious minded folk just as much as it is true of the LGBT community and the gamer community. I, as a gamer, have run into several folks at conventions that almost make me ashamed of being a gamer.

All I'm saying is don't let the vocal nature of a small percentage of a certain community sour you on the community as a whole, whoever they may be.

[mithriltabby]

Having the government get out of defining “marriage” doesn’t do away with marriage; it just gets rid of the ridiculous separate-but-equal-except-for-certain-cases status of “marriage” and “civil union” and leaves the definition of “marriage” up to the churches, or individuals who don’t choose to let a church dictate to them.

And I don’t see it as appropriate to punish the entire gay community for the behavior of some of their more radical elements. Should we treat all Christians as if they were responsible for the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church?

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

When I see behavior like the kind exhibited by the gay couple against a family who was only expressing their opinion in a non-confrontational manner, that does not endear me to their way of thinking. And since the gay community was pretty silent on the matter of said family being harassed, it comes across as if they approve of what went on.

[chuckles48.livejournal.com]

I've tried to take that position. Given the rather... up close and personal nature of some of what's happened, and the fact that frankly I think the LGBT community has stomped the shit out of due process, and insulted the population of this state by their legal tactics, I find it rather difficult. Especially when I find that many of the folks who support gay rights are perfectly willing to trample all over my 1st and 2nd amendment rights, because they're "made uncomfortable" by my exercise thereof. Never mind that other people (not necessarily me, but...) are "made uncomfortable" by their exercise of the right to marry.

The biggest problem with this is that it isn't a "vocal minority". It's a substantial, even potentially majority view (based on visible voting patterns) of the community in question.

[chuckles48.livejournal.com]

Re: Westboro Baptists/Christians:
Given that substantial #s of Christians of many different faiths have not just denounced Phelps and his followers, but actively worked to impede them, the argument you raise doesn't necessarily work. The LGBT community spokespeople say they dislike this kind of thing. But I note no _action_ by that community to stop or ameliorate this kind of behavior.

Actions speak louder than words, Max. Christians have _acted_ to something about Phelps. If they want to use that example as protection for what's been happening, they need to step up and _do_, not just talk.

[mithriltabby]

How long did it take other Christians to start actively working to impede the Westboro Baptist Church? I’d be very surprised if you could find a shorter time lag from (first protest of a veteran’s funeral) to (first active work by a Christian group to impede said protests) than (first bad no-on-8 behavior) to now. If this becomes a habitual problem, I’ll be disappointed if the LGBT community doesn’t find a way to actively dissuade extremists from overzealous behavior, but right now I think they’re just a little busy trying to preserve their freedom to marry.

[chuckles48.livejournal.com]

Well, from what I can tell, Phelps' group first "came out" for what they are in 1998, whereupon they immediately wound up in a series of legal battles with various jurisdictions in Kansas... which, as often as not, they won.

In January, 2004, Phelp's group decided to go after same-sex marriage proponents. Looks like within 2-3 days of that, there were significant (5-10K participants) counterprotests.

In July of 2005, they started picketing soldiers' funerals. Counterprotests and escort groups formed in time for their next protest.

Found this on wiki: "Two days after the September 11th attacks, a 19-year old man named Jared Dailey stood on the street corner facing the church holding up a plywood sign that said "Not today Fred." Within two days, 86 people joined him, waving American flags and anti-hate signs"

IOW, from what I can tell, "pretty damned quickly", for almost all versions of protesting that Phelps/WBC have been indulging in, at least for the last decade+.

I'll give the no-on-8 folks the last week. But they've had that week, plus. The election's in 4 days.

All that being said, I'll let you in on something. I voted the moral choice. Having done so, in spite of my reservations, I intend to hold a lot of other people to the same standard when it comes to other, equally-uncomfortable civil rights votes. Like, say, 1st _and_ 2nd amendment issues. Or that travesty that SF schools has promulgated regarding the (full, popular, well-received) JROTC program. And yes, that specifically includes the LGBT community.

I expect a lot of people to fail that standard.