huh.

[permetaform]

so. ::peers at friendslist:: Massachusetts.

elke_tanzer has gathered a heaping shitload of links from across her friendslist, which is all for the good.

Bush apparently has already tried to retaliate.

And? For various obvious and sundry reasons I'm pro-marriage, in the idealistic for-love-not-money kinda way that I've been raised and bred in. And my concept of love is all-inclusive.

The anti-gay-marriage stance would make more sense if we still lived in a world where people married only to maintain their hereditary line. But people kinda are against the concept of arranged marriages and marrying for money nowadays...

What I'd like to know is what we Americans think, nationally, about this subject. I know that as a Californian, and as a slash fan, I could only represent my little corner of America. I wonder how much good Queer Eye and QaF have done. I wonder how fundamentalist those religious groups actually are and how far they are actually willing to go. It makes me wonder if they are as fringe as I hope they are.

Thing is, it would be devastating if they were the only voices being heard, with no one to question or challenge their fears with anything more logical. Because the anti-gay marriage feeling is based on fear I think, and:

Fiat Lux, goes Berkeley's motto.

Bring the Light

But to do this, one would need solid arguments. I refuse to sound as hysterically uninformed and illogical as this country's Fearless Leader.

So I pose a question to all of you:

What are some arguments or counterarguments you use in the pro/anti-gay-marriage discussions?

The one that affects me the most goes, "So you're going to be banning marriage between a man and a sterile woman as well?", in response to the nature/God ordained sanctity of a male-female marriage.

I've also been hearing good arguments along the lines of the separation of church and state and the fact that by banning gay marriages, the state is trodding on the rights of some religions/religious subgroups (Unitarian, I think? correct me and add more to the list?).

Other ones? Or recommendations of good posts from your own friendslists?

[speaking of good posts, I recommend ivyblossom's and cathexys' entries on the subject, both of which are lengthy and well thought out]

[edit] semi-relevant article

[edit2] letter from gileonnen to the president on the subject.

Comments

[elke-tanzer.livejournal.com]

*snerk* A heaping shitload? That's not a heaping shitload... I have memories categories for when things get that big. *wry grin*

I'll try to answer your question tomorrow when I'm more coherent than I am at the moment.

[permetaform]

I have memories categories for when things get that big. *wry grin*

::blinks and goes to browse::

[elke-tanzer.livejournal.com]

If you get lost in there, I might be able to arrange a search party...
my userinfo says "Memories: 2469 entries".

[permetaform]

::blinkity:: but it's so well organized...::reaches towards the pretty::

[that-one-chick.livejournal.com]

Ass-raping gutter monkey comes to mind when I think of him. What a loser.

Usually I don't like to get 'involved' with what he's doing, but goddamnit he's just not very smart is he?

I think our next president should be a gay black man. And jewish.

Just because.

[azziria.livejournal.com]

I'm not an American, but the issue is pertinent to all of us, I think.

I'm married. I believe in marriage. However, as an atheist since my pre-teen years, my marriage has nothing at all to do with God (and I married in a civil ceremony because I would not make empty promises to a deity I didn't believe in).

My marriage is about commitment. It's about saying to everyone, this is the person I love, the person I want to build a solid and stable life with. And I intend to be here for that person through thick and thin, a partner. It's about mutual support and respect. (Now that we have children there is also a beneficial legal aspect to being married, but that didn't come into my original consideration because at the time we married I had no intention of having kids.)

So for me, to refuse same-sex couples this opportunity to state their commitment to one another is just plain wrong. And it denies them some of the rights marriage confers to partners here in the UK (such as pension rights), which means that refusing them legal marriage is actual discrimination.

I cannot see how allowing same-sex couple to marry can be detrimental to maintaining a strong society. Surely we should be encouraging people to demonstrate commitment, honour and trust - all qualities to be admired, surely?

[d-r-o-n-e.livejournal.com]

Lemme first, as a Massachusetts resident, say GO US. I expect ongoing state legalization of marriage will spread in the area to other states as well; in my own circle of friends, MA gays and lesbians have been having in-state ceremonies and receptions for a while now, having to nip up to Vermont for the actual legal certificate. The more happy, normal, beautiful gay weddings you are invited to, attend, hear about, and see photos from, the harder it is to deny those ppl their right to that option.

A couple more thoughts:

If we're basing marriage on some sort of religio-spiritual "sanctity" of a union, we are treading very close to negating the viability of civil unions--people married by justices in courtrooms. At that point, the whole concept of our government is down the toilet. Clearly this is not just a violation of the separation of church and state, it's a rape of the state by the church.

On that same tack, exactly how do common-law marriages work into some "sanctified" model of marriage? If we currently afford heterosexual LTRs the status of a common-law marriage after a given amount of time (we do in this state, though I'm not sure if all states have that definition) just by virtue of the fact that they cohabit, do *those* people all lose their legal rights when we redefine marriage as something churchy and Not For Gays?

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

No, no. A Jewish lesbian black woman. ^_^.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

If we're basing marriage on some sort of religio-spiritual "sanctity" of a union, we are treading very close to negating the viability of civil unions--people married by justices in courtrooms.

Very good point. Marriage as an institution in the U.S. is a much a civil contract as it is a religious sacrament. After all, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ect. are all married outside of the Christian church, and their marriages are all rightly considered just as legal and binding. Personally, I don't see any reason why two men--or two women--shouldn't be able to go before a justice of the peace and become legally married. They might not be married in the eyes of, say, the Catholic church, but then, that's between them and their religious community, not between them and the government. And anyway, I'm pretty sure that a heterosexual marriage conducted in a courtroom doesn't count in the eyes of the Church either.

As for whether or not Bush can do anything about Massachusetts' new law, marriage is (if I'm remembering 9th grade civics correctly) one of the powers that belongs to the states--like drivers' licenses. On the other hand, the federal government has pretty much established that it's laws take piority over state laws. And it already established in the 1860s that states aren't really supposed to do their own thing. A federal mandate forbidding same-sex marriage might invalidate the laws permitting it in Vermont/Massachesetts/ect, but not without great public outcry. And it probably wouldn't win Bush many votes in those states.

[permetaform]

huh. So: marriage = commitment = good thing to not deny. That works... ::scribbles it down::

[that-one-chick.livejournal.com]

Ah, you're absolutely right.

[permetaform]

we are treading very close to negating the viability of civil unions

That's a very good point, I don't think I've seen it worded like that yet, that not only that the church *shouldn't* mess with the state, but that it also might negate atheist marriages.

I'm not exactly sure as to how common-law marriages work, I looked it up a bit and it appears to be where a couple is living together and engaged to be married but the site could be outdated, I didn't see an update listing.

And also, in regards to the statement that marriage being a churchy thing That Is Good And Proper, I wonder how those people saying such regards domestic violence, single parent households, and divorce...

[permetaform]

The more I think about this, the more Bush's statements and stance just doesn't make logical sense. egad, but who says that our Fearless Leader needs intelligence anyways? certainly not the Supreme Court ::mutterHailToTheThiefmuttermutter, covers eyes::

[babyomlet.livejournal.com]

I wish I could really leave a well thought out statement on this entire idea, but I'm afraid that I'm still not quite awake.

The one thing I can point out is that I do think that the gay TV programing is helping to an extent. I think it's making people a bit more comfortable about homosexuality, but I doubt it's making the strides that the gay community is working towards. There are still certain stereotypes in these shows, and even Queer as Folk says at the end in a sort of disclaimer that the show is showing one group of friends, not representing the entire community, that impede the respect and understanding they deserve.

Then again it's a start ... Ellen was controversial when she came out, then came Will & Grace, which was still considered a hot topic sitcom, but when you think about it, it's not even that racy. Along comes Queer as Folk for America and everyone goes up the wall - either with delight for something so drastically different, or in offense of it all. (I'm enjoying the hell out of that show, but my parents are still all weird if it's on when they're in the room.) And now Queer Eye is a bit more down to the level of the average person, perhaps, in showing that a li'l dab of homosexuality goes a long way, hah.

I think maybe Queer Eye is doing the best job all around because it's bringing homosexuality to heterosexuality and showing that everything is good for the greater mass.

I think that all made sense.

[jenicomprispas.livejournal.com]

My "reason" based most solidly on fact, rather than my own feelings that everyone should be able to love and marry who they want, is that according to our civil rights laws, discrimination is unfavorable or unfair treatment of a person or class of persons in comparison to others who are not members of the protected class because of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual harassment, sexual orientation or reprisal for opposition to discriminatory practices or participation in the EEO process.

Clearly denying a certain group the right to marry is in violation of this law. However, our government has a long tradition of trying to screw our civil rights over at every turn. So it's still a battle, but one that has a firm base.

I've also heard, but do not have the resourses to back it up, that when polled, many people are against "gay marriage", but when polled using the words "gay union", well more than half agree that they should have the protections of heterosexual spouses. :D I really wish I had some research on this, but I can't seem to find it. :(

[geneli4.livejournal.com]

I've also been hearing good arguments along the lines of the separation of church and state and the fact that by banning gay marriages, the state is trodding on the rights of some religions/religious subgroups (Unitarian, I think? correct me and add more to the list?).
hmmm, well, i'm a unitarian, and was married by a unitarian minister, but i guess i'm not sure what you mean. the state (of north carolina, anyway) is ultimately unconcerned with ceremonial marriage, and doesn't consider a couple married until the appropriate paperwork has been filed and approved. so, while our minister performs ceremonies for same-sex couples just as she would for anyone else, and, bless her, files the same paperwork if the couples so choose, the state won't acknowledge the same-sex couples and just sends the paperwork back. i imagine there's big, red, nasty, "rejected" stamp they use, but i don't actually know. bastards. but since they don't disallow the ceremonial marriage, but simply don't acknowledge it, i'm not sure it could be considered religious discrimination.
anyway, imo, the seperation of church in state in this country is pretty much just a sound-byte. mostly, it doesn't really exist.

[azziria.livejournal.com]

The President's statement:

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Dictionary definitions of 'sacred':

1. Exclusively devoted to a deity or to some religious ceremony or use; holy; consecrated.
   
2. Worthy of or regarded with reverence, awe, or respect.
   
3. Protected by superstition or piety from irreligious actions.

So which definition is he going for? If it's (2), then it being 'sacred' doesn't rule out same-sex unions. If it's (1) or (3), does this mean that the marriage of someone like me (an atheist) is also unacceptable?

[twistedchick]

IIRC, in most states a common-law marriage is deemed to exist when a man and woman have lived together "as married" for seven to ten years. What determines it appear to be permanence and the way it's presented to the community at large.

For instance, a friend of mine who had a disastrous first marriage has had a long and successful relationship the second time around. She and her live-in have raised twin daughters together who are now in college. He was recently annoyed when she rewrote her will to leave the house to all her children (she has a son from the first marriage as well), but as she pointed out to him, "we're not married and neither of us want to be." And she has never said that they were. Therefore, though they've been together for 20 years or so, they're might not be considered to have a common-law marriage. (I think. I haven't researched this for every state.)

[dangermouse42.livejournal.com]

I've also heard, but do not have the resources to back it up, that when polled, many people are against "gay marriage", but when polled using the words "gay union", well more than half agree that they should have the protections of heterosexual spouses.

The funny thing about this is, since when did civil rights become a popularity contest? In Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954, The Supreme Court ended segregation in public schools. Was this a popular thing? Considering they had to bring the National Guard to Alabama to make sure those kids could just go to school, I'm going to say no.

There's what's right and there's what's popular. The two don't always agree. In this case, public opinion, especially that colored by religious fervor, doesn't matter. I live in Texas and trust me - some pockets of this state would be more than content to reinstate segregation. Just because they want to discriminate, do we let them? No, of course not. The idea of civil rights is to protect the minority in particular. The minority shouldn't have to wait for the bigoted, ignorant, uneducated public to catch up with common sense.

That's why we have elected officials, to be the intelligent, educated individuals that can make the decisions that protect the basic rights of all Americans.

Guess we kinda dropped the ball on that one. ^^

[kimera.livejournal.com]

My favourite pro-gay-marriage argument? *Voting* is considered by many a "sacred institution" (not religious-sacred, but rillyrilly important sacred). Within the last century, though, the definition of who gets the right to vote has changed. And the world hasn't exploded or anything, so obviously, altering a law in order to be more inclusive will not "violate the sanctity" of it.

And a friend of mine came up with this argument for anti-gay-marriage: He knows two people who were raised by gay parents who didn't turn out very well. TWO. PEOPLE. How many kids raised by 2 straight parents have turned out to be messed up, or criminals, or whatever? Lots. But apparently that's "different".

I'm not saying that every gay couple who raises kids will be the perfect parents... but since it's impossible for a gay couple to concieve on their own, they'd have to be making a *choice* to have kids, whereas a het couple might not want kids, but could end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Who's likely to be the better set of parents?

Not to mention, people have this mistaken notion that a child raised by gay parents will end up gay. That's not so. In fact, more often than not, it's the opposite.

[linzeestyle.livejournal.com]

I was just discussing this with some friends...

My biggest issue, at least for the US, is that we have made marriage a *legal institution.* Bush's biggest argument against it, and that of many gay marriage denouncers, is that it's a "sacred institution between a man and women." This is (and I realize this is a generalization, I'm just ranting, go with it) based in some sort of religious idea of marriage.

Now this would be all fine and good if marriage was only a church-based institution. If that was the case, this would be for the individual churches that perform marriage ceremonies to work out. However, it is a legal institution. We base things like money and custody and property and rights off of this notion of marriage. We hold it of value in society - as a culture, we are brought up believing that regardless of religion or beliefs, marriage is something we want, and the legal system supports this. Because of this, and because of the seperation of church and state (you hear that Bush?!), you cannot legally deny gay marriages. It becomes discrimination. You are denying someone based on their sexual orientation. No matter what Bush or anyone else thinks to be moral or 'sacred' - that is not, and should never be, a factor here. It's not his or anyone's perogative to impose their moral and religious values on anyone else. This is strictly political, and in the United States, discrimination is illegal. Any notion of "civil unions" or "something like marriage" but not is the same as 'seperate but equal' and we already know that can't exist.

/rant. My but I'm in a preachy mood today. *picks up soapbox and wanders off*

Linzee

[lycoris.livejournal.com]

What are some arguments or counterarguments you use in the pro/anti-gay-marriage discussions?

1) These people are in love and they are gay. They are never going to stop being gay. They believe that they are never going to seperate. What is the difference between them and any straight couple?

2) They can still have babies, whether through surogacy or through adoption. Isn't it best to have them married to give the child more security rather than leave them with no rights?

3) I'd rather have two parents of the same sex who were very much in love than two parents of the opposite sex who have seperated and hate each other.

4) God is supposed to be all for love. So why doesn't he want gay people to have love too?

5) WHY THE FUCK NOT?!

I probably have more than this but can't remember them all. ^_^ And I LOVE your reasoning about sterile people - it's brillaint.

Hope this helped anyway!

[gileonnen.livejournal.com]

My argument? "What's it hurting you if people want to marry each other and be happy together?"

But the sterility argument is also a favorite.

[maymorning.livejournal.com]

Well, as I have said to my daughter: it doesn't matter who you love, what gender they are or what colour, so long as you love them and they love you. I mean it too. The anti-gay folks are being heard because they're all hot under the collar about it. I just ignore them. Until and unless they get really nasty, then I think we do have to stand up for what we believe in.

[fraught.livejournal.com]

What are some arguments or counterarguments you use in the pro/anti-gay-marriage discussions?

Hmhmmm... well, I keep hearing how letting two men or two women get married is somehow detrimental to the "sanctity of marriage", whatever the fuck that means. I have yet to hear a strong, solid argument against letting gay people get married.

If it's because of procreation, I'll point to my sister, who doesn't want kinds -- should she be allowed to get married? Or people who are too old to have kids? Infertile people?

If it's because it's a holy instution -- I'm an atheist, I won't be getting married in a church, should I be allowed to get married?

Don't television series like "Married by America" and "Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire?" do more harm to the sanctity of marriage anyway? If Joe Blow can pick up a random hooker in Vegas and marry her within ten minutes... well, "sanctity of marriage" my ass.

I live in the Netherlands, by the way, one of the few countries where gay marriage is legalized, or rather, civil marriage was opened up to everyone. Nothing has changed since the first gay couple got married on April 1st, 2001. NOTHING. The fact that Jim and Joe can get married if they want to has no effect whatsoever on the relationship I have with my boyfriend, or on my parents' marriage, or on the marriage of the straight couple down the street.

Saying that allowing gay couples to get married will somehow "damage" society is fucking bullshit. It won't, and Holland, Denmark, Belgium and Canada (among others) can prove it.

[sps.livejournal.com]

There's a confusion here. There's a religious purpose to marriage, or actually one or more such purposes as determined by each religion. It is pretended that this is what the issue is about, but it is not: that link was severed when divorce was legalised (it is a failure of the separation of church and state when that idea was carried back into relgions like christianity in which divorce - as a human reversal of a divine act - is logically impossible).

There's a personal purpose to marriage, but that has never required any civil or religious sanction; pair bonding is a biological function in many species and is far older than we are.

By a process of elimination, then, what we should be talking about is the purely civil aspect of marriage; any link to the other two concepts is just a linguistic unfortunateness with which propagandists on both sides are having a field day. But what is the civil purpose of marriage? Sadly, it is the mechanism by which the state ducks its obligations to child welfare, and to a lesser extent the care of the elderly. Instead of ensuring that children and retirees are properly sheltered, healthy, fed and educated, it takes pairs of people who have declared themselves wed for their own (presumably religious or personal, but perhaps financial reasons) and said here, the future of the population is your responsiblity and yours alone (but if you screw up we will jail you).

Now, of course the mother of a child has a natural interest in its wellbeing (the case for the father is much weaker; if I understand the statistics correctly, the chance of a child born in wedlock being the child of the mother's husband is only about 60%), which should be respected; but a child's health and education are to the benefit of the state even more than of their family.

In short: my belief is that civil marriage is a very broken attempt to enforce private sector welfare, and should be immediately replaced with proper mechanisms. Religious marriage should be completely beyond the grasp of the state to regulate. And personal marriage is your own damned business, and nobody could regulate it if they tried.

Any debate about homosexuality is an obvious smokescreen intended to divert us from the real issues. It's not as if it's a recent invention; and it's an area in which religions are entitled to their own teachings (though of course we can hope that those teachings will be sensible - within christianity, ones respecting the primacy of love, about which Jesus of Nazereth was extremely clear). It's one in which the state is entitled to no opinion. And it's one in which you know how you feel and telling you otherwise is unlikely to do any good.

The same triple structure, yes, but one that is irrelevant to the main question of providing (or, preferably, not providing) the state with excuses to withhold the guarantees of social stability and personal assistance that are in fact its sole moral justification for existence.

[gypsy-nightfire.livejournal.com]

All of these arguments have been really good. I do not hope to compare, for I've not the research, but I would be heard as well.
Love is love. That's all there is to it, and to deny one love based on the gender/race/creed/anything of the loved one is just wrong. It crosses the heart's path, which should above all things be respected. If I love (and I do) a woman, let me. If I'm going to hell (which I don't believe in, being Wiccan) let me. If I want to live with this woman (which I do, though I'm underage and so can't) let me. Live and let live. Why should it hurt you, who I love? Why should it matter to you at all, beyond perhaps acknowlegemnt/recognition/respect for the love that I bear. If you are happy for me for loving, I accept that and commend you, if you are not, then your opinion will only serve to make me hold tighter to keep what I love. And that's really all there is to it, to my mind, legal and religious aspects aside. Love is love. It is no remunerater of anything.
~Nightfire, of the braids.

[potterwitch.livejournal.com]

Know what? I was thinking about this all a while back. And what I came up with was this: 1) There are more TV shows/actors, films, books/authors and songs/pieces of music/musicians that acknowledge the existence of gay people and are okay with that, and promote tolerance. Now, people of all sexual denominations will read these books, watch these films and TV shows, and listen to this music, and think "Hey, yeah--who cares about sexual orientation?" and so, even if it only happens slowly, the talented authors and singers and actors among those people will write and act in more books, films, etc. It's a domino effect, but I'm not expressing this very clearly.

What I was literally thinking a few months ago was this: We are the ones who will make slash mainstream. I was thinking mainly in terms of the Harry Potter fandom, because that's where I read most of my slash, etc., but it goes for the whole generation. Because so many more people recognise and tolerate gay and bi people, there is bound to be an explosive rise in tolerance quite soon, through our work. Which is a bit of an ego boost, no? ;^)

The arguments I tend to use for same-sex marriage are
-It's not going to affect the straight people who are worried about it;
-not letting gay/bi people marry will not make them straight;
-to my knowledge, all constitutions declare that each human being is equal before the law, and his/her rights shall be the same as every other person; thus, allowing some people to marry who they choose while refusing others that right is unconstitutional;
-while the Bible/Torah/Koran/religious text of your choice may be perceived to denounce same-sex relationships, there is no secular reason to disallow same-sex relationships, and thus civil marriage should not be a problem;
-no matter how sacred same-sex marriage is, even hetero couples don't seem to realise it; divorce rates are on the rise, and one cannot fairly claim that straight couples are more likely to stay together than gay couples.

Love,
-Powee

[babyomlet.livejournal.com]

I agree with that as well. I think the only thing that may not be quite accurate is the use of slash to mainstream it all. There are still people who dislike slash, then again, there are people who dislike porn but still like sex. Yeah, I dunno. lol

I know that Queer as Folk - and in the beginning Queer Eye - made me more tolerant. Not that I wasn't at all ... but I would make jokes about it with my brother and cousin at times and I know my dad does it a lot. At the time it never phased me. I rented Queer as Folk for two reason - Hal Sparks, and to see what all the fuss was. I really didn't think I'd get into it as much as I did. I just thought I'd think it were interesting and leave at that. I rented the first DVD like 3 weeks ago and have already finished Seasons 1 & 2, and am watching the third one on Showtime. It's crazy.

From this, I find that the sexual situations don't bother me. In fact, I'm pretty much enjoying them. I also develop so much respect for the actos who are in these shows for the topics they all address. But also, lately, if my dad makes some joke about homosexuality, I either just stay silent or I'll tsk him in a nice manner. It's strange to say that these shows have done that to me, but maybe that also comes with maturity, because for a while now I've tsked my friends who make racial jokes.

I guess in a way, if something does it, then that's good, because hey, it's changing, right?