Girl On Girl: Why Gay Marriage Matters To Me
Posted by: Nikki Dowling
Filed in:
relationships
12:00PM, Friday November 6th 2009
I am currently seeing this really great girl. She’s smart, sweet and really fun to be around. We agree on a lot of things. We both hate the death penalty, love pizza and enjoy hanging out—sometimes illegally—on rooftops overlooking New York City. There is one thing, however, that we just can’t see eye-to-eye on. It’s not, as you would think, what to do on Saturday or where to have dinner or which baseball team is the best. Surprisingly, the issue that we butt heads on the hardest is gay marriage.
I am totally in favor of same-sex marriage and have been ever since I can remember. I think it’s a really important issue and am outraged on a regular basis that it isn’t allowed in 45 out of 50 states in this country. After Tuesday, when voters in Maine repealed a gay marriage law, making it the 31st state in the country to fully outlaw marriage between same-sex couples, I had steam coming out of my ears. My girlfriend, on the other hand, didn’t really care. She doesn’t want to get married and thinks there are more important things to worry about.
I could dismiss this as a weird quirk of hers if she weren’t one of the many gay chicks I know who doesn’t give a crap about this issue. The last girl I dated also didn’t care. She once even voted for a candidate who was completely against it. When I pointed this out to her, she said something like, “Who cares? We have bigger fish to fry.”
I agree. There are more important issues, but that doesn’t mean we need to ignore this one. Gay rights, like the civil rights and women’s suffrage movements, is a struggle for equality that is never going to go anywhere if we don’t get behind it. Martin Luther King Jr. was outraged when people told him that he just had to be patient about segregation. Similarly, I am irate that, in a society that claims to be so darn fair, I cannot marry someone I love because the person I love happens to have a vagina.
I am not comparing the gay rights movement to the inequality that African Americans faced, and still face today. We are not being herded to the back of the bus or drinking out of separate water fountains. However, earlier last month an openly gay man in Queens was beaten to within inches of his life by a bunch of thugs who yelled “f**got” over and over while they tried to kill him. Doesn’t sound so dissimilar now, does it?
I know a lot of very loving gay couples who are extremely eager to get married. Some say pretending is the closest they’ll ever get. To be honest, I don’t know if I’ll ever want to say, “I do.” But it’s not all about what I want. This is about an entire group of people—10 percent of the population of the United States, in fact—having the right to make whatever choice is best for them.
For me, gay marriage isn’t simply an issue of marriage. It’s about the whole gay community being treated as equals. Maybe it doesn’t seem like such a big deal that same sex couples can’t get hitched. But it’s a big deal when people become targets for admitting they are gay. If these things seem unrelated, well, they aren’t. They are all just pieces of a big, un-assembled puzzle. It’s a puzzle that can’t be solved in one swoop—it has to happen piece by piece. But we have to start somewhere. I think gay marriage is the perfect place to begin.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
bumbler
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:12 pm: [report]
I agree with you whole-heartedly. It’s not a matter of whether or not you want to get married it’s that you should have the choice without government sanctioned discrimination. I don’t want to fight on the front lines or serve in a submarine, I’m sure not every black person pre-civil rights wanted to sit at the front of the bus but everyone should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
tabby
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:19 pm: [report]
Amen. Having a basic human right is far more important than whether or not you feel like using/exercising that right.
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:22 pm: [report]
Gay marriage is not something she might think about until an issue comes up that prevents her from exercising a basic marital right, such as hospital visitation. Say you and her become a couple down the road. Then one of you gets in a horrible accident (god forbid). The other would not be granted rights to visit unless you were legally married or related.
There are more than 1,400 legal rights guaranteed to married couples. To prevent gay people from obtaining these basic rights is very, very wrong. America should not have second class citizens.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:22 pm: [report]
idea - lets all take the energy, passion, and money we put into the fight for gay marriage, and spend it on forcing the government to make civil unions and marriage legally equal, in every way but name. i bet the right wouldnt fight so hard for something they coudlnt find in their bibles (i dont read them… do they actually ban gay marriage?)... if you had an option to have a civil union, with every single right that a couple who marries has, would it be so bad? i said it in another article, id rather have a civil union ceremony anyway. marriage should be for jesus freaks (in my totally biased opinion).
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:26 pm: [report]
Because giving certain people “marriage” while giving others “civil unions” is still discriminating.
Look at the civil rights movement. Whites had one water fountain and blacks had another. That’s saying that one group is not worthy of the water that comes from the other fountain.
C.Munro
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:27 pm: [report]
There is no such thing as a small issue when speaking of equality.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:36 pm: [report]
1. Until a rabbi/minister/priest can perform a divorce legally in court, please remove their ability to perform legal marriages. This is a legal and not a church matter.
2. Separate but equal is unconstitutional. Before anyone says otherwise please remember that the constitution was written in defiance of the powers at the time. Although they were not supposed to be writing it, it got done and the rights of people as they knew them at that time were of utmost importance. At that time they only recognized white male property owners but over time that has changed to ALL people. Just like they said you have the right to bare arms and every gun hording Glenn Beck loving retard in Idaho is stockpiling weapons claiming it is in the constitution. So whats good for the goose and all…
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:36 pm: [report]
i guess my point is that the only ppl who would be lining up to marry would be the religious right. open minded hetero’s would be having civil unions too. we could make it cool.
Jessalyn
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:52 pm: [report]
We already have civil unions - they’re called marriage. As equnsuocha pointed out, this is a legal matter. The government is allowing civil marriage to be dictated by a very specific, very rigid set of religious views, which is completely unconstitutional. If people want a religious ceremony, fine - but all of the government rights, benefits and responsibilities that come with marriage are conferred by the state (via a marriage license) in which the marriage takes place. And the fact that they aren’t available to every American is wrong.
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:56 pm: [report]
When I married my husband, we wanted a marriage. A marriage of hearts, lives, ideals, goals and souls. Neither of us are religious or right-winged. And we don’t want some generic euphemistic term to replace getting married just because the fundamentalists take issue. Marriage PRE-DATES religion. End of discussion.
bumbler
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:03 pm: [report]
Where do all those crazy non-Christians around the world get off calling their heathen unions “marriage”?
Riley
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:11 pm: [report]
@Queen Frostine - Just out of curiosity, where do you get “marriage pre-dates religion”?
Deity worship or religion has been around since humankind developed the capacity to try and explain the unexplainable. Anything before that was possession, not marriage; a pack-mentality and base instincts.
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:21 pm: [report]
@ Riley,
Deity worship is not the same as organized religion. Marriage contracts pre-date forms of organized religion. Pair bonding and commitment have been around for as long as humanity has. Official marriages began as an arranged contract between two families (usually for money, property and sexual access) and occurred outside of religious institutions.
Riley
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
Deity worship is religion; you don’t need a written manuscript and thousands of followers to have a religion. Nowadays you do if you want the government to actually recognize the religion.
I was hoping for a link.
moonblossom
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:37 pm: [report]
I am for gay marriage because I believe in equal rights. Denying the right to marry to gay people is unequivocally wrong. End of story.
As for the marriage vs. civil union debate…IMO “a rose by any other name…” But really there is a problem with that too. For example: Gay couple in state with civil union. They have a union. All is good. Except the one of them with employer-provided health insurance is covered by a policy with a company that is incorporated under the laws of another state that does not recognize civil unions. So the insurance company legally denies coverage to the spouse. The man-woman married couple experiences no such problem.
I think the gf in the article would change her tune if she was with the same woman for 20+ years and then denied access to her dying partner’s hospital room because she wasn’t immediate family.
Jessalyn
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:38 pm: [report]
@Riley - whether or not marriage predates religion isn’t really the point here. The point is that, in our country, for the government’s purposes and all of the associated benefits/responsibilities, marriage has always been a legal institution, not a religious one. It’s the marriage license you get from the government that matters, not a blessing from a religious leader, regardless of whether the license comes from a justice of the peace or a government-sanctioned religious leader.
Riley
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]
@Jessalyn - I’m not arguing anything about the inequity of the system. People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as nobody is hurt in the process. I understand and agree with the points being made.
I’m not attacking anyone or any idea being discussed here. Just merely asking questions of Queen Frostine’s claim.
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]
1. Merely having faith in a god is not in and of itself a religion. A religion is defined by a system of rules, specific beliefs and practices pertaining to a deity or group of deities.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Although people worshipped gods since the dawn of time, organized religion did not sanction marriages until very recently in history. Marriages were performed without need for religious involvement for centuries.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 02:40 pm: [report]
religion - boo
equality - yay
NomChompsky
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 02:44 pm: [report]
I don’t understand people who say the State shouldn’t define marriage then try to enact laws that prevent gays from getting married. Isn’t that just making the State define marriage more closely and terribly?
That’s like saying, “Oh, I could never go bungee jumping. Too dangerous. I’m more of a Russian Roulette guy.”
Bertram
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 02:55 pm: [report]
Why not simply call them all civil unions and those with religion who want to have a ceremony can call it marriage? All states can start issuing civil union certificates in place of marriage certificates. Having the same ‘rights’ as a ‘married’ couple seems perfectly reasonable and something they should have when the necessary steps are taken to meet the requirements of the law. Sure insurance companies should recognize the union just like they would every other hetro couple that meets the requirements, etc, etc
Maybe I am wrong on this, but I would guess that the term ‘marriage’ started with a ceremony performed in religion (all flavors of religion) between two people of the opposite sex. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace. I am sure in all kinds of different religions we don’t meet the requirements to say we are ‘married’. Thats fine with us. If the state tomorrow wants to reissue our marriage license with one that says ‘The Civil Union of…’. Again, fine with me.
The concern is about having the same rights than that should be the focus. Same rights as other unions the state currently recognizes. The ‘we want the right to marry’, just seems to stir up religious groups of all manner and distract from the heart of the matter, being recognized by the state.
Riley
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 02:57 pm: [report]
1. How is that? Isn’t the basis of all religion a belief? A modern religion is defined by those codes, yes. I doubt you’ll find a system of rules for polytheistic religions from before recorded history.
2. According to the infallible Wikipedia, there really isn’t an answer to the origins of marriage. Just that the earliest record of any kind of law was Hammurabi.
So, I’d say there is no basis for claiming it is older than religion.
I think we’ve come to an impasse though.
lintilla
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 02:59 pm: [report]
Government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all, that’s the problem. It’s none of their business. All a “marriage certificate” is is a shortcut to a very specific binding legal contract, because it’d be way the hell too complicated to have such a contract written up and negotiated every damned time. Rename that legal contract a “civil union” for EVERYONE, and let the churches continue to discriminate all they want. Gay couples and anyone else who doesn’t like that behaviour can continue to go elsewhere for their ceremony (if they even choose to have one). “Under God”, I’m not married… not from what I can glean from the Christian bible, anyway. I do, however, have a legal document signed by myself, my husband, and a glorified notary public (mine, as I am an atheist, was selected from the Universal Life Church
I don’t place any value upon that piece of paper whatsoever, and don’t particularly care what it’s called. I’ve only got the damned thing because in order to legally remain in this country with my husband (whom I would continue to consider my husband even minus the piece of paper), the USCIS demands that I have one in my possession.
Karol
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:09 pm: [report]
Obama is completely against it, yet he got a significant majority of the gay vote. This issue has ceased to be rational and has become almost entirely emotional.
I’m for gay marriage, from a conservative perspective (ie: family units are good, no matter what they look like and I only want gay marriage pushed through legislature or vote, not courts) but think the arguments for gay marriage need to really change if it will ever become a reality. I wrote something along those lines here: http://alarmingnews.com/?p=8382
Queen Frostine
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]
Yes, but the reverse is not true. The basis of belief does not equate religion.
From Wikipedia: “From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required.
I think it should revert back to being such. I don’t think the government needs to be involved at all. Private marriage could be whatever people want it to be, on whatever terms they define.
betty123
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:21 pm: [report]
With the way the economy is, think of all the money that could be generated by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. It would be a large amount initially since there would of course be a flood of couples that have been wanting to get hitch but waiting for it to become legal.
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:22 pm: [report]
Okay, I have major issues with gay marriage being compared to the civil rights movement, so everyone needs to stop making that comparison, because it is not useful for this debate and some people (myself included) take offense to the comparison and it takes away from the issue at hand, which is important, but very different then the civil rights that African-American have fought for and continue to fight for. Two different things, stop making the comparison where there is none, it does not appeal to anyone.
Next I know lots of gay/lesbians who don’t care about marriage rights. As great as it would be for gays and lesbians to get married, I do feel at times that there are bigger issues to be raises, especially when racism seems to be on the rise in this country, women still on average make less than men, being the wrong religion gets you harassed and discriminated against, I mean all of those are equally big issues and when there is not a united front on what would be good for a group, then things don’t get done. When you have one segment of the population saying “we want marriage”, another saying “we’ll take civil unions”, and then yet another saying, “we don’t care about marriage”, it’s such a disjointed movement and those opposed to it, no matter how ignorant or bigoted they are, are very organized, so they are going to continue to win. I keep hearing people say “oh the next generation will change this, once we get young people to vote, they won’t let this stand, that’s false hope. I do what I can to support, I’ve been to local rallies, I give money to a local organization and HRC, ACLU, I would love to see it happen, but it is going to keep getting pushed to the wayside, if things continue the way they are. That is what is so frustrating about this issue, is nobody seems to be all that united, they just want something to happen or don’t care.
Bertram
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:27 pm: [report]
Unfortunately the government does have to be involved in any union a couple wants rights and protections under.
If your union goes south you are going to need someone (ie the government/courts) to divide up the assets, child support (and make sure it gets paid), health insurance coverage, visitation, etc.
lintilla
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:31 pm: [report]
The government also issues business licenses, but they don’t get to decide who can and cannot go into business together…
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:36 pm: [report]
issuing licenses might make the states some money, but it would cost the fed a fortune in tax breaks for married couples. still for it. just wanted to point out this would not make our country money…
Riley
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:39 pm: [report]
@Queen Frostine - I still fail to see how structure and early Christian concepts of marriage prove what you claim.
You are right, a simple belief does not create a religion; but that wasn’t my claim. Mine was that people can have a belief in something, without codified standards. Oral histories and practices are seldom unified.
If marriage were to take the path you suggest, then how would those 1,400 benefits be administered? I think any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a marriage, union or whatever they want to call it. Tax-breaks all around.
murphk2
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]
@bethlynnoo: If marriage is a civil right that offers very basic protections to the people involved - why is it offensive to compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement?
It’s not exactly the same thing, but there are many parallels that cannot be overlooked. Being prevented from sitting in the front of the bus is not the same thing as being prevented from seeing a loved one in the hospital - they are two different acts - but the basic presupposition remains that one person is not good enough as another person (In this case, a gay person is not good enough as a straight person to undertake the responsibilities and gain the benefits of a legally recognized union).
They are also the same in the very basis of discrimination. If you were black, you couldn’t vote, couldn’t drink from the same fountains, etc. because there was an assumption of inferiority (often based on pseudoscience) and fear of contaminating something basically superior about whites. This is the same problem the LGBT community faces - discrimination based on this sort of pseudoscience, declarations of inferiority/superiority, and fear of poisoning the purity of heterosexual marriage.
Comparisons make things clear. They’re helpful. They don’t detract from the meanings and goals of the civil rights movement, but rather bring to mind similar struggles and remind us that, just as it was unjust in the past to keep blacks from attending schools with whites, it’s also unjust to offer one segment of the population (heterosexuals) rights that are also kept from another segment - and to remind us that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
murphk2
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 03:52 pm: [report]
Additionally, the strength of the supporters of an issue does not determine the worthiness or correctness of the issue. The civil rights movement was equally as disjointed as the gay marriage movement. Some wanted violent resistance, some wanted peaceful resistance, some didn’t want to be involved at all.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]
which is why “real americans” were wrong to support torturing enemy combatants/detainees too…
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:14 pm: [report]
@ murphk2: No these comparisons are harmful and offensive. The right to marriage is not the same as the right to go to school, to vote, to drink from a public fountain, to live in a certain neighborhood, or even to just walk thru that neighborhood, it’s very different. Many LGBT activists also agree that the comparison cannot be made and it is a different fight that they are battling against. Being gay and being black is very different, when someone who is gay walks in the room, I don’t know that, but I bet you everyone notices when I walk into the room and they see that I am black. People make conscious decisions to hide the fact that they are gay, but I can;t do that, I have to deal with being judged on that fact everyday, but I don;t see anyone walking around with a big poster saying “I’m gay”.
Second the LGBT community hasn;t even fully embraced African-Americans, even those who are LGBT. After Prop 8 failed, there were numerous reports from all over the country of attacks against African-Americans, because the supposrt from that community was low in the vote. People were calling other ralliers and supporters the “N” word at rallies. So the same people who you want to take your side and compare your discrimination against are discriminated against, because some where not on board and you feel they should be? No, it’s wrong.
Third, the civil rights movement was not as disjointed as the LGBT marriage push. People are not taking action because they fear for their lives, like with the Civil Rights movement, they are not taking action simply because they do not care, that is completely different. And even with the violent and non-violent movement there was a consensus that something needed to change, with this there isn’t even that, which is why things are not changing and are actually taking a turn for the worse.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:20 pm: [report]
This is EXACTLY the same thing, gays can not change who they love any more than people of color could change the color of their skin. The fact that Gays have already certain rights that blacks did not doesnt change the fact they are beaten and killed for who they are every day on this earth. They are persecuted and treated as less than equal by the majority of the world. They are being denied the rights the rest of the country already has based on who they choose to love. So please stop playing this card. They are the same and racism or sexism is wrong wo why try to negate the feelings of others with this sort of “ooh im so offended” BS?
Jayde30
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:21 pm: [report]
To all those who chose to attack the tenets of Christianity as being the basis for all the problems in this movement…THAT is the actual problem. I don’t understand the hypocrisy going on here. It is NOT okay to harass/attack LGBT individuals. Along the same lines, it is NOT okay to attack those with Christian beliefs. How has somebody not piped up and mentioned this before? Everyone has their own beliefs. The key is to figure out a way to live in harmony without offending those with beliefs different than your own. Attacking them for having different beliefs, when they grew up in different places, different circumstances, different experiences…well, that’s what bullies on the playground do, and they tend to grow up with a very narrow view of the world. No more attacks on those of the Christian faith, please. Open discussion without offense.
Jayde30
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:24 pm: [report]
Bethlynn00 I am as white as a sheet of paper and I agree with you. The civil rights movement of the 60’s, on top of being well-organized, was so life-rocking. The prejudice blacks experienced on a daily basis was in every aspect of their lives—everywhere they went, everything they did. Two of my closest friends are gay, and they really don’t get what all the fuss is about in relation to gay marriage. They think it’s somewhat ridiculous when there are more urgent matters at hand in today’s society.
Jayde30
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:28 pm: [report]
Again, equnsuocha, you cannot determine what should/should not offend someone else. And to label it BS…that is the height of being offensive. We must consider everyone’s thoughts/ideas/feelings as much as our own. Any other approach is more than a little childish.
murphk2
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]
The visibility or not of being gay isn’t a problem to my claims - being gay becomes visible as soon as a gay couple wants to get married. It’s a different sort of challenge to have to hide your sexual orientation - and it’s done because of fear. Don’t say that immobility in the gay community doesn’t have to do with being afraid. Why are so many people in the closet?
There are actually a few gay, black theorists who would disagree with you just as I am.
Additionally, what I know of the civil rights movement does not show that there was a consensus. Often, those who wanted to go about change violently wanted segregation from whites to reduce contact with them. It wasn’t as simple as you make it out to be - there was no one unifying force of civil rights that guided the whole effort and made it work. Just like you said, there are racists today - just as there are homophobics.
Violence against blacks that you mention only means that there’s still racism. But you can’t eliminate racism just by changing the laws. The laws are what we’re going for, and hopefully the behavior will follow. You can’t force homophobic people to like gays, just like you can’t force racist people to like blacks - but you can definitely make it illegal to be violent toward them or to discriminate solely on a biological basis.
fallonthecity
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:45 pm: [report]
Being gay is not like being black is not like being a woman is not like being poor is not like being transgendered is not like being fat is not like being disabled is not like being Muslim is not like being mentally handicapped is not like being old… etc. etc.
The people in each of these groups have different types of oppression and discrimination to deal with, and you can’t effectively compare any of them. A white gay woman can’t really speak about the experiences of black people for the same reason a gay, disabled, black man can’t really speak about my experiences as a woman—even if they’re using these comparisons in an attempt to drive home a valid point, they still have not experienced the types of oppression they’re talking so freely about, so who are they to draw those comparisons?
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:49 pm: [report]
@equnsocha: Do not dismiss facts as BS, because it’s not! Actually gays have and do change who they love everyday and like i said people make conscious decisions to do so, that is not possible for people of color (please spare me any lame MJ jokes). You think gays are the only ones being beaten and killed, persucuted and treated as less than equally every day? What about women? Yet I hear no one comparing this to the women’s movement. What about people of different religions? Oppression is not one size fits all and it dimishes the fight against oppression if we make it a commonality, because just one movement or one law isn’t going to fix all oppression, so there needs to be distinction between every group. Lots of groups can make the same claims, but they are not being called up for comparison. I mean it’s just a ploy to appeal to people because no one wants to be though of as racist so if you say “oh we’re being denied like blacks were”, it’s amarketing ploy, not a realistic approach to change, and liek i said and will continue to say it is offensive and counter-productive.
And no one can deny that there is not a rift in the LGBT community with African-Americans, I have seen it first hand and still do, they don’t embrace African-Americans, but want to be compared to the same plight. No it’s wrong and when I hear things like this it is offensive, because i know many gay and lesbian African-Americans who have not been accepted by the LGBT community at large, they still feel that discriminatory thread running thru, which is why there are not very many who are at the forefront of this issue. Maybe you don;t like it but it’s fact, so like I said there is nothing anyone can say that would make me or a lot of others see or want to make that comparison, it’s wrong and needs to stop.
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:50 pm: [report]
@fallonthecity: Thank you, you put it in much better context.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:53 pm: [report]
I smell so much double talking bull sh!t here I may throw up. you people seriously are making me sick today. So it is OK FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE A F U CKING LIE!! What is wrong with you.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:55 pm: [report]
And for that matter Bethlynn YOUR attitude and those like you that attempt to cheapen ANY groups strive for legal equality based on race is racist ignorant and to quote you “offensive and counter-productive” Get a grip honey we are all people just because gays can live a lie doesnt make it right!
fallonthecity
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 04:58 pm: [report]
@equnsuocha: Whoa, slow down! Nobody’s saying it’s right for gays to “live a lie.” @bethlynn00 is making a very valid point, and I definitely don’t think she’s trying to “cheapen” gays’ struggle for legal equality. She’s just saying it’s different from the civil rights movement. Which it is.
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:01 pm: [report]
@equnsocha: you need to chill out, I, in no way, cheapened anyone’s push for equality, I am simply stating that every group is different and that should be acknowledged, I never said that anyone was less deserving of equal rights, but that those battles are incomparable and THAT is what cheapens everyone’s push for equality. And I didn’t say that it was okay for people to live a lie, they shouldn’t have to and some do it out o fear and some don’t, they make a decision of who they want to be and go with it, for different reasons. I don’t think that if everything was equal everyone who is gay would come out of the closet, because some make a choice that that is not who they are or want to be.
bumbler
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:03 pm: [report]
why does the frisky keep reloading when I am almost finished commenting? rawr! I’ve typed up a paragraph 3 times now!
Ok here goes. No the gay rights movement is not the same as the civil rights movement, women’s lib etc etc. The thing we have to be careful of is that we don’t dismiss the importance or difficulty of one struggle in favor of another. It would be like a Jewish person walking up to a black person and saying “call me when you have 2,000 years of oppression under your belt.” Unless we have lived life as a gay person or a black person or any other minority we don’t know how hard it is in their skin and shouldn’t start ranking problems and struggles.
bumbler
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:07 pm: [report]
Also bethLynn to be fair the problems and tensions between the gay and black communities go both ways. Aside from Coretta Scott King’s impassioned defense of gay rights most community and religious leaders have not been accepting of gays and the popular opinions follow suit.
murphk2
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:18 pm: [report]
So what if it’s different! They are different issues, but you’re getting upset that one group working for civil rights is being inspired by the black movement for civil rights - this is absurd. MLK compared the struggle of blacks to the struggle of early Christians spreading their faith. These are certainly much different, but if he can use comparisons to make a point, I can, too.
How very ‘intro to women’s studies and bell hooks’ of you! I can draw these comparisons because the foundation of oppression is the same, even if the symptoms are different. One group wants privileges, so they find an excuse to keep others from getting the same privileges. Black or gay are just excuses to treat people differently. I can’t say it’s harder to be gay than black, but I can say that the groups have been treated in similar ways.
I can say that I imagine a black man who wanted to marry a white woman but was prohibited from doing so probably felt a lot of the same things I feel because I’m not allowed to marry someone I love. This doesn’t cheapen anyone’s struggle but rather reinforces solidarity between the oppressed.
My biggest problem with you now is that you’re making one historical period, a period of many years, untouchable just because you’re emotional about it. But I’m allowed to be just as emotional about the civil rights movement even though I’m not black – because I think legal discrimination is wrong, and I celebrate when laws are changed and improved. But fine. You can’t handle it because it’s your victory and yours alone. You’ve placed black civil rights in a hermetically sealed sacred space apart from history, and apparently I’m a bad person for making it relevant to the world and other people who aren’t black. So I won’t compare it to the civil rights movement because you’re too emotional to handle it. From now on, we should compare it to the struggles of the Irish – signs on businesses said “No Irish Need Apply,” Irish Catholics couldn’t marry Irish protestants, and schools were segregated. This is the obvious solution for comparison if the black civil rights movement is too young or holy to touch.
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:25 pm: [report]
@bumbler: I never said that the tensions weren’t both ways, but honestly the black church community, a prominent, if not the driving force of the black community has never made an effort to embrace or make comparison to the LGBT community, outside of what Mrs. King did when she was alive, now you don;t hear much about it from black leaders. They don’t make the distinction that they expect this community to fall in line with what they are fighting for, anymore than any other group, like the LGBT community does. In many ways they have chosen the side against the marriage issue, because I know plenty of black people who are adamantly opposed to giving gays the right to marriage, they have voted against it and give money to groups who oppose them, based on their own religious beliefs. Does that make it right NO, it’s definitely not right, but it’s true. And that leaves many African-American LGBT stuck, because they are not supported by any group and they are hurting because o that and they don;t have a voice on either side. So I am just saying don’t compare your battles to others, because they might be the ones going against you, which is the case with this issue. Just like with the Prop 8 issue, LGBT groups were just dependent on the black vote, because they were making these comparisons, but there was no outreach to the African-American community or leaders in California, which Dan Savage from Savage Love talked about in a great article after Prop 8. That is why is important to distinguish your battles, cause just like there are racist in the LGBT community, homophobia is rampant in the black community. It’s not right, but it’s real, so those things have to be acknowledged, but I did not mean to downplay one side over the other.
equnsuocha
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:30 pm: [report]
This issue has been degraded into a semantics game and for all your “offense” you are helping those who which to oppress a group of HUMANS. Likely the same group who chose to oppress blacks. Until you get that right in your head and stop call it “something” different you are no better than the LDS and all the rest of the shysters out there who trick people into voting for something they dont want… In fact may be worse since you feel so strongly about racism yet feel sexism is ok. The fact that you wuote Dan Savage tells me we have nothing more to discuss here.
bethlynn00
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:46 pm: [report]
@murphk2: I am very involved and emotional about equal rights for gays, I’ve shed tears over the issue as well. It’s not an excuse to treat people different, because we are all different and none of us want the same things. I mean I have the right to marry someone who is white, maybe someone could refuse to do it, but I can go any where in the country and marry someone of a different race so I could just not care, because I don’t want to marry another woman, but I do. Equality and fairness are two different things, you are focused on what you think is fair, that every fight for rights be the same, but that goes against what is equal, because we have the rights that others are striving for, so if you are truly focused on equality, then you should be able to decipher between two different plights for rights. .
@equnsocha: It’s unfortunate that you seem to be so closed minded. You are degrading this argument by statign that my opinion, is sexist? I don’t think racism or sexism (although we are talking about homophobia, which are 2 different things) are okay. I brought up Dan S. because he wrote a good article, not because he is the be all of LGBT rights or anything, but that he had a valid point, that’s all, read the article, it’s quite good. And the fact that you compared me to LDS, really means you can stoop no lower than to name call and have nothing else to discuss with me. I disagree with what murphk2 is saying, but at least they are making an effort to present an argument, unlike you. I’m sorry that you have nothing of substance to add, but don’t just dismiss another viewpoint as BS or bigoted, cause it’s not
murphk2
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 06:26 pm: [report]
You can have the last word, but you’re completely ignoring what I’m saying.
I’m saying it’s not wrong to compare similarities between two different plights for rights. I’m saying that this isn’t an apples/oranges issue. I’m not saying that all blacks have to support gay rights because they supported the civil rights movement. I’m saying that oppression can be compared even when it’s not exactly the same struggle. You have yet to say what offends you, and you have yet to address any of my claims but rather divert with “What about this?”
fallonthecity
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 06:41 pm: [report]
How very condescending of you! Thank you!
The foundation of different types of oppression are not the same—and I don’t see how you can think they are. They don’t affect the same people, and they don’t work in the same ways. I’m not trying to make a period of history untouchable, and I don’t know where you’re getting that. I’m saying it’s obnoxious for someone who isn’t black to be like “look—my struggles are not so dissimilar to blacks’!” when they have never been a black person, and don’t really know what they’re talking about. I support gay rights because it’s a cause that deserves supporting. I support equal rights for people of color because it’s a cause that deserves supporting. But lumping the two together in an effort to make some point just takes away from both of them.
Arsenic
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 06:54 pm: [report]
Lord, please save me from my-misery-penis-is-bigger-than-yours competitions. Amen.
Know what’s not productive?
Saying you have it worse than everyone else. You end up fighting the very people most likely to support your cause.
BrokenBrain
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 07:16 pm: [report]
I have always believed that marriage is a deeply personal (and for some, religious) decision. As far as I am concerned, the state should not be in the business of legitimizing such a personal decision.
I would like to see all long term partnerships be recognized by the state as civil unions for any situations requiring official documentation, and marriage be a personal choice separate from the civil union.
Unfortunately, the State of Nebraska did not agree with my assessment of their place in my life, and so I have a marriage license. Perhaps my children will have civil unions with their future spouses, gay or straight.
Nikki Dowling
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 09:02 pm: [report]
Arsenic, thanks for injecting some common sense into this conversation.
I’m not sure why this civil rights vs gay rights debate is raging. If you actually read the article it says…
Hm.
fallonthecity
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:10 pm: [report]
But then you go on to say,
Adding this made it sound like, “I’m not trying to compare even though it is pretty much the same.” Your argument holds water without even bringing civil rights or womens’ suffrage into it at all. You deserve to marry whomever you want, period. The man from Queens deserves not to be beaten half to death by a bunch of a*sholes, period. I just don’t see why it’s useful or necessary to bring things like civil rights and womens’ suffrage into it that aren’t really related to the topic at hand, other than we’re talking about [totally different types of] systematic discrimination and prejudice.
Nikki Dowling
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:55 pm: [report]
Whew. I don’t even know where you came up with, “I’m not trying to compare even though it is pretty much the same.” That is so far off from what I wrote that it’s difficult for me to discern where it even came from.
Anyway, in that paragraph I was just saying that hate crimes against the LGBT community AND against African Americans have occurred. That is a fact - totally not debatable.
Without diminishing other minorities struggles, however, I do say…
Again, not really debatable, is it?
fallonthecity
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 11:20 pm: [report]
I accept that isn’t what you meant. It’s what it sounds like when I read through the article.
Of course hate crimes occur against those in the LGBT community, and the African American community, and a host of others, and that is awful. I’m not trying to debate that. But I do fail to understand why it’s necessary to bring civil rights and women’s suffrage into a piece about gay marriage. If the headline read “Hate Crimes Suck” it would be fitting. As it stands, the discussion of civil rights and women’s suffrage seems completely, totally irrelevant to everything else you’re saying—so what’s the point? And why the need for the disclaimer (“I am not comparing…”) if you see absolutely nothing problematic about that part of your post?
majicksand
wrote on November 7 2009 @ 05:58 pm: [report]
Shortly after the prop 8 vote last year, I wrote an essay about how it made me feel. It’s rather long, but here is a portion of what I wrote.
The decision has been heralded by its supporters as “a return to traditional American values”. What the hell does that mean? This country was founded by people seeking the freedom of change. Our forefathers were looking for a place where they could live their lives according to their beliefs without fear of persecution. The whole point was to challenge the “traditional” views which prevented diversity. How is it that 400 years after colonizing such a land of freedom for all, we are voting to prohibit the freedom of anyone whose lifestyle does not conform to those in power? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose?
The value of traditions must be carefully weighed against the impact they have on those around us. Let’s consider a few “traditions” in our nation’s history that we have overcome. Slavery. Southern landowners argued that their workforce had been legally purchased and was rightfully owned. Voting rights. White male landowners believed they were the only citizens intelligent enough to dictate our country’s future. Interracial marriage. People of various races felt that we should not “pollute” the bloodlines. Women’s rights. Men were not confident that “fragile” females had the constitution to be in charge of their own lives.
We have progressed through the centuries and earned a reputation around the world as the “land of opportunity”, yet those opportunities are still reserved only for those we, in our infinite wisdom, deem worthy. When you break down the justifications for Prop 8, they contradict not only the logic, but the values we are supposedly protecting.
If America was founded on religious freedom, how can anyone claim the right to limit someone else’s life based on their personal religious beliefs? Should we all be forced to conform to one religion so that there is no ambiguity about whose values control policy? Even within the same faith the interpretations of religious tenets vary. Whose version takes precedence? If we cannot agree, should we ban religion entirely?
The essay in it’s entirety is posted in a blog entitled Personal Choices on my myspace page at myspace.com/majicksand if you’re interested.
majicksand
wrote on November 7 2009 @ 06:04 pm: [report]
*its not it’s. Oops!
mineola
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 08:59 am: [report]
The government should have no business whatsover in this “debate” other than to guarantee that it is not sanctioning discrimination against any citizen. Nor do I understand, nor am I able to feign respect for the mentality of those who so vociferously oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it somehow dilutes or threatens their marriage or their concept of the term. (Does my mortgage depend on the mortgage of someone living eight blocks away? Um, no.)
A bizarre & troubling debate to still be having in this day & age. My sympathies to all those who suffer from our lack of evolution on this matter.
I’ve read some really painful painful stories about people being denied visitation, end of life issues, all manner of things. But I have yet to credibly hear one single story about how a gay marriage ever threatened anything other than someone’s tiny ego.
I sympathize with your girlfriend a little bit though in the same way that I get impatient with the ongoing (and agonizing) controversy over reproductive rights- another issue where it constantly amazes me that our right to privacy doesn’t trump the social debate, end of story. (I wish it were the end of the story is what I’m trying to get at.)
moogyboobles
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 12:46 pm: [report]
http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/09/hospital-forces-lesbian-to-die-alone/
I don’t understand why people are so intolerant about gay marriage. Declaring love for another human being, when people are being shot, there are wars going, should be encouraged not banned! Who cares what bits they have?
If religion is the reason they again it goes over my head. Surely in many religions being a kind, empathetic person is a more important “rule” to follow in life. Persecuting people based on who they fall in love with hardly makes a good person.
indianagirl
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]
My beautiful cousin’s parents told her if she choses to marry a woman and by some stroke of luck that becomes legal…. Her mother nor her father will attend the ceremony. To that I said Im dressing in a tux and walking you down the asile… i dont think any of us have a choice who we fall in love with or who we are attracted to. Its just who we are. I fell in love with a man, and yes its traditional and accepted for me and my husband, but i dont want her to miss out on life because someone else thinks there is something wrong with the way she was born. SHE WAS BORN GAY. What does it really matter to anyone else that she loves a woman? She’s not a murderer, or a child molester…. give the kid a break.
DancerNinja
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]
When are people going to stop being seen as the sum of our sex organs? I tend to find the opposition to gay marriage demeaning to people because it always seems to say to me “You’re just a dude” and “You’re just a chick” and “Each of you need to act like it!” Jeebus, what does it even mean to be a dude or chick anymore, really?
foozlesprite
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 03:10 pm: [report]
For me it’s simple. I’m not gay but here’s why I support gay marriage.
-Equality is good, discrimination is bad.
-Love is a good thing to encourage, regardless of the genders involved. If the world had more love instead of all this hate, it would be a better place.
-We’ve got an overpopulation problem anyways, good for the gays for (a) not adding to the problem and (b) adopting the kids that the straight couples abandon.
To the Christians who oppose gay marriage: Jesus had a message. Love thy neighbor. Forgive people for their sins. Do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Even if you can’t see gay marriage as positive, please treat them respectfully and accord them similar rights to what you have. It’s sad how little tolerance and love there is in modern religions (not only Christianity), considering it’s what they were founded on.
Kateastrophe
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 11:13 pm: [report]
Personally, I think the government should only recognize civil unions—which convey legal status—regardless of the genders of the people involved. Let churches fight about what should convey the social and religious status of marriage.
Kate134
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 01:41 am: [report]
So consensus? <3 gays. <3 marriage for gays. Other stuff important too. It would be really tough being a transgendered lesbian half- African American, half-Palestinian Arab, Jewish convert who lives in Alabama (no offense meant to alabamians but I’ve been there - it was tough for me and I’m only one of those.)
Kate134
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 01:45 am: [report]
Also the basis of homophobia is hatred of women. Why are all gay jokes about how homos are so stylish and ‘effeminate’? (or acting like ‘women’) Why are all lesbian jokes about how they ride motorcycles and act Butch? (pretending to be men when they’re ‘only women’)
Susie
wrote on November 13 2009 @ 06:59 pm: [report]
Who cares if gay people want to get married? Go ahead. “Let those people be miserable like the rest of us,” as Dolly Parton once said.
I figure it’s not any of my business if gay people want to get married (I’m straight and very much in favor of gay marriage.)It doesn’t affect the so-called “sanctity of my marriage.” I didn’t get married to prove anything to anyone.
I can’t believe the government would put this issue out to the general public when it’s such a personal decision. It’s none of my business, doesn’t affect me in any way if gay people can get married.
On the other hand, if they can’t get married, then that means that I live in a country that isn’t really “free.” Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn’t for everyone, apparently.
And this can be compared in some ways to the Civil Rights movement. As a white person I didn’t gain any rights with the Civil Rights movement, but I live in a better world because people are treated equally. More rights for some people inevitably leads to more freedom for everyone.
thecatlady
wrote on November 18 2009 @ 02:26 am: [report]
Gay people do have the same rights to marriage as everyone else. It becomes a privlege to add on things like, “even if both members of the couple are the same sex,” or “even if 3 or more people are involved in the marriage,” or any number of things that could possibly be added.
Marriage wasn’t originally about a declaration of love; couples received the benefits, and were expected to reproduce and raise children under the same roof.
Obviously, our definition of marriage has changed over the years. However, I don’t think that means we’re denying gay people rights by not allowing them to marry.
I do, however, think that we are denying gay couples rights that they should have. For example, someone mentioned that they should have the right to visit their partner in the hospital, and I agree with that. I think there should be benefits like that to civil unions, as well as financial benefits of living under the same roof and agreeing to be “committed.”
I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional or necessary to adjust the definition of marriage so that gay couples can marry, too.