« Only a Bastardized Godfather Quote Will Do | Main | Wanderlust »
February 14, 2004
Good Things Are Happening
Cathy's been writing a ton of great updates to the goings-on in Beacon Hill about the hopefully-inevitable victory of gay marriage rights. For those not in Boston or closely following the Constitutional Convention, the pro-rights crowd has managed to keep the antigay amendments and separate-but-equal "compromises" at bay.
And what's been going on in San Francisco this week has been amazing. Have we hit the tipping point? Couples flying to S.F. from all over the country! Spontaneous ceremonies in Philly! 200 San Francisco city officials giving up their weekends to help with the weddings!
Of course, there's the obligatory downer, from the certainly-crabby Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for California Families, who can't stand the idea of anyone living their life outside of his rigid framework. Hey, Randy! Why is the so-called Campaign For California Families so aghast at the idea that, right now in San Francisco, new families are forming?!? Maybe you should change your organization's name to "Campaign for California Throwbacks and Bigots". Truth in advertising and all that.
I'll repeat my standing offer: I have yet to hear one argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't boil right down to the arguer's religious beliefs or out-and-out homophobia. Or hear one example of how any straight couple is threatened by this. (Ken and Barbie don't count.)
Filed Under: Politics | Permanent Link, Comments (4) | Linking Blogs
Comments
Sweet! I heard you had a letter in the Globe, man. I also am waiting for One Good Reason. We should offer a prize or something. Anyone who can give me one good reason why gays can't get married, I will pay them fifty cents.
Posted by: Secret Agent Cathy | February 15, 2004 07:50 PM
Well, if you want to tackle it on a level such as the whole subject of homosexuality, as a certain senator from Pennsylvania brought up not awfully long ago, then the true base intent of marriage is for reproduction of the human race, which in the case of homosexual relationships is (to my knowledge) impossible. The theory is that if you shave away all the emotive stuff in life, our humanly goals on earth are to eat and reproduce.
Marriage's historical origin (possibly Bible related, but in prior, not-so-closely-related civilizations as well) is for protection of the female of the pair, lest we males run off and leave them 'holding the bag,' so to speak, after the act of conception. You can point out various species of wildlife that live in paired relationships for their entire lives, but human marriage itself is a kind of governmental/tribal/etc way of verifying that there is a strictly outlined coexistence. I don't know if God requires a certificate to prove this, as he's never clearly approached me on the subject.
You can argue what you want about age and the deterioration of reproductive systems and marriage, but the examples of Anthony Quinn, and then that 69 year old woman, come to mind (I think there was an older mother in Asia somewhere not too long ago). Besides, the last paragraph talked a bit on the whole 'protection' subject. It is also hard to argue impotency, as it is obviously not truly hereditary but probably more environment and nutrition, given the success of our parents, our parents parents, our parents parents parents, etc to get us here. If you think about it, this should hold true for homosexuality as well, but aside from the above assumption, I'd have no way to absolutely prove it.
Having said all that, obtaining universal health care should be a topic we're worried about more stridently than who's marrying whom. Individual rights are what they are in this country, whether any of us agrees with certain ones or not. Feel free to blast away at/pick apart this post (seeing as how I never actually gave a reason why gays can't marry). Just know that I don't plan on voting for Rick Santorum anytime soon.
Posted by: Andy | February 16, 2004 01:55 AM
You don't get my fifty cents. First, as you noted you didn't actually supply a reason why gay people shouldn't get married, and second, see below.
". . . the true base intent of marriage is for reproduction of the human race . . ."
Marriage has no "true base intent." It is a changing institution in a civil society. Moreover, I don't accept that marriage is "for the children." Any queer worth her salt will swiftly point out to you here that heterosexuals don't have to get a fertility test before they get married.
"Marriage's historical origin (possibly Bible related, but in prior, not-so-closely-related civilizations as well) is for protection of the female of the pair . . ."
Who cares about the historical origin of marriage? Historically, women became property when they married. Historically, there was no such thing as rape in marriage. Pooey on history, I'm not interested in it.
"but human marriage itself is a kind of governmental/tribal/etc way of verifying that there is a strictly outlined coexistence . . ."
Er, I'm not quite sure what you mean--but, again, there is no monolithic definition of marriage out there, and people who think that there is one are fooling themselves.
"Having said all that, obtaining universal health care should be a topic we're worried about more stridently than who's marrying whom."
You sound like a nice fella and I couldn't agree more that U.H.C. is a deadly serious need in America right now. But that doesn't mean we can't fight for gay marriage. Every activist (and I am not one) chooses the fistful of issues that impassions her the most.
"Individual rights are what they are in this country, whether any of us agrees with certain ones or not."
'Kay, that's a little bogus. Rights are affected by laws and laws can be changed. For the good or for the bad.
Posted by: Secret Agent Cathy | February 18, 2004 09:35 PM
Well, it was worth a shot arguing a bunch of BS to try and get a couple of quarters. Besides, anyone who reads this is now slightly curious about Anthony Quinn's amazing virility.
Posted by: Andy | February 19, 2004 12:16 AM
