I don't know, can we talk?
This bloke feels bad about all the yelling around Prop. 8 and asks, "Can we talk?"
My comment on the Newsweek site was truncated and my quotation marks and apostrophes turned into "???" (what I get for copying and pasting from Word), so I'm reposting my submission here.
* * * * *
How does one have an open dialogue with a close-minded person? Supporters of marriage equality have backed our position with studies, information, and well-reasoned arguments. Often all we get back are Bible quotes and comments that translate to "We think same-sex couples are icky and God hates them, so they don't deserve the rights extended to all other citizens."
But in an effort to join in this dialogue, let me address three points.
1) "I voted for the ban. ... Does that mean I want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population? No."
Excuse me, Mr. Mouw, but I don't understand your logic. You do not want to impose your personal convictions on the broader population, but you voted for a proposition that imposed your personal convictions on the broader population? No one was about to limit you to marriage that goes against your basic biology. (Please don’t bother with the “Being gay is a choice” argument. When did you “choose” to be attracted to women?)
2) "And, fair or unfair, 'slippery slope' concerns loom large."
I too am concerned - about a different "slippery slope". One of the loudest arguments I hear again and again is "Same-sex marriage can’t be legal because it can't produce biological children" (even though same-sex couples make up the largest percentage of adoptive parents who raise the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents). Now, I myself am heterosexual. However, for many personal reasons, I have no intention of having children when I someday get married to that Special Guy. My roommate has been married to her husband for nearly 14 years but they have no children because she was rendered sterile by post-operative complications.
If we start defining marriage as a “procreation only” arrangement, I am concerned that the same people who argue this way against marriage equality will try to invalidate my roommate's marriage and try to deny my right to marry.
3) Mr. Mouw says that his main concern is the vitriolic shouting that has issued from both sides. As near as I can tell, those who supported Prop. 8 were the ones who started shouting and then got upset when we started shouting back. And we have reason to be shouting - how would you feel if someone voted on your right to ... do anything, frankly? But especially something as personal and emotional as committing your entire life to the person you love most in the world? And what if, even after making that private commitment, you are still denied the right to be by your partner's side in the hospital or to keep your adopted children when your partner dies (because only one partner's name can legally be on the adoption certificate)?
"Domestic partnerships" are not equal under the law to "marriage." The meaning of the word "marriage" has already changed many times through the centuries (remember, the Bible promotes polygamy - look at Jacob and Leah and Rachel), so why are you so scared of it changing again?
* * * * *
And since I am not limited here to Newsweek's 3000-character limit, I'd like to address one more point. Like it or not, same-sex marriage has existed for decades, even before it ceased to be illegal to be homosexual. There have always been loving, committed couples who have lived together and even raised children. Many same-sex couples have been together for years in committed relationships, longer than many heterosexual marriages. But in the past they had to be "roommates" or "friends," because if they were exposed as lovers, they would be thrown in an asylum or prison or even killed.
And then things started to change. People began to realize that homosexuality is not a deviant behavior or a mental illness (though it took until the 1970s for the APA to remove it from the diagnostic manual). Homosexual couples stopped having to hide. It is now quite common to see two men or two women walking down the street holding hands with their children.
All these families are asking for are the same legal protections that all other committed couples and families enjoy as a given.
Edited to add: This comment by Solo500 wins the Best Stated Award: "You may be kinder and gentler and even respectful in tone. But there is no way you can say 'your marriage means less than mine' to a fellow citizen and have it actually BE respectful."
My comment on the Newsweek site was truncated and my quotation marks and apostrophes turned into "???" (what I get for copying and pasting from Word), so I'm reposting my submission here.
* * * * *
How does one have an open dialogue with a close-minded person? Supporters of marriage equality have backed our position with studies, information, and well-reasoned arguments. Often all we get back are Bible quotes and comments that translate to "We think same-sex couples are icky and God hates them, so they don't deserve the rights extended to all other citizens."
But in an effort to join in this dialogue, let me address three points.
1) "I voted for the ban. ... Does that mean I want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population? No."
Excuse me, Mr. Mouw, but I don't understand your logic. You do not want to impose your personal convictions on the broader population, but you voted for a proposition that imposed your personal convictions on the broader population? No one was about to limit you to marriage that goes against your basic biology. (Please don’t bother with the “Being gay is a choice” argument. When did you “choose” to be attracted to women?)
2) "And, fair or unfair, 'slippery slope' concerns loom large."
I too am concerned - about a different "slippery slope". One of the loudest arguments I hear again and again is "Same-sex marriage can’t be legal because it can't produce biological children" (even though same-sex couples make up the largest percentage of adoptive parents who raise the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents). Now, I myself am heterosexual. However, for many personal reasons, I have no intention of having children when I someday get married to that Special Guy. My roommate has been married to her husband for nearly 14 years but they have no children because she was rendered sterile by post-operative complications.
If we start defining marriage as a “procreation only” arrangement, I am concerned that the same people who argue this way against marriage equality will try to invalidate my roommate's marriage and try to deny my right to marry.
3) Mr. Mouw says that his main concern is the vitriolic shouting that has issued from both sides. As near as I can tell, those who supported Prop. 8 were the ones who started shouting and then got upset when we started shouting back. And we have reason to be shouting - how would you feel if someone voted on your right to ... do anything, frankly? But especially something as personal and emotional as committing your entire life to the person you love most in the world? And what if, even after making that private commitment, you are still denied the right to be by your partner's side in the hospital or to keep your adopted children when your partner dies (because only one partner's name can legally be on the adoption certificate)?
"Domestic partnerships" are not equal under the law to "marriage." The meaning of the word "marriage" has already changed many times through the centuries (remember, the Bible promotes polygamy - look at Jacob and Leah and Rachel), so why are you so scared of it changing again?
* * * * *
And since I am not limited here to Newsweek's 3000-character limit, I'd like to address one more point. Like it or not, same-sex marriage has existed for decades, even before it ceased to be illegal to be homosexual. There have always been loving, committed couples who have lived together and even raised children. Many same-sex couples have been together for years in committed relationships, longer than many heterosexual marriages. But in the past they had to be "roommates" or "friends," because if they were exposed as lovers, they would be thrown in an asylum or prison or even killed.
And then things started to change. People began to realize that homosexuality is not a deviant behavior or a mental illness (though it took until the 1970s for the APA to remove it from the diagnostic manual). Homosexual couples stopped having to hide. It is now quite common to see two men or two women walking down the street holding hands with their children.
All these families are asking for are the same legal protections that all other committed couples and families enjoy as a given.
Edited to add: This comment by Solo500 wins the Best Stated Award: "You may be kinder and gentler and even respectful in tone. But there is no way you can say 'your marriage means less than mine' to a fellow citizen and have it actually BE respectful."