(no subject)
I noticed that alot of my friends attended a demonstration against Prop 8 in Utah recently, so I wanted to chime in with my own feelings on the subject.
It's argued that the whole issue is about semantics, but those semantics mean alot. In California, the only legal difference between a full on marriage and a domestic partnership is the name (and federal income tax, but that's neither here nor there...). but the marriage designation is an official recognition of a particular social status. It's the legal recognition of a family, not simply a contract between two people.
Legally, Prop 8 will have very little effect on much of anything in california, but psychologically it is akin to separate but equal treatment. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court focused not on the actual economic and social effects of segregation, but on the psychological effects of segregation. they noted that by being separated from their white counterparts, african american children were essentially branded with the mark of inferiority, from which they might never recover. The same argument can be applied to gay marriage (application of the 14th Amendment aside), the differentiation between gay and straight relationships casts a mark of inferiority or even invalidity on the feelings of any same sex couple, which the court in Brown recognized as sufficient to mandate a change.
I just don't think I really understand the arguments coming from the other side, recognizing gay marriage won't make me or anyone else I know change sides or take our relationships any less seriously. And with the stereotype of the promiscuous homosexual, shouldn't we be encouraging marriage and monogamy, from a purely moral stand point? Is sex with one man/woman for the rest of one's life really more amoral than random sex with multiple partners? does marriage even need defending?
The 50% divorce rate argument hides the actual truth as it does not account for serial monogomists who are divorced 3 times over or those couples that divorce and then get back together. If they want to defend marriage, why not look at the causes of divorce, lets root for better social programs and child care, parent education and drug abuse treatment. Why not fight against the media's portrayal of marriage as just something to do on a whim. To protect marriage let's not ban gays from getting married, lets ban celebrities from getting married.
Sadly, this has been the second time I've been exceedingly disappointed in the majority of my fellow human beings. With Amendment 3 (the Utah measure, passed a few years ago) I had no expectation of winning, but this time, I was really hoping that californians would be more compassionate and reasonable people, but I was proven wrong. 53% of Californians are nothing more than reactionary, neophobic mouthbreathers parroting whatever their community leaders tell them. Oh well, maybe in protest Jen and I shouldn't get married and entered into a domestic partnership instead...
It's argued that the whole issue is about semantics, but those semantics mean alot. In California, the only legal difference between a full on marriage and a domestic partnership is the name (and federal income tax, but that's neither here nor there...). but the marriage designation is an official recognition of a particular social status. It's the legal recognition of a family, not simply a contract between two people.
Legally, Prop 8 will have very little effect on much of anything in california, but psychologically it is akin to separate but equal treatment. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court focused not on the actual economic and social effects of segregation, but on the psychological effects of segregation. they noted that by being separated from their white counterparts, african american children were essentially branded with the mark of inferiority, from which they might never recover. The same argument can be applied to gay marriage (application of the 14th Amendment aside), the differentiation between gay and straight relationships casts a mark of inferiority or even invalidity on the feelings of any same sex couple, which the court in Brown recognized as sufficient to mandate a change.
I just don't think I really understand the arguments coming from the other side, recognizing gay marriage won't make me or anyone else I know change sides or take our relationships any less seriously. And with the stereotype of the promiscuous homosexual, shouldn't we be encouraging marriage and monogamy, from a purely moral stand point? Is sex with one man/woman for the rest of one's life really more amoral than random sex with multiple partners? does marriage even need defending?
The 50% divorce rate argument hides the actual truth as it does not account for serial monogomists who are divorced 3 times over or those couples that divorce and then get back together. If they want to defend marriage, why not look at the causes of divorce, lets root for better social programs and child care, parent education and drug abuse treatment. Why not fight against the media's portrayal of marriage as just something to do on a whim. To protect marriage let's not ban gays from getting married, lets ban celebrities from getting married.
Sadly, this has been the second time I've been exceedingly disappointed in the majority of my fellow human beings. With Amendment 3 (the Utah measure, passed a few years ago) I had no expectation of winning, but this time, I was really hoping that californians would be more compassionate and reasonable people, but I was proven wrong. 53% of Californians are nothing more than reactionary, neophobic mouthbreathers parroting whatever their community leaders tell them. Oh well, maybe in protest Jen and I shouldn't get married and entered into a domestic partnership instead...