Borrowed words that I wish I'd written: Civil Rights Can Never Be Decided by Majority Vote
My father e-mailed the following. It speaks to just my train of thought regarding the idiots who think that granting my partner and I the same rights as any other married couple in this country would disrupt the fabric of humanity. I haven't posted any of my own thoughts in quite some time, but these match mine quite well - save for the fact that it was probably written by a straight person.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2008/11/lets-cut-the-crap-civil-rights-can-never-be-decided-by-majority-vote.html
Let's Cut The Crap:
Civil Rights Can Never Be Decided by Majority Vote
You know, I'm sick of all of the lies, the subterfuge and outright fraud
that accompanies the issue of whether or not gays get married. I'm tired
of all of the referenda, and the democratic treatment of an issue that
is a basic equal rights issue, and has nothing to do with democracy.
But most of all, I am sick to death of religion injecting itself into
the political arena with impunity, and still being treated like some
sort of sacred cow, so to speak.
If a man and a woman want to get married, they can get married.
If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman want to get married, and they
can find someone to perform the ceremony, they can get married.
Therefore, the issue is not gay marriage. Got it? Gay people already get
married, and there is nothing any law can do to stop that.
The only issue -- and I mean the ONLY issue -- is the unequal treatment
of different types of married couples, based on the bigotry of
others. Why is it that certain segments of our society simply have to
have someone to tread on -- someone who is different, and based on that
difference, simply can't have the same rights as everyone else?
And don't pretend it's not bigotry, because it is. Black people who
will read this, and then claim there is a major difference between the gay
civil rights movement happening now and the black civil rights movement
of 40 years ago simply don't get it. It doesn't matter whether or not
you "approve" of a couple possibly being homosexual, anymore than it
mattered before 1967, that many people didn't "approve" of
mixed-race couples marrying.
Once more, the government doesn't marry people; they simply sanction
marriages that already occur, and grant a whole passel of rights based
on that status. And the government is telling some couples -- people who
choose to be married of their own free will, including many couples who
are seen as married in the eyes of their church and/or their families --
that they may not have certain rights, because a majority of people
don't approve of them.
Honestly, the best thing that could have happened to the issue of same
sex marriage was the defeat of Proposition 8 in California. (Yes, I know
the same sort of thing was also passed in Arizona and Florida, but few
expected a positive result from either of those states.) If it had
passed, many same-sex couples in California would have presumed the
fight to be over, and it wouldn't have been. If same sex marriage had
been approved this year, then another, even more confusing, proposition
would have made it to the ballot in two years, then four, then six, then
eight... This one will have to be settled in the courts, and it will be
settled in the courts, in the favor of the long-suffering couples who
have been temporarily put off by current events.
See, this is a Constitutional issue, not an issue that can be decided at
the ballot box. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution couldn’t
be clearer: if any government in this country, federal or state, grants
rights to one person or group of people, it has to allow everyone else
in the same circumstances the same rights. There is no discrimination
allowed based on any criteria, including the sex of the participants.
And that's what is happening. You're allowing one couple to have all of
the rights and privileges the state and federal government give to some
married couples, and denying the same thing to other married couples,
based on the sex of one of the married couple.
When you break it down, that just how simple it is; it's gender
discrimination.
And please spare me all of the arguments against "gay marriage," and
that includes you, President-elect Obama. In your wisdom, you did come
out against amending the California constitution, but the fact of the
matter is, you still fed the bigots with your "I don't agree with gay
marriage" shtick. It doesn't matter whether you "approve."
Same sex couples get married every day, and they don't give a rat's ass about
whether or not you "approve."
But here's the question; what is it you disapprove of, anyway? It can't
be the sex, because lots of couples get married without ever having sex.
There's no law against couples who marry for money and security, or just
for convenience, so it can't possibly be because "marriage is supposed
to be an expression of love." Let's face it, Elvis impersonators marry
an awful lot of drunk couples in Las Vegas, every year, so it's pretty
difficult to make that "but it's tradition" argument.
Here's an idea; it's no one's goddamn business. If two people want
to get married, whether they do or not is not and should not be up for the
approval by the rest of the public. The public never voted to anull
Britney Spears' drunken two-day marriage to her high school chum, and
they didn't get to weigh in on Anna Nicole Smith's gold digger marriage
to octogenarian Howard Marshall; why should the people of California
have anything to say at all about Melissa Etheridge's or Ellen
DeGeneres' marriages? How would you like it if, when you decide to marry
your sweetheart in a church, whether or not the whole thing happened at
all was subject to a majority vote?
I used to be one of those who suggested that "civil unions" were
sufficient; that the reason the public was against gay marriage was
because of the word "marriage." But then I thought hard about it, and
I decided, who the hell cares what you call it? If a couple decides
they're married, they're married, and no one -- and I mean no one --
should have anything to say about it one way or another. Whether they
call themselves "married" or "civilly united," or even "turdblossom" is
their business, and the rest of us have no say in the matter. Who has
the right to define what their relationship is, except those
participating in the relationship.
And the state should have nothing to say about it, either. If two
unrelated adults consent to marry and create a family, the state can
choose not to confer rights on any couples, or all couples; it doesn't
get to pick and choose which couples get the rights and benefits and
which ones don't.
It's time we shut up the religious bigots, too. I don't know about you,
but I'm sick of these assholes, and I'm sick of coddling them. A
majority of the people in this country claim to be Christian, and there
is absolutely nothing in the words of Christ that even slightly condone,
let alone mandate, bigotry. I'll have a lot more on this in several
posts over the next few weeks, but come on, folks; you've at least gone
to Sunday school and heard the story of the Good Samaritan. What the
hell do you think that story was about? It was a story instructing
against bigotry.
No matter how you feel about homosexuality, there is nothing in
Christian teaching that instructs you to deny the civil rights of people
who do things of which you don't approve. And you're inconsistent,
anyway. I don't see churches protesting and tossing millions of dollars
into propositions to prevent drunks from marrying. You're not marching
in the streets demanding that people who gamble should not be allowed to
marry. No, it's only same-sex couples, and you base your objection on
your dirty minded objection to what you imagine their sexual practices
might be.
Here's the bottom line to all of this; gay couples get married, they
have families, and their numbers are growing and will continue to grow.
The only question is, how long will it be before they have the same
rights as all other married couples, and the answer is, as soon as the
courts get around to it.
Never forget that the Constitution was created to protect the minority
from the tyranny of a voting majority; our rights are never to be
subject to the whims of a majority vote. If two men or two women want to
get married, the reality is...
It's none of our goddamn business.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2008/11/lets-cut-the-crap-civil-rights-can-never-be-decided-by-majority-vote.html
Let's Cut The Crap:
Civil Rights Can Never Be Decided by Majority Vote
You know, I'm sick of all of the lies, the subterfuge and outright fraud
that accompanies the issue of whether or not gays get married. I'm tired
of all of the referenda, and the democratic treatment of an issue that
is a basic equal rights issue, and has nothing to do with democracy.
But most of all, I am sick to death of religion injecting itself into
the political arena with impunity, and still being treated like some
sort of sacred cow, so to speak.
If a man and a woman want to get married, they can get married.
If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman want to get married, and they
can find someone to perform the ceremony, they can get married.
Therefore, the issue is not gay marriage. Got it? Gay people already get
married, and there is nothing any law can do to stop that.
The only issue -- and I mean the ONLY issue -- is the unequal treatment
of different types of married couples, based on the bigotry of
others. Why is it that certain segments of our society simply have to
have someone to tread on -- someone who is different, and based on that
difference, simply can't have the same rights as everyone else?
And don't pretend it's not bigotry, because it is. Black people who
will read this, and then claim there is a major difference between the gay
civil rights movement happening now and the black civil rights movement
of 40 years ago simply don't get it. It doesn't matter whether or not
you "approve" of a couple possibly being homosexual, anymore than it
mattered before 1967, that many people didn't "approve" of
mixed-race couples marrying.
Once more, the government doesn't marry people; they simply sanction
marriages that already occur, and grant a whole passel of rights based
on that status. And the government is telling some couples -- people who
choose to be married of their own free will, including many couples who
are seen as married in the eyes of their church and/or their families --
that they may not have certain rights, because a majority of people
don't approve of them.
Honestly, the best thing that could have happened to the issue of same
sex marriage was the defeat of Proposition 8 in California. (Yes, I know
the same sort of thing was also passed in Arizona and Florida, but few
expected a positive result from either of those states.) If it had
passed, many same-sex couples in California would have presumed the
fight to be over, and it wouldn't have been. If same sex marriage had
been approved this year, then another, even more confusing, proposition
would have made it to the ballot in two years, then four, then six, then
eight... This one will have to be settled in the courts, and it will be
settled in the courts, in the favor of the long-suffering couples who
have been temporarily put off by current events.
See, this is a Constitutional issue, not an issue that can be decided at
the ballot box. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution couldn’t
be clearer: if any government in this country, federal or state, grants
rights to one person or group of people, it has to allow everyone else
in the same circumstances the same rights. There is no discrimination
allowed based on any criteria, including the sex of the participants.
And that's what is happening. You're allowing one couple to have all of
the rights and privileges the state and federal government give to some
married couples, and denying the same thing to other married couples,
based on the sex of one of the married couple.
When you break it down, that just how simple it is; it's gender
discrimination.
And please spare me all of the arguments against "gay marriage," and
that includes you, President-elect Obama. In your wisdom, you did come
out against amending the California constitution, but the fact of the
matter is, you still fed the bigots with your "I don't agree with gay
marriage" shtick. It doesn't matter whether you "approve."
Same sex couples get married every day, and they don't give a rat's ass about
whether or not you "approve."
But here's the question; what is it you disapprove of, anyway? It can't
be the sex, because lots of couples get married without ever having sex.
There's no law against couples who marry for money and security, or just
for convenience, so it can't possibly be because "marriage is supposed
to be an expression of love." Let's face it, Elvis impersonators marry
an awful lot of drunk couples in Las Vegas, every year, so it's pretty
difficult to make that "but it's tradition" argument.
Here's an idea; it's no one's goddamn business. If two people want
to get married, whether they do or not is not and should not be up for the
approval by the rest of the public. The public never voted to anull
Britney Spears' drunken two-day marriage to her high school chum, and
they didn't get to weigh in on Anna Nicole Smith's gold digger marriage
to octogenarian Howard Marshall; why should the people of California
have anything to say at all about Melissa Etheridge's or Ellen
DeGeneres' marriages? How would you like it if, when you decide to marry
your sweetheart in a church, whether or not the whole thing happened at
all was subject to a majority vote?
I used to be one of those who suggested that "civil unions" were
sufficient; that the reason the public was against gay marriage was
because of the word "marriage." But then I thought hard about it, and
I decided, who the hell cares what you call it? If a couple decides
they're married, they're married, and no one -- and I mean no one --
should have anything to say about it one way or another. Whether they
call themselves "married" or "civilly united," or even "turdblossom" is
their business, and the rest of us have no say in the matter. Who has
the right to define what their relationship is, except those
participating in the relationship.
And the state should have nothing to say about it, either. If two
unrelated adults consent to marry and create a family, the state can
choose not to confer rights on any couples, or all couples; it doesn't
get to pick and choose which couples get the rights and benefits and
which ones don't.
It's time we shut up the religious bigots, too. I don't know about you,
but I'm sick of these assholes, and I'm sick of coddling them. A
majority of the people in this country claim to be Christian, and there
is absolutely nothing in the words of Christ that even slightly condone,
let alone mandate, bigotry. I'll have a lot more on this in several
posts over the next few weeks, but come on, folks; you've at least gone
to Sunday school and heard the story of the Good Samaritan. What the
hell do you think that story was about? It was a story instructing
against bigotry.
No matter how you feel about homosexuality, there is nothing in
Christian teaching that instructs you to deny the civil rights of people
who do things of which you don't approve. And you're inconsistent,
anyway. I don't see churches protesting and tossing millions of dollars
into propositions to prevent drunks from marrying. You're not marching
in the streets demanding that people who gamble should not be allowed to
marry. No, it's only same-sex couples, and you base your objection on
your dirty minded objection to what you imagine their sexual practices
might be.
Here's the bottom line to all of this; gay couples get married, they
have families, and their numbers are growing and will continue to grow.
The only question is, how long will it be before they have the same
rights as all other married couples, and the answer is, as soon as the
courts get around to it.
Never forget that the Constitution was created to protect the minority
from the tyranny of a voting majority; our rights are never to be
subject to the whims of a majority vote. If two men or two women want to
get married, the reality is...
It's none of our goddamn business.