Some thoughts and meanderings on Proposition 8
I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind about things at this late date, I just have some thoughts that I want to articulate that have been floating around in my mind. I'm letting the outrage simmer on the backburner for a while, though it does power this essay/ramble. ^^
Please be aware that I am willing to discuss things civilly (like an orange), and that I don't have sources and citations to back me up. Just things I've picked up and pulled out of my ass, so if there are facts I get wrong, tell me. ^_^V
I keep hearing ads for Yes on this proposition to Protect Marriage, sponsored by the Knights of something or other on my favorite radio station (which saddens me, but that's funding and advertising for you). And it made me think. Marriage as we know of it, as a bond of love and devotion and so forth, hasn't been around that long. Historically, marriage as an institution is for economic benefit, usually that of the husband's and/or the father/family of the wife. Women are commodities traded around that serve as a symbol of that economic tie. I'm not sure how recent it is, but the romance stuff as a reason to bind people together doesn't seem to me to be a driving force to marriage until the last couple of centuries, maybe? Anyone out there know better?
So my thoughts are, my big thing about marriage here in the United States is that it is tied to a slew of benefits such as reduced income tax, visitation rights in hospitals, power of attorney, custody rights of children, etc., etc. From my limited understanding, civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have the same spectrum of rights. So we have a separate-but-equal situation going on here, and we all know how well that idea goes down now. If the rights were the same across the board and it's just a matter of the term, then I don't care, whatever. But that's not the case.
Personally, I don't have any great attachment to the institution of marriage. From my observations of my family, other people, teevee, for all that marriage ceremonies seem to involve vows and promises, the marriage bond is no guarantee. It's not a guarantee of financial security, or happiness, or any affection at all, or a perfect home life, or even fidelity. Because people are people. We make mistakes. We aren't perfect. So I don't see how "granting" marriage (argh, so condescending) to a group of people in any way threatens marriage for anyone else.
Though that message on the radio having histrionics of 'gay marriage' being taught in schools did mention that certain groups of people were afraid of their children being exposed to gay people and *gasp* thinking that it would be okay to be gay and love each other. I'm thinking though, I was never taught about marriage, period, in the public schools that I attended. I learned a lot about STDs that I think were meant to frighten us into not wanting to have sex, but never about marriage.
If we called them all civil unions or whatever in the eyes of the law, in the sense that whoever is on either side of the partnership, the laws and benefits apply the same, that would be great. Then there could be separate religious/secular ceremonies that have more emotional impact for the people involved, for people to celebrate their bonds with each other.
Our bonds to our special people are precious, right? No matter what the gender is of the special person. So if some religions don't want to offer that particular ceremony, yes we could cry discrimination, but then again, freedom of religion. I feel that they would be the poorer for not providing a place to share in that joy for the people who believe in that religion, for better or worse, but that would be the way the religion goes. I'm not very firm in my argument here, hehe.
Anyhow, if anyone else has a better way of understanding the arguments for 8, I'd be interested in hearing them, because right now I'm just sort of confused about the logic there. I voted no on proposition 8, because we need to get beyond this discriminatory behavior. I personally am a very strong supporter of queer rights. You may not like the idea of gay people (or trans, or queer, or--) getting married, because the institution is tied to religion and your flavor of religion doesn't acknowledge gay people. But this is an issue of economic benefits, civil rights, as much as anything else, and taking rights away from a group of people does us all harm.
To end on a slightly silly note, think of it this way: Gay people getting married means they get to enjoy all the trials and tribulations of het people getting married. Including divorce and lawyers, trying to coordinate two sets of families joining together without crazy Uncle Lee dumping soup on Auntie May at the reception, and trying to decipher joint tax returns. :P
Okay, have at with the tomatoes!
Please be aware that I am willing to discuss things civilly (like an orange), and that I don't have sources and citations to back me up. Just things I've picked up and pulled out of my ass, so if there are facts I get wrong, tell me. ^_^V
I keep hearing ads for Yes on this proposition to Protect Marriage, sponsored by the Knights of something or other on my favorite radio station (which saddens me, but that's funding and advertising for you). And it made me think. Marriage as we know of it, as a bond of love and devotion and so forth, hasn't been around that long. Historically, marriage as an institution is for economic benefit, usually that of the husband's and/or the father/family of the wife. Women are commodities traded around that serve as a symbol of that economic tie. I'm not sure how recent it is, but the romance stuff as a reason to bind people together doesn't seem to me to be a driving force to marriage until the last couple of centuries, maybe? Anyone out there know better?
So my thoughts are, my big thing about marriage here in the United States is that it is tied to a slew of benefits such as reduced income tax, visitation rights in hospitals, power of attorney, custody rights of children, etc., etc. From my limited understanding, civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have the same spectrum of rights. So we have a separate-but-equal situation going on here, and we all know how well that idea goes down now. If the rights were the same across the board and it's just a matter of the term, then I don't care, whatever. But that's not the case.
Personally, I don't have any great attachment to the institution of marriage. From my observations of my family, other people, teevee, for all that marriage ceremonies seem to involve vows and promises, the marriage bond is no guarantee. It's not a guarantee of financial security, or happiness, or any affection at all, or a perfect home life, or even fidelity. Because people are people. We make mistakes. We aren't perfect. So I don't see how "granting" marriage (argh, so condescending) to a group of people in any way threatens marriage for anyone else.
Though that message on the radio having histrionics of 'gay marriage' being taught in schools did mention that certain groups of people were afraid of their children being exposed to gay people and *gasp* thinking that it would be okay to be gay and love each other. I'm thinking though, I was never taught about marriage, period, in the public schools that I attended. I learned a lot about STDs that I think were meant to frighten us into not wanting to have sex, but never about marriage.
If we called them all civil unions or whatever in the eyes of the law, in the sense that whoever is on either side of the partnership, the laws and benefits apply the same, that would be great. Then there could be separate religious/secular ceremonies that have more emotional impact for the people involved, for people to celebrate their bonds with each other.
Our bonds to our special people are precious, right? No matter what the gender is of the special person. So if some religions don't want to offer that particular ceremony, yes we could cry discrimination, but then again, freedom of religion. I feel that they would be the poorer for not providing a place to share in that joy for the people who believe in that religion, for better or worse, but that would be the way the religion goes. I'm not very firm in my argument here, hehe.
Anyhow, if anyone else has a better way of understanding the arguments for 8, I'd be interested in hearing them, because right now I'm just sort of confused about the logic there. I voted no on proposition 8, because we need to get beyond this discriminatory behavior. I personally am a very strong supporter of queer rights. You may not like the idea of gay people (or trans, or queer, or--) getting married, because the institution is tied to religion and your flavor of religion doesn't acknowledge gay people. But this is an issue of economic benefits, civil rights, as much as anything else, and taking rights away from a group of people does us all harm.
To end on a slightly silly note, think of it this way: Gay people getting married means they get to enjoy all the trials and tribulations of het people getting married. Including divorce and lawyers, trying to coordinate two sets of families joining together without crazy Uncle Lee dumping soup on Auntie May at the reception, and trying to decipher joint tax returns. :P
Okay, have at with the tomatoes!