Some thoughts and meanderings on Proposition 8

[rhythmia]

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

Comments

HUGE RAMBLE ON MARRIAGE ^^" PART 2

[flange5]

2) The claim that to allow same-sex relationships the same legal status will somehow poison marriage as an institution, that it will devalue existing heterosexual relationships, is nonsensical if one acknowledges that (much as some people refuse to believe it, as they refuse to accept of acknowledge the separation of church and state) marriage as it is being discussed in legislative terms is a legal status. It's like saying (and someone probably did) that by giving African-Americans (or women) the vote made the status of being a citizen somehow less. In a social sense, perhaps that's true--it made the relative privilege of white men somewhat less by not considering African-Americans and women as second-hand citizens.

I believe that what the people who cry out against gay marriage want to protest is not the institution of marriage, which they fundamental misunderstand and misrecognize--what they wish to avoid is a legal and social legitimation of of same-sex relationships, because this does not fit with their largely religious views (I have yet to run into an atheist who is particularly concerned with denouncing same-sex sexuality or legal rights). They wish to maintain a legal distinction that backs up the social differentiation between same-sex and heterosexual relationships-->they want law to reflect their religious views, while ignoring its own logic. And legislators either misunderstand their jobs or more likely wish to keep them and therefore ignore this.

Perhaps the solution is to abolish the legal status of marriage and rename it something that does not carry all the baggage to monotheistic traditions--call all legal relationships of this type "civil unions," since that's actually descriptive of the status and then let individual couples decide what name they wish to call it.

Was that really pedantic? I'm not an expert by any means, but I kind of feel like the issue is both simple, but necessitates clarity so that people don't conflate their deas of what 'marriage is' (ie what they think it should be), and what legislation to make this legal status available to people actually incurs.

Beyond all that stuff, HI! *hugs*

How are things going?