(Straight) Marriage Boycotts?

[fabfemmeboy]

Charlize Theron has joined the list of celebrities who say they will not get married until gays and lesbians can. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have expressed similar sentiment, as have several other celebrities I can't think of at the moment.

What do people think of the national marriage boycott? I have a few different friends who are part of

Comments

[tko_ak]

I think it's a nice gesture, but that most people roll their eyes and dismiss it as another over-the-top celebrity political statement. I appreciate what they're trying to do, but I don't think it helps at all. And it might even fuel those who say gays are trying to undermine marriage (if it's causing straight couples to live in sin).

Which is the long way of saying that their hearts are in the right place, but it doesn't do a damn thing other than make them (and some of us) feel good.

[nikolche]

I tend to take the same view. Especially in terms of the whole "undermining marriage" thing, though for a different reason. Most of those people are never going to be on our side anyway, but having straight couples refuse to get married does seem to send a message that marriage isn't a big enough deal to make a fuss about anyway.

[ferdiaferlin]

"most people roll their eyes and dismiss it as another over-the-top celebrity political statement."

That may be true of most people where you live and with whom you have contact, but I don't know if it is true of "most people" in general.

"fuel those who say gays are trying to undermine marriage (if it's causing straight couples to live in sin)"
I would wager that those who are opposed to same sex marriage and would use this as evidence of gays undermining marriage, would be opposed to same sex marriage no matter what. Jesus could come down from heaven on a cloud of glory and if he said he supported same-sex marriage, they would then say "That must be the anti-Christ because Jesus would never support same-sex marriage. See we were right all along to oppose it"

[tko_ak]

How many people do you know who take celebrity political statements seriously, or at least important to shaping their own views? And if they do, they might as well be weak-minded windsocks (if they think someone's political views are important just because they're famous).

Those conservative Christians may never change their mind, but it can certainly give them ammunition to use to try and convince others who may be more open-minded. My point is, I don't think it helps, and there's the possibility it could be counter-productive. Either way, I don't think it has much of a net effect.

[taraxoxo]

I am a supporter of the marriage boycott movement. Therefore I say, good on her!

[fabfemmeboy]

Yes, but what does supporting the marriage boycott movement mean for gay couples who are finally given the right to marry? Does it mean we need to sit on the sidelines, too, lest we appear ungrateful to our straight friends who boycotted in our honour?

[ferdiaferlin]

Not at all! I think they would be completely supportive of gay couples marrying as soon as they can.

If you had waited in California then you would have lost the ability for who knows how long, whereas a straight couple is never going to lose the right.

[fabfemmeboy]

Well, first of all, no one thought California was actually going to pass Prop 8, so the people who got married then largely didn't do it out of fear it would be taken away - myself included.

Second, I think there is still a minor moral dilemma about the idea of getting married when friends of ours cannot - though, in this case the role has been reversed because of the straight person's strong moral conviction. It's kind of like walking into Yom Kippur with a big ol' lunch. I''m hypoglycemic and need to eat, and know that if I don't do so now, I'll be sick and unable to eat for most of the day...but you're meant to fast on Yom Kippur, so it's rude to bring food in and partake when the people around you are morally prohibited from eating. It's not just a matter of choosing not to.

[wanda505]

I know it doesn't really help at all, but I still appreciate the gesture. It isn't just celebrities.

My thought is that they do it to keep the fight in their own minds, and maybe to remind others that we need to be proactive about getting this right. I have a bracelet that I've been wearing since November 5th last year (the day we lost marriage in CA), and I'm not taking it off until we have marriage in the whole country. I don't do it because it will actually make a difference, just to remind myself what we're fighting for.

[fabfemmeboy]

I never thought of that...probably because I don't need some kind of symbol to remember what we're fighting for. It's my life. When I go to my partner's school to ask for paperwork for him to take a medical leave, and the very sweet lady isn't sure if she's legally allowed to "reveal" to me that he took a leave a couple months ago - let alone why he did...when doctors ask him to leave the room when they talk to me because it's privileged medical information...when I know that I can't go take the job in Congress because my partner needs to be covered under my insurance... To say nothing of my wedding ring that tends to start conversations with "Hey - I didn't know you were married!" - though I have been for over a year now. So I guess the idea of needing a symbol to remember what we're fighting for is kind of foreign to me.

[ferdiaferlin]

You may not need a symbol to remind you of it, but you have one. For you, the symbol the wedding ring and your marriage.

For Brad Pitt (and others) on the other hand, it isn't his life, so to have a symbol to remind him of the problem is relevant.

[fabfemmeboy]

For you, the symbol the wedding ring and your marriage.

My marriage isn't a 'symbol,' in this case. A symbol is an item used to represent a larger piece, concept, cause, etc. Marriage isn't a symbol to the gay marriage fight, it's the entire concept!

[redstar826]

The way I look at it, I didn't ask anyone to not get married on my behalf, so if I were in a relationship and I suddenly had the legal ability to get married, I would do so and not feel guilty about it.

[fabfemmeboy]

That's fair enough. The marriage boycott was, to the best of my understanding, something that the gay community wasn't really involved in creating or implementing; it's very much been a movement among straight allies.

[marauderthesn]

I think it's kind of ridiculous, seeing as it doesn't change anything. It kind of reminds me of - and this is a much more extreme example - Simone Weil in the hospital during WWII, saying she wasn't going to eat any more food than French people in occupied France could eat. She died. Yeah, that really did something for those hungry French people.

[fabfemmeboy]

That's kind of where I fall on the boycott itself, too. I mean, it's a nice thought, and I'm glad we have allies, but...it's kind of like when parents say "eat your vegetables, children in Africa are starving!" Whether the American child chooses to eat those veggies or not has very little bearing on whether a child in Africa can eat. It's not as though we have a set number of marriage licenses issued per month, so a straight couple not taking one means a gay couple can wed, nor is it a significant enough portion of the population with a significant enough fee to bring the state to its knees financially and incentivize them to allow gay marriage.

[crasherwake]

It could make people think, though. People can change and support same sex marriage by changing how they'd vote or who they'd support in government. It's a matter of influencing people to change rather than, say, something like coming up with food for starving people.

There would be a lot of people who don't know a same sex couple who want to be wed. But if they knew a straight couple who said they weren't getting married until everyone can, it brings the issue to people who otherwise wouldn't have to deal with it or think about it.

[fabfemmeboy]

It could make people think, though.

It could, but it really doesn't. While support for gay marriage is exponentially increased by knowing a gay couple who wants to get married, there isn't really the same correlation between support for gay marriage and knowing a straight couple who feels strongly about gay marriage. It's a lot easier to dismiss as a personal choice (the straight couple could get married but elect not to) rather than a legal impediment and therefore makes them actually less sympathetic, potentially, than the gay couple who have been together 30 years but are unable to wed.