I probably should use this first post as an introduction to me and my blog...but that'll have to wait. I've got something on my straight, happily married, bald mind.
Several days ago, during a discussion about gay marriage, I called someone very close to me "stupid." As a person who believes in--and who tries to engage in--productive conversations involving diametrically opposed opinions, I regret having used that word. And because I care very, very much about this person, I hesitate to write in detail about this particular discussion , but the passing of the ban on gay marriage in California prompts me to say this:
If your issue with gay marriage boils down to "all I'm saying is that the word 'marriage' should be reserved for one man and one woman" and/or "why do 'they' need to use that word anyway?", then you may or may not be stupid, but you're certainly being disingenuous.
It's a frickin' word. And I believe if you're a living, breathing, human being you're entitled to the use of that word, just as you're entitled to all of the glorious words in the English language. Duodenum. Pilferage. Lozenge. Uvula. Antiestablishmentarianism. These belong to all of us.
Don't agree with me? Fair enough. But Merriam-Webster Online seems to. You've heard of them. They're the "Dictionary people." They include this in their definition of marriage--(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
"Wait a minute! A traditional marriage? So, are you saying you believe there's such a thing as a 'traditional marriage'?"
You betcha. It involves love and commitment and home and hearth and nagging and complaining and fighting and forgiving and promising the best and worst to each other forever and ever...
And I think it's something any consenting adult who wants it deserves.
As are the rights implicit in the wonderful but not-yet-entirely-lived-up-to assertions that begin the Declaration of Independence.
Sing along--you know the words! Something, something, "...all men are created equal," something, something, "certain unalienable Rights," something, something, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
I think it's got a good beat and you can dance to it. But I don't know...maybe dancing's * gulp * too gay?
Now, for those of you whose issue with gay marriage is that you think it's a sin...well, you also may or may not be stupid. No way I can know. But here's another song you may have forgotten:
Separation of Church and State, by the Founding Fathers.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Unapologetic opinions. Unsolicited stories. Unhaired head.
2 comments:
The opposition to gay marriage is so puzzling to me. I simply cannot understand what business it is of anyone else that two responsible, consenting adults who love each other wish to get married. Why isn't it enough for those who oppose gay marriage to simply not marry a gay? Recently, a friend summed up my thoughts in her status update: "denying other people happiness based on your religious beliefs is selfish and mean." Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've enjoyed reading your blog and will return often.
Bill Mahr (sp) had a guest on his show last night who summed up the seriously deranged opposition to gay marriage. In effect, he said that marriage has been a constantly evolving idea. Going back to the oh, so sacred, bible, Abraham and his followers were polygamists. The idea of polygamy was not introduced by the mormons. Around the world, to this day marriage has many different meanings. What the guest(David Savage...savagelife.com) said that held the most weight was that civil marriage is separate from any religious definition of marriage. And that the state should not be involved in denying rights to any group...if religions want to deny that right so be it, but the state of California should not be in the business of denying two loving, committed, adults the same rights as everyone else has.
Post a Comment