A Republican Finds His Heart
No good deed goes unpunished, as is illustrated once again with yesterday’s rebuke of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders by East County Republicans for recently reversing his position on gay marriage. The mayor, a moderate Republican who had long been against gay marriage but for civil unions, last week held an emotional press conference in which he recanted his previous position and pledged to sign a bill passed by the San Diego City Council in support of same-sex marriage. While holding back tears, Sanders explained that,
I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.
Mayor Sanders should be lauded, not criticized, for his amazing show of integrity. The reversal is politically very risky—San Diego is a generally conservative city and Sanders faces re-election in which he’s challenged from the right. But, as Sanders acknowledged, his daughter and one of his staffers is gay, and, “In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana.”
Politicians and pundits have argued against Sanders’ position by pointing out that the majority of San Diegans are against gay marriage and thus Sanders is ignoring the will of the people. But politicians don’t just have the responsibility to serve by following popular sentiment; they also have the responsibility to protect minority rights, no matter how unpopular such measures may be. If the right to marry is up to a majority vote then it’s not really a “right” at all. Can you imagine many heterosexual couples tolerating the government deciding they were undeserving of marriage and they’d just have to be content with a civil union instead? Certainly not. In fact, that marriage means so very much to people is exactly why gay marriage is such a big issue in the first place, and also points to the whole Jim Crow-esque feeling of civil unions.
Thus, no matter how politically unpopular supporting gay marriage might be, it’s the right thing to do. I only wish that there were more politicians like Jerry Sanders across the U.S. willing to take a political hit for what they know in their hearts to be just (Ahem, Dick Cheney?). Here’s hoping his courageous move will inspire others to follow suit.
Subscribe to Feed
So, following your same logic, if a person wants to marry their dog, would you support that as well? If marriage is a right, in the way you define it, who are you to deny that right to a person who wants to marry their dog? These people are certainly a minority, so will you support their cause, too?
I am not trying to be nasty, I’m just making the point that the issue is changing the definition of “marriage”, not making someone less of a person. Your argument is avoiding that issue. And if we can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, who would you be to deny the “right” of somebody else to change it to suit their needs?
Your argument leaves no logical place to stop, because, by the very act of defining marriage, you are taking away somebody’s rights or making them less of a person (according to your argument). Should siblings be allowed to marry? People and their pets? Pet rocks? Adults and children?
I would not support the right of a person to marry their dog because the dog can’t knowingly and willingly consent to enter into any sort of legal or social arrangement. Thus the rights of the dog would be infringed upon in such a marriage.
I know that’s an absurd response, but the assertion that same-sex marriage is comparable (or tantamount) to beastiality is also rather absurd.
But you raise a good point — what is the definition of marriage? Can you give me any one definition that all people, from any culture, will recogize as the correct one? Or even any one definition that has stood the test of time? For example, today most people agree that marriage is a monogomus union between two people who are in love, but for a good chunk of history it was considered improper to be in love with your spouse — that’s what mistresses were for.
My point is that the definition of marriage is always in flux depending on the time, place, and moires. And today our government and society rightly holds that all people should be treated equal under the law. So why can’t we expand our legal definition of marriage to include all (sentient and consenting adult) couples that wish to enter into such an arrangement? I believe not to do so is nothing but government-enforced discrimination.
So, yes, if “marriage” is defined as a discriminatory social institution, then by all means, let’s change that definition!
This is a prfect example of why the governemnt should be out of the marriage business entirely. Rather than defining marriage, government should allow its citizens to make agreements among themselves as to with whom they want to cohabitate. A dog would not be able to sign such an agreement so you need not worry about government recognized bestiality. Of course I’d like to know why you think that a government prohbition against bestiality would stop it form happening? Check the internet-it’s happening and it is currently illegal.
If a couple wants to marry they can approach a church, a synagogue, a mosque or the AHA and ask to marry. If that organization wants to marry them great, if not they can go somewhere else to get married.
The government should only be concerned with enforcing the agreement the parties agreed to uphold. Nothing more.
Tension arises because the state is involved in marriage.
It’s hard to think of any personal relationship more intimate, more private than the joining of two lives. Why should the government legislate what the nature of that relationship should be?
Religious authorities have long been involved, telling people what their private life should be. The New Testament promotes some really sick ideas, and Paul was obviously mentally ill. His notions about sexuality and marriage are deplorable. What qualifies him to teach what marriage is?
Judaism and Islam are no better. Is it true that Orthodox rabbis teach husbands to copulate through a hole in a sheet so that they will not have more than necessary contact with their wives? In Israel, why can’t you get a divorce without approval of a rabbi? Religion just won’t leave people alone.
Islam says you can have no more than four wives. Mormons until they changed course promoted polygyny, one man with many females. Egyptian girls are considered marriageable only if their vaginal opening has been sewn shut. Hindu males are not acceptable as husbands if they have been circumcised - for Muslims, a required practice so the reverse of the Hindu requirement is imposed. Roman Catholic mothers in Guatemala carve the sign of the cross on their daughters’ vaginal labia so the Holy Spirit will help ward off sexual activity.
It’s easy to see the barbarism in the marriage customs of other cultures. Is ours any better? Marriage is surrounded by myths. Look at the utter nonsense propounded by Frank Sinatra’s “Love and marriage, Go together like a horse and carriage.” Not true, Frank!
Worse: “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes mother with a baby carriage.” What garbage! Love, marriage and parenthood are all important human activities, each of can be fulfilling and good without involving the other. Why not let each person design his or her own choice of the way to live and to build a relationship with another?
The New Testament model of marriage is imposed on America by law and reinforced by popular culture. The mainstream Christian religions, Roman, Orthodox and Anglican, even teach that marriage is actually a sacrament! They really think God is looking on when they marry! In the Roman tradition, marriage is right up there alongside baptism and the eucharist. No wonder marriage is such a mess. It’s hopelessly intertwined with superstition.
How much better and how rational is the law of contract. You can form a corporation with as many colleagues as you like, without regard to their gender. Your agreement is worked out and established when you enter into the relationship, even including potential disposition of assets in the event of dissolution. How clean and just this is compared with the bitterness of divorce battles.
Let marriage be totally privatized. The government should have no involvement beyond prevention of force and fraud - and there are plenty of laws already on the books that can do this. And the government can keep records, as they do for real estate transactions and corporate charters.
The idea that the government should tell you what marriage consists of is an example of dreadful religious invasion into the private life of the people. It should cease. Let marriage become no longer a state concern at all. Let people do what they choose with their own private lives.
Some of the practices such as genital mutilation and vaginal infibulation are considered cultural rather than religious, but how can these be separated? Religious tradition perpetuates them. They are sustained by the pressures imposed by supernatural belief.
Let anybody marry whomever they like, in whatever combination of genders and whatever numbers of each they choose. Let marriage be whatever people make it, by free choice and contract. Get Big Brother out of the bedroom.
The definition of marriage WILL (in America, at least) inevitably change, likely over the course of the next 20 years. “Social conservatives” will wince and grind their teeth as they watch helplessly as society progresses prevails, and society moves ahead in the right direction…and they’ll cry about it until the day comes that taking an open position against it is the equivalent of being against interracial marriage.
In many ways, gays ARE “the new blacks”. This battle has already been fought. Eventually, the religious right will have to misdirect their hostility at yet another harmless minority (probably atheists).
Religion has everything to do with intolerance toward homosexuals, and over time (in order to keep filling pews with the ‘faithful’ who will keep putting money in the collection baskets), the Catholic Church WILL “loosen up” on homosexuality. Some Christians are already starting to. I doubt Judaism will change their stance, and there’s no way in fictional Hell that Islam will budge…but I think in the long run, that’s a good thing.
Here’s why:
More and more young people are rejecting religion. The ever-lucrative marketing target (and frequently polled) 18-34 year old demographic boasts the highest concentration of atheists/non-religious, secular heathens - some 19%. Non-religious Americans en masse number roughly 20% of the population…and that number is growing slowly, but steadily.
There are a number of reasons for this (all of them good, I’m sure), but I’m willing to bet one of the biggest deal-breakers for young people is religion’s rampant intolerance.
On behalf of the free-thinking percentile of what I call the ‘F#@k You Generation’, we have neither the time nor patience for religion’s (or society’s) bullshit. We don’t tolerate intolerance. We reject racism, and tired traditions that are repressive, regressive, or plain retarded.
“Issues” that elder adults are still hung up on don’t affect us.
Had anyone my age (a comic, pundit, or the like) made the same ugly joke Don Imus did, and caught hell from the media, we’d have fired off a “F#@k you” in our critic’s direction, and not skipped a beat to consider apologizing for being ‘un-PC’.
(Sarah Silverman is a poster-girl for my generation’s overall attitude. See also Doug Stanhope).
What I’m trying to say is that we have no patience for the annoyance of infantile adult behavior, like the relentless onslaught of feigned offense people take at any opportunity they can.
If your beliefs are silly, and they affect us, intrude, or impact our lives negatively in any way, we’re going to say so, and we’re not going to curb our tongues in deference.
If your ideology is dragging us backward as a species, we’re going to take the keys away from you (or do everything we can to stop you).
If your arguments are silly (like Rob’s), and unoriginal, we’re going to insult them, and you for making them.
Without diminishing the fact that everyone deserves and SHOULD have the right to marry, why not stick it to the opponents of gay marriage in a different way? If the religious are going to tirelessly lay claim to marriage, and define it as “between a man and a woman” until they’re blue in the face, why not let them have it? Why don’t secular heterosexuals reject marriage and have Civil Unions? If the same tax benefits are given to it, why not boycott marriage and choose unions instead?
Many of us (including myself and my girlfriend of several years) have rejected marriage as an institution because we don’t NEED it. If we DID feel the need to do it, we’d get a Civil Union - just to piss people off. But, why be bothered with it if it causes so many problems? We don’t feel the need to define our relationship by anyone’s standards but our own. We’re monogamous, and don’t need a piece of paper or a ring to validate our commitment to each other.
Probably the main reason we refuse to get married is because we’re fascinated by most people’s reactions when asked “when” we’re getting married (as if it’s the only option for rational adult couples). When we’re dismissive of the whole idea, laugh it off and make clear that we have no intention whatsoever of tying that knot, people look at us as if we’ve just told them that we eat babies.
I love it.
The next question that follows is always “but what about when you’re ready to have children?” (again, like we’re ’squares’ if we don’t contribute to overpopulation). When we tell them we’re not having them, they cock usually cock their heads to the side like confused dogs. One woman even went as far to pry, “can you…not have them?”. When we clarify that we don’t WANT children, they always laugh it off and tell us that we’ll change our minds (right - somehow we will miraculously cease being the selfish individuals we are and mutate into some domesticated, khaki-clad baby factory hybrid beast). Conventional wisdom also seems to dictate that when we undergo this apparently unavoidable transformation, we will also stop being atheists and ‘find Jesus’.
No, thank you.
Many people my age feel the same, and are “opting out” of joining the herd. Yes, “opting out” - you know, like Evangelicals do with sex-education (so they stay ignorant, get pregnant, and make stupid babies who can look forward to fulfilling jobs at Walmart, just like their miserable parents).
Many of us are saying “no, thanks”. Actually, we’re saying “F#@K THAT!!!”, but I’m doing my best to censor myself here…
Ye older generations (namely those currently ‘running things’) have done an admirable job of serving as crystal balls for what we can expect if we choose to go along with the plastic plan. Thank you for being so many cautionary tales. Please, don’t resent us for not wanting to end up like you.
Yes, maybe some day, a number of us probably WILL ’sell out’ like our parents’ generation did, but those of us who do will be doing it with their eyes wide open - knowing full well what they’ll be getting themselves into.
However, one thing we will NEVER be is intolerant of anyone’s right to choose whatever particular lifestyle suits them.
Progress is inevitable. Unless the religious kill us all, cooler heads WILL prevail. Some day (within MY lifetime, at least), people will look back and scoff at the fact that people tried to ban gay marriage in the same way that we now laugh at those who fought desegregation and opposed women’s rights. Some day, people will look back in utter befuddlement that a mindless majority, when faced with the dire consequences of global warming, increasingly brutal natural disasters, terrorism, fascist governments, AIDS pandemics, starvation, genocides, and so much else…were worried about gay people getting married…
Sorry for the length (this IS called “RANT & Reason” though, right?)