What the Faahh???
I've been trying to enable streaming media on this site, and if I had it now I would most certainly upload The Audio Bullys' "We Don't Care" because all I can say about this article is "What the FUCK?" Except I suppose that would denote surprise and after everything, why should I be surprised that such a god-fearing man would have such views as this.
Massachusetts ruled this week that the ban on same sex marriages is
The answer that faced me of course, was no. Not quite. Currently, thirty-seven states have enacted "Defense of Marriage Acts" (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage. Other states have similar legislation pending. Think of the word choice -- defense . What exactly is under attack? How does the fact of two men being married destroy the validity of your own marriage? But it is perceived as precisely that - an attack. A little ego-centric, don't you think?
The following map is courtesy of Religious Tolerance.org, which is a pretty cool site. Their mandate is as follows: "To promote religious tolerance and freedom. To describe religious faiths in all their diversity. To describe controversial topics from all points of view." (Haven't explored enough to know if they actually do that, but even I, who gives religion as much credence as a stale cracker left out in the rain, thinks it's a great endeavor.)
The status of same-sex marriage across the U.S. as of November 19, 2003:
Now, a bunch of red-faced conservatives are waving their hands in the air and spouting phrases like "moral fabric" and "children" and my favorite "as it has always been." How did this ever get to be an arguing point on anything? Because it has always been. And your point is...? Tradition? Fear of change? How does "because it has always been" function as a rational argument about anything?
Slavery existed for hundreds of years, I'm sure Jeb Callowhill felt that the institution "had always been" too. It had always been legal to beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb (rule of thumb...). In the United States women "had always been" banned from voting until 1920. My sweet grandmother, the smartest person I've ever known, was not allowed to vote in the United States. And this deemed constitutional.
At least in this case I can see the risk inherent in changing the suffrage laws. Millions of people with unknown views (who really asked a woman's opinion on things, anyway?) would sudden wield political power. They'd not hold office, of course. THAT craziness hadn't yet entered their frantically defensive minds. But the power of the vote?? This could directly impact the lives of these men who were so vehemently against it. They were afraid of the unknown, as those in power often are, and stodgily resistant to change.
But same sex marriages? What does this have to do with you? Why should you care and furthermore, how can you want to live under a government that supports vigorous control over the intimate lives of its citizens? It doesn't matter because the citizen isn't you?? How would you be threatened by gay marriage? You can still regard homosexuality as filthy and abhorrent as ever. Thius doesn't change anything you are or are not able to do.
Is this the outpouring of a legion of repressed homosexuals with wives and children who are so personally threatened with the impending normalcy or perceived legitimacy of the gay/lesbian lifestyle that they run to the pulpit, to their web logs, to radio interviews, and Op-Ed columns to vocalize their severe opposition? Why are they wasting so much energy? Again I ask - why do you even care?
Even a free black man or woman wasn't allowed to marry until after the Civil War. And interracial marriages were not legalized throughout the country until 1967.
George W Bush himself will "work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." Marriage between a
man and a woman, he specifies. Defend.
In a gay New England paper I found at least a small coalition of clergy urging the freedom to marry a same sex spouse. Refreshing, if slight.
The Christian right's "it has always been" mantra melts into "it's been for a while now" when it suits them. The ten commandments were not always in front of courthouses in the US, the phrase "under God" was not always in the pledge of allegiance. In fact, the pledge "had always been" without it when they decided to add the phrase in the first place.
Next, there is never was but should be...…
Read the CCA's response to the ruling. It's basically a save-the-children approach. ...Explain that again?
You may think that shooting down the logic behind the rhetoric of the CR is a little like shooting ducks in a barrel. You are right. It's just I'd never taken the time to shoot those ducks before and there is something satisfying in so many solid hits with such little effort. Like putting a video game on easy because you're frustrated and just want to kill/smash/or drive real fast.
…Addendum: WBUR is an public station in Boston and it features a nifty “Legal Translator” (See what lawyers see in legal documents.) Pretty cool and it does a great job of detailing the legal facts and underlying legal implications of the MA ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment