Amen, Jake! I've often referred to my sister's marriage when discussing marriage equality. Barb and I were married in a church by a pastor (although we didn't attend church regularly at the time, and the pastor left the church shortly thereafter due to his own infidelity), while my sister and her husband were wed by a judge at Hoyt Sherman Place in Des Moines. According to the state of Iowa and every other state, our marriages are equal under the law, with no differentiation made for the religious aspects of mine. The fact that people aren't claiming they deserve the right to vote on a consititutional ammendment to end my sister's marriage negates any religious arguments as far as I'm concerned.
Brilliant, Jake.
Seriously, this should be printed out and handed on every street corner on every city until those bigoted religious morons fucking GET IT.
Jake -
This post is one of the many reasons I literally check your blog every day....smart, funny, well-written, and interesting.
I have often wondered why our community refuses to focus on the legal definitions of marriage rather than chanting about everyone being so mean to us. Yes, as you pointed out, two definitions of marriage already exist: Straights can be married in a church and it's not recognized by the state as a legally-binding contract because no license was issued. Straights can be married by the justice of the peace and it's not recognized by their church because it wasn't peformed by a clergyman. The gay community can already get married in a church....no one is asking for your preachers to be forced to bless our unions. I just want the same legal rights & protections my brothers and sisters enjoy because they married someone of the opposite gender. Why does anyone care that I voluntarily choose to join into a contract agreement with another man rather than a woman?
Our community needs to get off this "everyone is being so mean to us" tirade and start focusing on the legal implications of denying a segment of the population access to (supposedly blind) contract law.
Fabulously written.
Great summary and well written; simple, direct, and not histrionic (fun as that is).
A thought struck me after hearing about Sen. Ensign's latest little situation. Since he (and so many others #prejean#) are so concerned about preserving "sacred, traditional" marriage, would they favor voting on a law that says "only a person's first marriage will be recognized by the state". I mean, according to all of their "traditional, religious", um, "reasoning", a marriage is forever and letting people marry multiple times destroys that. It needs protection! So would they vote for it? Of course not!
Well said, Jake!
This is a topic that really makes my brain hurt. It makes as much sense to argue against marriage equality as it does to argue that the sun rises in the west.
It's just... NOT. LOGICAL.
Excellent!
Yes. Expect to be linked to, please.
Best response ever.
Would you like to debate Maggie Gallagher and the other hate-heads next time? I think you'd mop up the floor with her.
*applause*
Well put!!
You forgot this one: "If those people are allowed to get married, it's going to cost me more, because I'll have to pay for their benefits, too." (WHAT?)
And this one, about the recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in favor of litigants suing for the right to obtain a marriage license: "I just don't think one activist judge should have the right to tell us to have gay marriages." (Apparently they believe the Supreme Court consists of one person who is like the king of the judges, AND what he says goes, so now we all have to have our straight marriages annulled and find a same-sex partner.)
My favorite one is that it will give their children the idea that it is ok to be gay, and they then might marry gay themselves if it's legal. (My response to this was: "So the only reason you married your wife is because it was illegal to marry a man?")
I can't begin to tell you the boggling lack of intellect being exhibited by people trying to explain their bigotry away as simply looking out for their own rights.
Unfortunately, you can't use logic to reason against the illogical excuses of the unreasonable.
The logic of your arguments—which is impeccable—will be lost on those who hold tight to their beliefs, because logic doesn't drive them. The fear of marriage equality isn't based on biblical authority, in spite of all the rhetoric; there is plenty of scholarship that refutes the literal translation. This is a cultural bias that must be changed with education.
Those who aren't tied to the Religious Right might be reached with your arguments. But the ones who go about quoting passages are holding on to more than one aspect of their belief; they are holding onto certainty. To many, nothing is more frightening than uncertainty, especially in economically turbulent times. Certainty gives comfort. To allow that their belief on this matter might be based on error is to open their entire belief system to question. That is the slippery slope that they fear. Their white-knuckled grip on the cliff of belief belies the truth that they won't fall if they let go.
Continue to put forth your logic, because it arms those who simply haven't thought about it one way or another. It will shake them from their complacency. To reach those who are resistant but still willing to hear, tell your story. I do. I tell the story of two men who are raising an adult child and face serious repercussions if one of them should die without benefit of marriage. I tell them about the lack of benefits for the entire family as retirement approaches.
We need marriage equality for men like you. We all benefit from having equal rights granted to every member of society, because it opens our hearts and minds and communities to a vibrant and loving brotherhood and sisterhood.
My faith is important to me. But it is pure hubris to require that you follow my tenets. Even God gives us choice; how can I do less? Your rights as a human being are important to me too. I am fighting for your equality, and I am not alone.
I enjoyed this well-written and logical piece. I do want you to know that not ALL Christians are bigots. I happen to be a Christian and am 100% in agreement with the rights due to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.
so how do we make this required reading in every location where a ballot referendum or legislation related to SSM is likely to come up?
Bigots are not true Christians. To truly follow the teachings of Christ, you can't harbor feelings of bigotry. Anybody who tries to use the Bible to oppress others, or who claims such heinous ideas or actions in the name of Christianiy, commits the worst kind of blasphemy.
This should be required reading. FABULOUS.
Curious, what your thoughts are on making all marriage secular with no legal benefits, and then substituting civil unions. Thereby making marriages only recognized by one's own church, but them unavailable to be used as a basis for determining any kind of monetary benefit.
Since marriage is entwined in so many federal institutions from the IRS to Social Security, ALL marriages should be sanctioned at the governmental level. If married couples want the blessing or recognition of their chosen religion, they can add that distinction on their own.
—Jake
marry me.
Bloody fantastic post.
I am so envious of how calmly and logically you can defend marriage equality. As a midwestern Catholic, I hear a lot of the "religious" arguments against gay marriage. It makes me so frustrated that my response ends up to either yell or just sigh. It seems so hopeless sometimes. I'm glad to know that people like you are out there, not letting the hatred win.
Truly awesome. I'm going to keep a copy on hand to consult whenever someone tries to give me one of these idiotic arguments.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this, and for sharing it. You rock, Jake!
Ditto to Irisgirl's comment. Thank you Jake for putting my thoughts and feelings down in a way that sounds so much better then whatever I say. Hopefully you won't mind if I use this in the future when talking to my homophobic family and co-workers. Good things to you and yours...Liz
Bravo,
While I might have stated a few of them a bit differently (slightly different world views at work), I love what you've done here.
The idea that there should be civil marriage for all with religious blessings for those that choose them is something many of us liberal/gay/pro-gay clergy have been arguing for all along.
When I was a lawyer, it made sense that I was, from time to time, an agent of the state. As a pastor, it makes ZERO sense for me to be an agent of the state. It's just tradition with no real justification. The separate system works great in Great Britain, we should do it here....get "married" at the Town Clerk's office, get blessed at church if you choose.
Well played, sir, well played.
Word.
Here's another historical fact for you. Marriage existed before the church recognized it. In fact, the church only used to recognize marriage among nobles because there was a "blessing" involved that gave status to the contract between the two families. Marriage existed before there was religion.
Beautifully written. I find it odd in debates no one ever brings up the fact that Canada has allowed gay marriage for a few years now. It's such a non issue there...and it was voted into law during a conservative government. And Canada sits right there! All big and vast, quietly going about her business. In the US the topic is discussed like it's some new concept never before experienced by any other nation. I find it odd.
As an old and straight friend of yours, Jake, I applaud your commentary.
And as for the anonymous naysayers out there reading this, please get a grip. I live in Iowa where gay marriage is now (and hopefully forever) legal. It hasn't changed my life one bit, but it has changed lives. I was out recently for an early-morning run and saw two men walking their dog back to their house in their neighborhood in my town. What made me smile was that there was nothing gross or weird or horrible about it... it was just... normal... just another everyday morning stroll for two happily married people.
Thanks again, Jake
Well done, Brother. As always. Cogent. Terse. Irrefutable.
And to Marty from Canada I would say, we Yanks are like teenagers. We imagine that OUR feelings are the only feelings (that matter) and that OUR experiences are the first experiences anyone has ever had (that matter).
But it is Birdie who, I think, hits the nail on the head -- that it is the ingrained fear of the unknown (change) that drives most of the Religious Right. I remember, all too clearly, as a Catholic teenager in the 1960's, deciding all by myself that if I rejected one little teaching of the Church (that I was gay and therefore garbage), then I might well wind up rejecting all of their dogma (which I did).
Rather than descending into the abyss of uncontrollable chaos, I instead arose into the lightness of freedom of thought.
And cults hate it when we do that.
"Marriage should be decided by the states. No it shouldn’t."
but it already is is. all licenses -- driver's licenses, professional licenses, marriage licenses -- are.
our constitution provides a mechanism for recognizing most licenses across state lines. but it will probably take a court challenge or movements in every state before gay marriage becomes the law of the land.
i personally have no problem with gay marriage, but i would rather see changes around health care, inheritance and family law that remove the need for state-sanctioned marriage.
I heart you Jake.
I've been lurking on you blog for quite awhile now (I even refer to you as my e-friend from Chicago which I realize is a bit pathetic) and I've used you posts many times to make a point to people that are anti-gay rights. Your posts are just much more eloquent then me rambling on for 20 minutes...
Prepare to, once again, be posted to my facebook.
Well said, Jake. I'm in total agreement.
I've thought a lot about my good friend who will be officiating at my wedding in November, who cannot do in his home state what he will be doing for us. It's heartbreaking and completely unfair.
Keep fighting the good fight.
TD
absolutely amazing. truly beautiful!! i should keep a copy of this on hand whenever i get into a heated debate with someone.
awesome. thank you for putting so clearly what so many of us think but cannot express.
I stole this from Queerty.com - Hilarious and true!
http://current.com/items/9022825...iage-is-
gay.htm
Well said Jake! I'm sharing this with friends.
Amen, brother!
I'm still looking forward to the day I get to throw rice (birdseed, biodegradable confetti, gluten-free cookie crumbs, whatever) at you and the DP on your wedding day. How is your Mom coming along at planning the big day?
And whatever did you do about the unfortunate khaki paint in the bathroom?
Beautifully written. The best I have read on this topic so far. Thank you.
The leaders of the anti- same sex marriage brigade are only in it for the fame and money. Maggie Gallagher whored herself out to the Bush administration for dollars, and now she is busy getting rich through the bigot's donations to NOM. Jake is much better looking than Maggie.
Has Obama ever actually stated for which of those reasons he's against gay marriage?
A great read and I agree with almost every word. Except that I think Religion is as natural as any other ideal that the human mind has invented, because our intellect is a result of the natural process of evolution. Our imaginations are the gift of billions of years of natural selection. Religion is born of that process.
Excellent point by point argument. Take it all the way to the Supreme Court!
I sent this link as part of a letter I sent to OK Representative Sally Kern regarding these comments: http://queersunited.blogspot.com...arriage-
is.html
I hope that's okay.
Saw this off the WSJ comment board, it's brilliant! You should run for public office!
The best refutation of the "PEOPLE WILL MARRY THEIR DOGS LOL" argument I've heard has been, "When your dog is capable of consenting to a contract, let me know and we'll put it on the list. Maybe."
Most of the reasons I've heard against gay marriage boil down to "gay is icky", or even further to "then maybe I won't have to think about it because it makes me turtle."
None of which are the least bit appropriate in a discussion of civil rights.
Great post. If you haven't read Varnum v. Brien (IaSC) you should do so. They've gone a bit further on some of your items.
Dear Jake,
You're article should be published in the newspapers! It's brilliant. I thought you'd like to know that in some countries religious and legal marriage are separated. In Argentina if you want the government to acknowledge your union you need to get married by the state; and if you want God to acknowledge your marriage you need to get married by the priest in the church of your choice. The funny thing is that the Argentinian constitution states it is a Catholic country; however in the eyes of the church you're not married unless the priest marries you. Being raised in that environment it just perplexes me the marriage debate in this country.
P.S. I wish I was lucky enough to be your friend.
Thanks for putting together all these refutations. As has been written above, well done! I love the line " ... because it makes me turtle." from Das Ubergeek. Personally, however, when I attempt a discussion with someone who is prejudiced about one thing or another( I'm a domestic violence intervention expert...) I don't start off by telling them they are intellectually compromised or no smarter than a sober third grader.I know I'm in trouble when I even conceive of them as such. I have in anger or frustration come across this way and all it has ever accomplished is to underline the division.
Steve
Jake,
I couldn't agree with you more! Well said!
I'll never understand why one group of people feels the need to repress another. Perhaps that's why the bible was written.
Commenting by HaloScan
