measi's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- thoughts on a weighty issue Had last week not been absolute hell around here at work, I would have weighed in on this much earlier, of course. But those who know me won't find my position much of a surprise, anyway. Gay marriage. If you've been living under a rock, you probably haven't heard about the upheval that has stirred around the Commonweath of Massachusetts State House over the last few days-- only a few short miles from where I'm sitting. It's a fierce debate that honestly has needed to happen for a while. I celebrate the debate as a way to show how troubled American society is with the concept of equality. I find myself struggling to respect the right to have a different opinion, shuddering at some of the words -- and images -- from the debate. But I think debate is a healthy thing. Gay marriage and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ are two topics of debate that get down to the core of what we believe as human beings about life, love and the fundamentals of right and wrong. It shows who we are as a society and as individuals. Once I've seen it, I'll make comments about The Passion of Christ. Since I have not been one of the people to screen it, I have no basis to make any sort of judgment. I do support a film that puts the brutality of crucifixion-- regardless of personage-- to light. The accusations of anti-Semitism (which I cannot yet comment on) aside, I think the film is a testament to Gibson's deep-rooted beliefs, and I support him on that. I'm interested to see what his vision is. Come back sometime in early March, once the movie's out and I've been able to view it. But onto Gay Marriage... It should come as no surprise that yes, I support it whole-heartedly. Homosexuals, heterosexuals-- there is no difference, really, in my mind. A life's partner is a life's partner, regardless of gender. Much discussion has been made that gay marriage would hurt the institution of marriage because marriage is supposed to be about creating an environment that's stable and healthy for kids-- that gay marriage could not provide such an environment for children. With the divorce rate already skyrocketing among heterosexual marriages that involve children, perhaps a focus on why marriage between heterosexuals are destroying the stable environment is in order. Many homosexual couples have sought marriage specifically for those protections for their kids-- as it stands, the life partner (since legally, they're not spouses) of a homosexual has NO rites to visit their partner in the hospital, receive medical benefits in most states, or can even be considered a joint guardian of a child. If their partners die, no death benefits will be paid if the state does not not have laws protecting same-sex partners. This includes the tragedies of September 11th. One of the most chilling images I've seen in the last few weeks was a photo in the Boston Globe of a protest in a local town's high school gym. Children between the ages of six and twelve were holding signs condemming homosexuality-- some signs had comments that were-- rather graphic in nature. Something much more offensive, quite frankly, than any of the bullshit posted about Janet Jackson's naked breast. Had these children been standing in front of Klansmen, we'd have an issue with how their parents were treating them to hate others. There would have been an outcry. But because they looked and acted like everyday people, the hate in those signs is ignored. My heart went out to those children who are being taught to see others as inferior simply because they are different. I can only hope that when they are adults, they will see bigotry for what it is. Another argument is that gay marriage would hurt the institution of marriage on its principles. Which principles are these? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the concept of marriage to me was a relationship between two people that would support each other emotionally, physically, and financially, for the rest of their lives. Marriage is a partnership on both a personal and a professional level-- the utmost commitment two people can make to each other. By getting married, both people declare that they complete one another. Love is a huge part of it, yes-- but love is one part of life. Not all of it. I would argue that many heterosexual marriages fail for this very reason-- they go in for love, and not realizing the other aspects that marriage entails. Therefore, it's important to look at the percentage of heterosexual life-partners and the percentage of homosexual life-partners who break up for whatever reason. I doubt the percentages are that much different. To imply that homosexuals are incapable of long-term or life-long single-partner commitments is, frankly, stupid. I personally know six homosexual couples who have been together for 15 or more years, buying homes, raising children (or in one couple's case, doggies), and supporting each other in every way that a "real" married couple does. I've heard those couples speak of dozens more, including some who have been together for forty or more years. For ANY relationship to last so long, they're doing something right. One of the most touching things to come out of the last week was the photo of the first homosexual married couple in San Francisco. Two elderly women-- one the age of my living grandmother and one the age of my recently deceased grandmother-- were finally allowed to wed days before their 51st anniversary together. The expression on their faces is beautiful and powerful. These are human beings, folks-- with emotions just like you and me. Only in the United States, they are a group of human beings who are denied the right to pursue happiness with the person to whom they commit their love and life. Meanwhile, there is the argument by various faiths that by their code, homosexual unions are immoral and will not be recognized. To me, that is fine (albeit disappointing). I don't have to agree with any particular faith. This is not an issue about religious marriage-- it's an issue about civil marriage-- go get your blood tests done, pay the marriage fee, and have a justice of the peace marry you. Churches and other establishments of faith should have the right to decide who is welcome to marry within the confines of their walls. They have done this for years among heterosexuals. In many Catholic churches, for example, a Catholic cannot marry a non-Catholic within the church walls. The only option is for the non-Catholic to renounce his/her faith and convert. Fair? I don't think so. BUT... it's the rules of the church. If a couple wishes to marry there, then there are requirements to be followed. If they disagree, they have the option of civil marriage with no religious strings attached. It is the civil marriage that is at stake here, not religious. If marriage is a religious-only institution, as many claim, then ALL civil-only marriages should be known as unions, both heterosexual and homosexual. You want equal? Leave the term marriage to the religious community and use union for civil. But that creates the separate but equal problem... as well as stupidity of wording... all over again. In Paganism, we often call this union a "handfasting," even if the concept of handfasting doesn't necessarily mean a life-long commitment by the deeper definition of the rite. Does the wording make it any less of a marriage? Regardless of whether you call it a "civil union" or a "marriage," the couple are married. They are re-connecting to the world as a pair, rather than as individuals. They should have the same rights as everyone else protected under the framework of marriage, including calling themselves spouses. And for my flippant, smart-mouthed quip to end my little pseudo-rant: I can't understand why heterosexual conservatives are so up-ended about people marrying each other, when said homosexual people are most likely never the types these conservatives would want to pursue a relationship with. It wouldn't work-- so what's the big deal? I can only assume that they're unhappy, so dammit, all other couples should be, too. Outta here... ~ Mel. 11:20 a.m. - 17 February 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||