Bans on gay marriage counter Obama’s message
It’s tempting for some of us to look at the election of the country’s first African-American president and conclude that our days of bigotry and inequality are behind us. Come January, a black man who anchored his campaign to the uplifting themes of unity and change will take office, a watershed moment in not only our country’s history, but the history of all humankind. Without question, this election stands as a promising sign for anyone who strives for equality and harmony, and believes that what unites us truly is greater than what divides us. But while it’s clear that the racial and gender divides (thanks to Hillary Clinton and, yes, even Sarah Palin) have narrowed as we head into 2009, the passing of gay marriage bans in California, Florida and Arizona shows that we still have a long way to go on the road to true equality in this country.
In the months leading up to election day, I posed the following question several times but never received a legitimate answer: How is banning gay marriage anything but discrimination? Why is it acceptable in the 21st century for someone to have their right to marry taken away because of their sexual orientation? For that matter, why is it acceptable for anyone to have any right taken away from them for any reason? Opponents of gay marriage claim they want to protect American families, but I’ve never understood what exactly that means. If the gay couple down the street was allowed to place a ring on each other’s finger and be recognized by the state as a married couple, would they then creep down to your house in the middle of the night and eat your children? Would they crash your weekly Family Game Night? Superimpose themselves into your family photos? Slash the tires of your minivan? Opponents also talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage and only allowing couples who can procreate to get married. If that’s the case, shouldn’t straight couples who cheat on one another or elect to not have children have their marriage licenses revoked?
The bottom line is that these bans on gay marriage are just another form of intolerance. Telling two gay people that they can’t get married is no different than telling an interracial couple that they can’t get married. Perhaps even more discouraging is the ballot measure that was passed in Arkansas prohibiting “unmarried sexual partners” from adopting children or serving as foster parents. The initiative applied to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, but the intent here is crystal clear. Apparently it’s not enough to tell gay couples that they can’t get married; we also need to make it clear that they can never have a family, even when there are so many children in desperate need of a loving home.
I’m extremely hopeful that the election of Barack Obama will bring about a more open-minded approach to how we as a nation view the world and choose to legislate. After all, I’m not talking about “gay rights” here; these are human rights. Because Obama speaks so passionately about overcoming the bitter divisiveness that has fractured this country – black vs. white, men vs. women, democrats vs. republicans and, yes, gay vs. straight – many of us were hoping his message would help defeat the bigotry behind the initiatives in California, Florida, Arizona and Arkansas. Perhaps we got a little ahead of ourselves. Instead, it seems apparent that Obama won the White House on the strength of his economic message more than his social views. At the same time, the fact that so many young and first-time voters were so engaged in the election suggests that this more open-minded shift could be on the way.
Electing a transformational figure like Barack Obama looks like an encouraging first step, but that transformation is obviously still a work in progress.
don’t be naive. It’s pure politics. Why should Obama drain all his political capital on 5% or less of the population on a highly divisive issue especially when you consider that they will vote for him anyways
I’m not saying that Obama should have made this more of an issue in his campaign. I’m just saying that his election to some people seemed to point to an awakening of sorts, a shift in the way people view the idea of equality. The fact that all four of these initiatives passed (most notably the one in California) suggests that we still have a ways to go in that area.
Things never change all at once, so this doesn’t surprise me, though I’m surprised that the measure in California passed.
Jamey, let me ask a question….
Your argument is it’s some type of discrimination in not allowing 2 gay people to be married. Your support for this argument is “if they love each other why not let them get married?” All pretty logical I guess, now here’s my question.
Lets say 3 people love each other, or 4 or what ever. Should they all be allowed to marry? Why make paligamy a crime – why discriminate against them?
This argument can be extended in all sorts of weird directions that I won’t spell out.
Just a question, not an argument- I guess I’m saying where would YOU draw the line would you let 4 people marry?
It’s telling that a liberal state like California has banned gay marriage, I think.
And to answer your “threat to families” question– I think most people will agree that the most stable family environment is one with a husband, his wife, and their children (and I would add this adds to the stability of our society), at least that has traditionally been the case. Add to this the fact that many religions do not condone homosexuality and I think many families are at least somewhat religious or have some level of faith. I think that’s where the “threat to families” thing comes from. Kinda convoluted, but I’m too tired to fix it.
I heard a comic once come out and say that he is 100% in favor of allowing gays to marry. Then, with a nice dramatic pause, he added with perfect emphasis, “because I want them to suffer like we all do”
That pretty much sums up how I feel, if gays want to live the hell that straight folks do when the marry, let ‘em. They’ll end up lamenting the day they joined the club.
In the meantime, let’s let Obama tackle the tough stuff. As far as I am concerned, if Obama is smart, and so far the man has not made many mistakes… if he is smart, he will issue an executive decree on gay marriage, during the last hour of his last day in office, 8 years and 76 days from today.
We’ve become way too desensitized in this country. Years ago, homosexuality was never even mentioned. Today, we have to worry about our kids seeing young gay couples making out in public places and then have to explain it to them. It’s not natural. If it was, we’d all be doing it. Those of us who are NOT gay are highly uncomfortable with the thought of the homosexual act. Our inner voice, our moral standard, tells us, it’s not right.
The older generation lived by a moral standard and didn’t accept it, speak of it, tolerate it because they knew it was wrong. Homosexuals didn’t even come out because THEY knew it was wrong too. They kept their secret because they felt dirty or felt what they were doing was bad. There’s a reason they felt this way….because it IS. We all KNOW when we are doing something WRONG…we have that gut feeling, that inner voice that questions our decision.
Now, we tell gays to “be yourself, it’s ok” so they are coming out everywhere – liberated like never before, some just trying it just to see what it’s like. If it makes you feel good, it’s ok!
Here’s where you people are really screwed up – You think that it’s ok to kill an unborn baby in a mother’s womb, and even worse, if it survives, let it die on the table in horrific pain without any help, BUT, GAYS should not be discriminated against because you want to stand up for what’s right! What’s RIGHT?????? What IS right in your mind?
As Christians, we live our lives according to God’s Word. It is the foundation of how we choose to live our lives and what decisions we make. We live for God’s Will, not ours. We are certainly the minority now in this day and age and we refuse to accept immoral and sinful practices just to be accepted. We at least have something to go back on to prove that these acts are wrong (the Bible). What kind of doctrine do you have to prove that homosexuality and abortion is right other than benefiting the selfish individual who gets self fulfillment from either act?
I’m sure none of you are aware of bible passages that speak of the sinful acts of homosexuality so I thought I’d copy and paste it here (from bible.com)
Gerardo I’m surprised at you.
We realize that this subject can be a very difficult one to address. Furthermore, as hate crimes specifically committed against homosexuals occur, many feel that this issue shouldn’t be addressed at all for fear of only adding to the hostile environment that many homosexuals face. Despite the cultural climate in which we live, this issue must be addressed according to the Word of God. God’s laws are always for our good, although man may see them as restricting. In the end, only obedience to the Word of God can bring true freedom. We address this issue out of God’s love for the homosexual to bless and help him.
Much of our society has embraced many perverted sexual practices that are considered in the Bible as abominations to God. Homosexuality is among the list of deviate or abnormal sexual practices however, there are many other practices that can be included as well. Pornography, pedophilia, prostitution, bestiality, oral sex, phone sex and computer virtual reality sex, just to name a few of them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Although the Bible doesn’t detail each and every one of these sinful acts, it does clearly speak out about many of them. Any deviation from God’s original plan for sex between a married man and woman is still a sin in God’s eyes. The main reason we call these things perverted is because they are unnatural and scripture clearly tells us those who do such things are committing abominations. Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination.”
Homosexuality is also referred to as the sin of sodomy. This reference comes from an account in the Bible of two exceedingly wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Lord destroyed. Sodom was known for its rampant homosexuality and unrestrained sexual lust, as well as other sins such as arrogance, haughtiness, and disregard for the poor. When the Lord sent angels to warn Lot who lived in the city that it was about to be destroyed, the men of the city actually wanted to rape the angels! Genesis 13:13: “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.”
In the Old Testament the penalty for this sin was severe. Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Today the penalty of death comes in the form of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It also brings death to the soul and spirit of man because the life of God is pushed out by indulging in something that is an abomination to God. God wants to deliver all who are trapped in this unholy practice and He will if anyone calls out to Him with a sincere heart.
We certainly acknowledge that AIDS has broken out of the homosexual community, and now, many innocent people are suffering with this disease through no fault of their own. However, the intent of the above statement is not directed to those who have innocently contracted this disease, but rather to the sinners who are spreading it. A comparison could be made to those who smoke. Smokers are opening themselves up for lung cancer; however, the people who are subjected to breathing the smoke second-hand are also subject to this disease. The person who willfully smokes is guilty of destroying their own bodies, but should those who are forced to live in the environment of the smoke, get lung cancer, they are not guilty of this sin. When we teach that smoking causes lung cancer, we are not judging or condemning those who innocently get lung cancer from breathing second-hand smoke. It is simply a true fact that smoking can cause lung cancer.
The same is true of AIDS. A homosexual life style increases the risk of that person contracting AIDS. There is no condemnation or judgment against those who innocently contract this disease through no fault of their own (for instance, through blood transfusions.) However, since AIDS is most prevalent in the homosexual community, we need to warn people of the dangers of homosexuality, so that AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases are not spread to the rest of society, as now, many heterosexuals have contracted these diseases too, through unfaithful partners.
Nick, that’s a fair question, though I think rational individuals can draw a rational line. To me, marriage is a sacred bond between two consenting adults, a vow to be faithful and committed and to love unconditionally. And two men or two women are just as capable of committing themselves to one another as a man and a woman are.
And JP, again, I’m not suggesting that this is something Obama needs to address head on. Clearly, he’s got MUCH bigger fish to fry. I was speaking more to the general attitude we as a society have towards gay people and their rights. You and I seem to agree that it should be their decision whether or not they want to marry someone. Who am I (or anyone else) to stand in their way or tell them what they feel is wrong?
Which brings me to CFM. Honestly, I don’t even know where to begin. I appreciate the fact that you and I are coming from COMPLETELY different places on this issue, but I have such a hard time digesting some of this stuff.
“Today, we have to worry about our kids seeing young gay couples making out in public places and then have to explain it to them.”
Is it so difficult to just be honest with our kids, to tell them that everyone is different, to encourage them to be open-minded, and to teach them acceptance and understanding?
“The older generation lived by a moral standard and didn’t accept it, speak of it, tolerate it because they knew it was wrong. Homosexuals didn’t even come out because THEY knew it was wrong too. They kept their secret because they felt dirty or felt what they were doing was bad.”
They didn’t come out because they feared persecution at the hands of the older generation who “didn’t tolerate it.”
“Now, we tell gays to “be yourself, it’s ok” so they are coming out everywhere – liberated like never before, some just trying it just to see what it’s like. If it makes you feel good, it’s ok!”
As opposed to, what? Making gay people live a lie, maybe marry someone they don’t even love to fit in with your moral standards, then have children and build a life that is a complete farce, and then die having lied to themselves and their family and friends for their entire lives? Gosh, that sounds like a much better alternative than having people be honest and be themselves. Isn’t that what we were taught as children? To be ourselves, to be proud of who we are, and not to let anyone change us into something we’re not? I don’t remember hearing the disclaimer, “unless you’re gay.”
“Furthermore, as hate crimes specifically committed against homosexuals occur, many feel that this issue shouldn’t be addressed at all for fear of only adding to the hostile environment that many homosexuals face.”
Gee, how thoughtful. Let’s shove all the gay people back into the closet and ignore the issue entirely just so we can protect them.
And if we’re going to quote Leviticus, let’s get into the really good stuff….
(Lev. 11:11-12) “Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat.”
(Lev. 4:27-29) “If any one of the common people sins, he shall bring for (the Lord’s) offering a goat … and he shall kill (the goat).”
(Lev. 15:19) “When a woman has regular discharge from her body, she shall be unclean for seven days and whoever touches her shall be unclean.”
Excuse me while I run down to my local Red Lobster, call all of the patrons sinners, demand they kill a goat to appease the Lord, and then make sure none of the men in the restaurant touch their wives or girlfriends if it’s “that time of the month.”
You can tell yourself and us that you’re not judging homosexuals all you want, but that’s exactly what you’re doing, and you’re using a book that was written by man thousands of years ago to justify yourself.
Well, Jamey– that’s the point.
To YOU 2 consenting adults is ok – be they man man, man woman or woman woman. To a group of 6 people that all want to get married that’s ok, to some freak that wants to marry a turtle THAT’S ok (ridiculous on purpose to make a point). Marriage has always been defined as a man and woman and for the history of our country it’s worked– I don’t think ANY special interest should be able to change what’s been the law of the land since the beginning.
I’d love to marry a deck of cards (I LOVE poker) and be able to claim that as a dependent on my taxes– think that’ll ever happen?
I understood your point. My point was to say that, clearly, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
“To YOU 2 consenting adults is ok – be they man man, man woman or woman woman.”
A growing number of people feel the same way. Let’s not forget that, while all four of these initiatives passed, 9 million people voted against them. As more and more young people reach voting age, I think we’ll see an even bigger shift in that direction.
It’s my firm belief that, at some point in the future — be it 10 years, 20 years or 50 years from now — we’ll look back on the “gay rights” movement as we now do on civil rights and women’s rights.
What an idiotic statement – blacks can’t help being black and women are born that way as well. Homosexuality is an act. Comparing it to women’s rights and civil rights is just plain ignorant.
Out of all the problems in the world, this is something you’re worried about? Gay marriage?
The stupidity of some people just continues to amaze…
I live in California and the measure was funded by a huge influx of money from the Mormons in Utah. They went with the angle that if gay marriage is legal then “schools would have to teach it to our children.” My wife is an assistant principal and they don’t even talk about marriage in health class, so the charge was unfounded. We voted against it not because we believe that gay people should be able to get married but because the measure was deceitful and pushed by the religious right, with which we degree about 99.9% of the time.
To me, the gay marriage debate is something that shouldn’t be a debate at all. Make the religious right happy and don’t have the state recognized them as “married.” Create “civil unions” that give gay couples (who can call themselves “married,” “hitched,” whatever) the same exact rights as a “traditional” marriage. That way, gay people can have the same rights (property, visitation, adoption etc.) as straight people.
This issue is never going to resolve itself without this compromise. The institution of “marriage” stems from religion and for that reason, there will always be people fighting against gay marriage. Just like CFM said, a majority don’t understand same sex feelings so they think it’s “wrong.” (Mind you, it’s not because it actually is wrong, it’s just that straight people can’t understand the motivation. If you ask a gay person to consider a man/woman sexual act, they’ll shudder just like we do when we think about two dudes getting it on. It’s unnatural…to them.)
I just want the debate to go away. Every election cycle it brings out the religious nuts who want everyone to act the same way they do. And in 2004 and 2000, it might have cost Kerry and Gore those elections.
By the way, Biden said in the VP debate that both he and Obama are against gay marriage. They are for civil unions that give equal rights to gay couples.
Sounds reasonable to me.
And, CFM, your whole ideology seems to come from the position that being gay or being involved in gay acts is a choice. There are a lot of people who think it is biological, and there are studies that support that thesis, so all your talk about how its “wrong” because it’s not what you think is natural or because it’s condemned in the Bible stems from that line of thinking – that gay people are choosing to be gay.
Look at it this way – I don’t know if you’re a man or a woman, but let’s say you’re a guy. And all your life you’ve been attracted to one kind of girl. I think most men would admit that they have a “type.” Brunettes, blondes, redheads, skinnies, fatties, whatever. There is something about that kind of girl that always gets you. It’s not something you chose; it’s something in your makeup, you can’t explain it or deny it. Now extend that to being attracted to the same sex.
Sure, you’re probably cringing now, but don’t you see how someone could just be wired that differently?
Wow Tim. Statements like that remind me that the human race has a looooong way to go. Which I believe, was Jamey’s point to begin with.
How long is it going to be before we have our first gay president?
Hey Tim, is your heterosexuality a choice? Is it an act? How someone could think that a person would choose to be gay is beyond my comprehension. Who would choose to be a part of the most vilified minority in our country?
You say that I’m ignorant for comparing gay rights to civil rights and women’s rights, but I believe your way of thinking is outdated and will one day seem downright archaic. The young people in this country are much more open-minded about homosexuality and will eventually make it largely a non-issue.
“Out of all the problems in the world, this is something you’re worried about? Gay marriage?”
It’s a question of equality and justice, so yes, it concerns me and millions of others.
And Tall, certainly civil unions that allow gay couples equal rights would be a step in the right direction.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To CFM and other anti-gay marriage advocates:
Just thought I’d let you know that the same constitutional amendment which gives you the right to peacefully assemble and practice your religion, gives homosexuals the right to marry.
On another note, civil unions and domestic partnerships are a step in the right directions but many times the don’t give same-sex couples all of the benefits marriage offers.