Or, the “God hates gays and wants to punish them act.”
It seems to me that all of these Marriage Protection initiatives (like so many political actions) is misnamed. I want to do a more complete post later on, but here are some thoughts for the moment:
- There are many in society who aren’t keen on marriage: gays who think the institution is hetero, feminists who see it as inherently patriarchal, and lots of average Janes and Joes who don’t think that an piece of paper stamped by the local county clerk adds anything to the commitment they feel. These are the true enemies of marriage!
- Some studies in states and countries that have approved gay marriage actually shows the hetero divorce rate falling. Not sure what the connection is, but it seems to suggest that gay marriage is good for straights as well!
- Since conservatives readily point out that marriage is under siege by the above forces, why not take this opportunity to build a powerful, political spectrum-spanning coalition in favor of the marriage institution?
- I’m in favor of this kind of debate, because it would be waaaaaay more interesting than the age old identity politics. We might actually have an intelligent examination of the ancient institution of marriage and its place in a modern, democratic society.
- Plus it would be fun to see gays and religious conservatives squirming in each other’s presence holding hands working together for a common goal. Agree with them or no, some good might come out of it.
Anyhow, it seems to me that marriage is not what it’s all about, but simple discrimination against gays. All those valiant marriage-defenders should just come out and say so.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Shelly // Jul 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Amen & hallelujah!
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could actually find out just how great marriage is from the ‘valiant marriage-defenders’ and their spouses? I would how many fingers I’d need to count those in that bunch who really honor marriage. I mean, isn’t good ole’ Larry Craig on the defense team? Seems to me that he’s a great spokesperson for honoring marriage. Oh wait, he just had a wide-stance.
2 xJane // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’m not super keen on marriage, although my family is. It seems like a holdover from religion that has no real place in society (even our non-religious based laws surrounding marriage are heavily religion-influenced: taking a man’s name, the so-called “marriage tax penalty”, social security, &c.). I’d like to see it divorced (heh) from religion altogether. I’ve made this argument before so I won’t repeat it, but count me in the “true enemies of marriage” camp.
What do you mean by this:
?
Shelly, why is it that the most staunch “supporters” of marriage (be it banning some people from participating or making it harder to divorce) always end up having huge marital skeletons in their closets?! Amen II.
3 John // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Shelly - lol! And great point!
xJane, I’m suggesting that conservatives and gays band together to save marriage, rather than divide along the standard lines drawn in the cultural wars. I’m not actually sure where I stand on marriage as an institution (other than I stand on something vulnerable, venerable, and lumpy with problems), but it sure would make the news kind of refreshing, you know? A little less of the same old, same old.
4 xJane // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I guess what I’m asking is this: what do they have in common? Young hets are probably the biggest “danger” to marriage, so are you saying that older hets and gays who want to be married are in the same camp because they both like marriage…? Maybe I’m just not clear on the conservative argument for marriage.
5 John // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I think my meandering point here is that there are more ways to slice an argument than the way that media (or society) tends to portray them, and that people don’t have to automatically fall into the opinions people think they ought to have. In this case, not all gays are pro-marriage and some are annoyed that this is such a big issue. And I’m suggesting that conservatives, by publicly supporting gay marriage, could actually strengthen marriage as an institution at a time when many other historical forces are eroding it. There’s a lot more to marriage than mere hetero bonding (it’s a complex institution!), especially if you buy into the pro-family arguments made by conservative believers.
That said, this will never happen, because the political and cultural identity interests of the religious right (and genuine homophobia). The bottom line is this is less about marriage and family, and more about discriminating against gays. And there’s always something to gain, socially, culturally and politically, when there’s an outsider to persecute.
6 wren // Jul 4, 2008 at 8:20 am
I’m not in favor of marriage, period. It is a tradition tied up with hoards of connotations and baggage and the institution and all we have built it up to be fucks with people’s ideas and expectations and is so not what the reality is of 2 people (or more for any FLDSers out there) trying to live their lives together.
I’ll tell you what marriage protection should be - it’s protecting us from the institution of marriage… the fables, the myths, etc.
As far as I’m concerned, the only benefits of getting married are cheaper car insurance and legal rights. It cost me $35 and 10 minutes of time to get married and around $800 and 14 months to get divorced (and that was an “easy” divorce - no assets or kids). There’s something really backasswords about that. Oh, and when you do get married, no one presents you with a list of legal benefits or legal obligations either. I’d say all divorces should really be annulments because the contract leaves out a hella lotta details. That would never fly in business.
In my idea world, people who wanted to make a contract with each other would make a legal contract with each other using lawyers, the works, spell it out. People who wanted to make a spiritual commitment to each other would do that however they wanted and there would be nothing involving the government or the law about it. I know a very religious person who feels the same way about it for different reasons. He feels churches should “take back” marriage.
I think the gay marriage issue is about being recognized as having a relationship that’s just as valid as anyone else’s. I support that. I agree with John’s statement regarding outsiders to persecute. That’s really what the opposition is about.
7 xJane // Jul 4, 2008 at 8:46 am
ah, I see: like “we’re all in favor of adoption & large families, can’t we just get along?”
8 wren // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm
check it out…
Mormon challenge to gay marriage ban
9 xJane // Jul 7, 2008 at 7:31 pm
wren: that’s awesome!
Now I’d like to ask a stupid question of the Mos & ex-Mos in the community: when they say “the Prophet” (or is it “the prophet”?), I think “Joseph Smith”. Is there a current prophet running around, like a Mormon pope, who speaks for god…?
10 wren // Jul 7, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Indeed there is. His name is Thomas S. Monson and he was made president and prophet this year when Gordon B. Hinckley died. Monson is considered by some to be more of a hardliner so it will be interesting to see what his presidency brings to the the church. He’s the um, I think 16th or 17th president.
I’m sure someone will correct me of that’s wrong. As a convert I never got that primary song memorized with all the prophets names in it.
I personally know faithful who will undoubtedly say that is presidency is separating the wheat from the chaff. In other words, if stuff like the gay marriage thing prompts people to leave the church, they would probably say those people weren’t strong members to begin with. Interesting times ahead in the church for sure.
11 xJane // Jul 8, 2008 at 7:14 am
So one could refer to the leader of the Mormon Church at any time in history as either President or Prophet…correct?
And thank you
12 wren // Jul 8, 2008 at 7:17 am
Yeppers.
13 xJane // Jul 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm
it’s not just me!
Leave a Comment