Bigots

[xela]

This started as a comment to thomb's entry about a remark of Mitt Romney's on gay marriage. But it outgrew the context, so I'm putting it here instead.

I don't understand these people at all. This morning I was driving for a few minutes during... I forget what they call it now, WBUR's post Morning Edition call-in show. The interviewee was a black minister who apparently has written some sort of attack on gay marriage. He was, in short a bigot. Saying exactly the kinds of things white bigots used to say about blacks, trying to excuse his bigotry because, he claimed, skin color is biology and sexual orientation isn't.

I have to say, gay marriage is an idea that had never crossed my mind until a few years ago, when it exploded onto the front pages here in Mass. The institution of marriage has never occupied much of my attention; I'd always thought of it as mostly a legal convenience for parents and not having much point otherwise. And I suppose it hadn't crossed my mind that gay people would want to marry. But the moment I encountered the idea, my immediate reaction was "Well, that's a pretty clear civil rights issue. If there are legal privileges associated with marriage, denying gay couples the right to marry violates their civil rights." Duh.

What's interesting (and would doubtless make a fundie's head spin) is that the gay marriage movement has strengthened my view of marriage. I mostly followed the gay marriage story via public radio, and the thing that struck me, repeatedly, was the longing in the voices of the couples seeking to marry. This was clearly something of tremendous import to them. As a result, I now think of marriage not as a legal convenience, but as a significant social and emotional statement — indeed, as something sacred. A much stronger view of marriage than I ever used to take

Comments

[pwaa.livejournal.com]

I totally agree about the civil rights and social and emotional statement, but I also think that above all else, marriage is a legal issue that most people who get married don't understand, and totally needs to be revised in order to make it clearer. In fact, I'd be in support of getting rid of marriage altogether (and thus with it all the rules against marriages between two people because one of them is already married, or they are too closely related, or they are the same gender).

The truth is, relationships between two individuals are each unique and "classifying" them with certain rights is an oversimplification that has caused far too much trouble. "Marriage" should be legally replaced with a set of contracts bestowing the rights people care about (hospital visitation, custody of children, etc.) and not all be lumped into something which isn't the most appropriate for most couples (hence lots of divorces). As for "marriage" the social and emotional statement, do it in a church or synagogue or on your front lawn, but don't entangle it with the law.

[ken_r]

I think it might be a good idea, but I'd be worried there'd be too many cases of rights people would've granted if they'd only thought of it in time. Or people trying to set up too-complicated arrangements. And in emergency situations, a single, standard way of determining what individual gets to make decisions concerning a person's health care could be crucial.

There are also legal obligations (not just to each other) attached to marriage that would have to be addressed in the set-of-contracts approach.

I certainly think that whatever the word used, the legal ramifications should not be mixed up in the religious aspects.

I'm with Alex -- I'd never really thought about it until it became news, but then it seemed to be almost a no-brainer. (Ya need a couple neurons firing to come up with "civil rights".)