Sigh, that's my Bush...

[thehefner]

I'm sure we're gonna see plenty of angry LJ posts in the next 24 hours over Bush's comments. But I mean, really, is anyone surprised? Anyone? Anyone at all?

See, what I'm wondering about is why no one has brought up that the "institution of marriage" was one that had its basis not in love or romance, but, if I'm not mistaken, purely as a business transaction. It was created (or at the very least utilized throughout history more often than not) as a way for families to pool their money together. Marriage is the original corporate merger, and it wasn't until poets and writers got their hands into it that it could have been seen purely as a romantic endevour, although even then... Perhaps I am mistaken, and if so please do fill me in.

Were the roots of marrige purely based in love and romance for the union between a man and a woman, then I could sooner understand and sympathize with those who oppose gay marriage. And while I am not a pro-gay-marriage activist per se, I really don't see how their getting married affects me either way.

But then, I know that here I, much like everyone else on this list, is preaching to the choir.

Comments

Married to the Mob

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

I'm with you, pretty much. Quite in favor of it, but not in favor of it enough to become an activist.

Understanding marriage requires more historical expertise than I have. But also probably a bit of biology. My impression is that we humans are at our most efficient, so to speak, when we're marrying; to do otherwise is to be "fighting uphill". Our drives are such that if we don't marry exactly one other human of the opposite gender, then in the very general sense, natural odds are against us. Polygamy makes the polygamees less important to the polygamer. Children are adversely affected by divorce. People who live together for a long period and are romantic but decline to make it official are practically married; some sort of familial bond has likely formed anyway.

In the case of homosexuals, the biggest barrier - being born that way (and yes, I have no problem believing it's as natural an occurrence as lactose intolerance or perfect recall) - is past, and it's probably not against natural odds to get married. Nor to stay unmarried. Actually, I haven't seen enough to decide whether marriage is helpful or damaging to the part of society that is gay, and I frankly wish it would be allowed so we can all find out.

I don't think this marriage amendment will pass. If it were the perfectly designed pro-heterosexual amendment, it might. But there's too many other things wrong with it. Not the least of which is timing. All it could do is serve as a tool to get Kerry elected, but you wouldn't then see an amendment defining marriage between two adults of any gender.

Re: Married to the Mob

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but as far as I understand it, even Kerry's opposed to gay marrige, "civil unions only." Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. I think only Kucinich (sp?) and Sharpton (interestingly enough) are pro-Gay marriage. Those two, and Nader.

And uh... forgive my ignorance, but who are you?

Re: Married to the Mob

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Gets Kerry elected, as in the Dems market the hell out of this in order to demonize Bush. They'll say "at least Kerry is for civil unions". Your point stands, however; they might actually play it down, or at least decline to play it up.

I carried you off stage. Howdy. :-)

Re: Married to the Mob

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Ah! My good man, a pleasure to have you here! You shall be added to friends list post-haste.

And we'll just have to see where Kerry goes with this, 'cause his target demographic ain't gonna just accept "civil unions."

Re: Married to the Mob

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Actually, they might have accepted civil unions, if conservatives had made the offer. But they didn't, and now activists have forced the marriage issue, which they may win.

I hate the fact that the real reason that conservatives wish to "defend" marriage is that they've mixed up marriage's religious implications with its political ones. Marriage is, at least to the federal government, a purely secular institution. It has a thin layer of religion on it, and most people believe that a religious officiant is required at a marriage. Since the government is in absolutely no position to regulate what is and is not a religion, you can get married in the First Church of Tom Purdue this afternoon, assuming you can get some local guy to give you a license. What's been going on in San Francisco is that the guy has been ordered to give licenses.

But no, the conservatives had to go and fight for their religious illusion on marriage, and for that they're going to lose it. A civil union has a serious problem compared to marriage. Because it's a new thing, it doesn't really come under the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitition, which means that unionated in Vermont doesn't make you married in Maryland. A marriage allows that.

Gay activists might have accepted civil unions, if the federal government passed rules making them accepted in different states. Of course there are those who would fight for actual marriage, bizarrely enough becuase of their own religious convictions, but they'd lose a lot of power once the key rights had been granted.

Kerry can't afford to be pro-gay-marriage, not if he wants to catch the moderate vote. The moderates in this country are generally live-and-let-live, which extends as far as civil unions but not to marriage.

Gay marriage _is_ a fundamental change to the way this country works. The Founding Fathers would have put a one-man-one-woman clause in the Constitution if it had occurred to them, but fortunately it didn't. The country changed out from under them, and now the existing text can, and should, be made to carry gay marriages.

Moderates would have accepted civil unions because they're very non-threatening. A civil union doesn't put your marriage in the same class with homosexuals, even if it is equivalent. But separate is rarely equal, and gay activists are fighting for equality.

I don't believe that banning gay marriage constitutes discrimination, but it will violate the full-faith-and-credit clause. Actually, it _does_ constitute discrimination, but marriage laws are full of legal discriminations. Cousins who may not marry feel discriminated against, but they're free to move to Florida, and when they move back to Maryland they're still married.

The same will apply to gay marriages in Massachusetts. It probably won't happen in California, since these marriages are a violation of state law. Discrimination, to be sure, but legal discrimination.