March 06, 2004
The Nation is Sinking, Save the Sacred Institutions First
There are more than a few times every week now when I think about how lucky I am that I found my fourth wife. My third wife divorced me after her miraculous recovery from an illness that she had shown no signs of before we were married. My second wife was still calling me up weekly and asking for more child support. Eventually she tired of that and sent me the kids to finish raising. Fair enough, her turn had lasted until they were teenagers; mine will apparently never end for which I am occasionally grateful. When I see my grandkids for instance, or they graduate from college or get a job that will give them some valuable experience.
My first wife was a sweet young girl when we got married and I was a high testosterone jerk with a serious attitude. We both breathed a sigh of relief when she decided to leave me in charge of my only asset, my aggressiveness. I could never be aggressive around her so I found myself tied in knots every time I raised my voice and that “I am in pain” look crossed her face. Life with Nene is the best, and the only time that I ever felt like marriage fitted me properly.
Now I find myself bemused by an ill-read President’s defense of an institution more honored in this nation in the breach than otherwise. I am talking about Marriage and Divorce if you can’t tell. Divorce is so painful that the only way to deal with it is to keep laughing whenever you can. Marriage is mostly more fun than Divorce. Marriage is most fun for men if you just sneak off and do it in the dark of night. Women are more fond of the ceremony; men just want the comfort of knowing that someone is always there. Men often need a wife to bind their wounds and send them back out into the fray. Today, she probably has her own career, and may need a little binding herself daily.
In my experience most of the damage to marriage occurs because of failed communication processes. The second greatest problem in marriage is money. The third is probably sex or child rearing or one of the other endemic difficulties that descend on you when marriage gets real. In spite of 3 divorces, marriage has finally worked out for me. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get the government off my lesbian daughter’s back so she can marry her partner when they decide to tie the knot.
You see marriage has not always been such a solemn institution as this President seems to think it should be now. Jumping over the broom together was enough in Britain in years gone by. Divorce consisted of one party jumping over a dead cat, which brought death between them. Only the Church tried to sanctify marriage and though it often succeeded it also quite often failed. Marriage in the upper classes was more about economic liaisons that anything else. The modern idea of romantic love as a basis for marriage would have been laughed out of town in a village in the middle ages. What part of this history does this President neglect when he tries to make this adaptable and venerable institution rigid and a tool of economic suppression?
My daughter and her partner exist without any legal standing in regard to building their life together. They have stayed together longer than I and all of my first three wives combined lived on the same side of the cat. My daughter has completed her military service, and graduated from a great college as has her partner since they got together. I doubt that their sexual acts are anybody’s business but their own. But their love and their economic future are tied up in the way this nation discriminates against people of the same sex who love one another. Romantic love for a young pretty woman that lasted a couple of years was a perfectly legal basis of marriage for me.
But romantic love and dedication to a relationship that has survived several years is not any basis for marriage for her. How else can that be described except as the formalization of prejudice into law? That the prejudice in our nation against relationships between people of the same sex is religious in source cannot be doubted. I certainly remember the tales of Sodom and Gomorrah and the horror on the nuns face when one of the kids in the class asked what those people were doing that made God kill them all. How are we really going to reconcile installing religion based prejudice in our Constitution with that great document’s denial of any governmental recognition of religion?
Perhaps we will all grow up a little in the coming years while the fate of my daughter and her lovely intelligent partner is debated by those who know nothing beyond their own prejudices. Meanwhile I have to watch her be used as a tool of Karl Rove’s drive to reelect this incompetent leader we have today. It makes me wish that life was as simple as it was a hundred years ago, when bitch slapping a jerk like Karl would have gotten me a beating by police and a few days in jail. Now I would probably be shipped off to Cuba and interred with another class of people who are being denied basic human rights. In any case I hope the great people of this nation find their balance once again and refuse to damage our Constitution by installing prejudice in its bosom. God bless and keep you all safe from the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah whose civilization was destroyed, some say by the hand of God, others by earthquake and volcanic fire. If ours is destroyed as it may ultimately be, it will not be destroyed by the hand of God, sHe has gone out of the destruction business the last time I checked. We no longer need God’s help to destroy ourselves. Our nation will far more likely be destroyed by the force of our own prejudices and the dominance of hatred and ignorance over love of our fellow man than any act of God. God bless you all, even Karl and if you can ask Dick Cheney how he can sleep at night while these devious men he works with harm his daughter in this way.
If only others, particularly those in government, could see an issue and present it as you do.
I fail to comprehend how religion-based prejudice is so easily allowed to enter public policy issues. And it’s ironic, considering how at the same time we’re trying to minimize the role of Islam in Iraq’s new constitution. Just as we are trying to prevent Islamic law from being used to justify discrimination of women, we need to prevent Christian theology from hijacking our secular body of laws. Just as we are trying to prevent the Shiites from overpowering other factions in Iraq, we need to stop the Christian right from dictating morals and behavior for all Americans.
The reality of today is that same sex couples exist—they love each other, they live together, they build lives together. The laws need to protect this union just as it does for heterosexual couples. They need to have the same parental rights and obligations; the same communal property and inheritance rights; custodial/living will enactment rights; etc. that hetero couples gain through marriage.
Some may not agree with same-sex marriage. But there are those who don’t approve of marrying outside one’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic background, etc. Does that mean that these should be banned, too? Of course not, we’d say today. But many such relationships were also banned in the past due to “traditional” values.
We need to fight against the idea of legislating hate and prejudice into the Constitution. This is just the latest—and certainly not the last— attempt of the Christian-majority to rewrite the founding principles of this nation and create a religious state. Everywhere, the Christian right is trying to force their will upon all, Constitution be damned. Trying to remove evolution from science classes, fighting to keep religious documents displayed in public buildings, prayer in schoolss, etc. Now, rather then fight against the Constitution, they are simply trying to rewrite it.
THE CHRISTIAN MAJORITY???? Give me a break, Isn’t this country (and its government) founded on christian principles? Better yet, doesn’t “majority rule” dictate the course of democracy? We all seem to forget that the constitution creates as “sepersation of church and state”, therefore it would be unconstitutional to pass an amendment that usurped and/or superceeded the beliefs on any recognized religion. One need not agree with the idea of same sex marriage to realize that the government has absolutely no right to say who one marries, regardless of race,creed, color or sexual orientation.
Posted by: Dennis at March 6, 2004 09:14 PMHenri,
Your passionate words made me conjure up a subconscious revelation, I guess I absorbed thru movies, books or history.
In generations before my parents, I assumed divorce was as much a taboo as a baby out of wedlock. Info from a Google search found that in 1880, the divorce rate was 1 in 21 marriages; by 1916, it was up to 1 in 9 marriages.
A study of divorce among same-sex couples in Denmark found the rate at 17% as oppose to 45% among heteros. As a gay man, this comes as no surprise to me.
We in the gay community, do not have the societal, familial and peer pressure to get married and/or procreate. Therefore, when a same-sex couple makes a commitment, it’s for real and probably forever.
Do you think this kind information would sway opponents, like the many who post comments here? Or, would it make them jealous and piss them off even more?
P.S.- Great point, blipsman, about religion and govt. here and in Iraq!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 6, 2004 10:52 PMAn impressive personal perspective on the issue, Henri. I have tried to imagine romantic love during the medieval period without baths, or oral hygiene, with critter infested straw bedding and scourges like the plague and cholera popping up unpredictably here and there - just doesn’t work. Now the Romans and Greeks, well, that is another issue, sort of.
I read an enlightening bit of research some 20 or so years ago by someone burning midnight oil for their Ph.D. on the historical significance of the rise of homosexuality as precursor to the end of all great civilizations. The case made was not of cause and effect. The case made was that all great civilizations which reach a level of recognition and defense of the individual’s preferences en masse, over those of tradition and customs, seems always to be integral in the causes of demise for great civilizations.
Wish I had a copy of that. It was quite compelling and would have applicability to this discussion. Again no cause and effect was established or sought. The rise of homosexuality in a society appears to be an historical precursor or symptom of much greater problems creating the demise of great societies and civiliations. Of course, democracy such as ours has never existed in history, so perhaps, ours will be an historical anomoly, despite appearances to the contrary.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2004 11:42 PMI think truly religious christians should consider homosexuality a minor matter at best. It is only consider in maybe a handful of places in the bible, where other, more prevalent issues dominate. The bible has more to say about people’s greed and iniquity to the poor than about gay sex. Christ, as far as I can find, doesn’t really discuss the issue.
Anyways, nature takes care of the issue most of the time. Men go with women, women go
with men. I don’t see the point in trying to save humanity from a practice most people are naturally inclined not to take up.
I’m a conservative. *wince*
I’m a Christian. *gasp*
However, I am an American citizen and I understand that the rights I enjoy are available to everyone, regardless of whether or not we agree.
On the other hand, marriage is a sacred institution. It was given to society by religion and original defined by religion - it’s “intolerant” for homosexuals to try and hijack the concept.
As far as I’m concerned, the Constitution should allow for any two adults (regardless of what they do in the bedroom) to apply for joint rights of whatever kind. This would obviously include marriage as well as homosexual unions.
On the other hand, marriage is what it is: a man and a woman joined for life. Like any sacred institution, it has been shown disrepsect throughout history; from economic and political alliances, to reality TV, to the idea that you can go through 3 wives to gain experience for the fourth - marriage has always been under assualt by those who do not take it seriously.
(Comment deleted for violating our stated policy - WatchBlog Manager) Bush is moving to protect the institution of marriage because marriage is what it is. It is an encroachment on the rights of those who still hold it dear to hijack the concept and redefine it.
Posted by: Jacob Morse at March 8, 2004 08:40 PMDon’t you love the people that say…”I don’t have any problem with gays, but they can’t have marriage…”
you clearly do have a problem with it.
People don’t want to seem callous or cruel or bigoted or racist or all those things…..so they start all of their arguments with “I have nothin against em, but….”
and then something about Jesus said…..
so on so fourth……look, in America, it’s your given right not to like people.
however, I respect people’s right to live their life….and all I ask in return is to be left alone to live mine.
people always think we have to accept an idea or a belief…..no…we just have to tolerate it. we have the right to say “hey, not my cup of coffee but as long as it doesn’t involve murder or kids…..what two adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own affair.
Like it, don’t like it….that’s your choice.
But to prohibit it for someone else….that’s the real sacrilege.
Marriage licenses granted by your local government have absolutely nothing to do with a “sacred institution”. It has to do with the rights our society feels consenting couples in committed relationships deserve. This isn’t to promote procreation or some sort of over-arching morality. It is a matter of ethics, of societal stability, and the common understanding that lasting, caring relationships are not only good for the whole, but are worthy of granting these rights. Conservatives always back this argument into the insane conclusion that brothers and sisters will marry, that polygamy is next, and then the real scared ones cry of bestiality. Why is it so hard for people to understand that there are literally millions of gay people in this country, and letting them marry will not change that. What it will change is the acknowledgement that their relationships mean something, that they mean as much as heterosexual relationships do, and that commitment and caring matters - regardless of orientation. At the same time, does the right really believe that there are millions of would-be polygamists just chomping at the bit to open the floodgates of marriage, much less brothers and sisters just dying to tie the knot? Even if there were, these relationships decrease stability and increase medical concerns, respectively. They aren’t even in the same category as gay marriage. Those against gay marriage have nothing to stand on but a skewed interpretation of the semantics of marriage, religious beliefs, and simple bigotry. In the end, gay marriage can only make our society stronger, unlike divorce and adultery. Suffrage and civil rights fought the same narrow minds, and won. It’s only a matter of time with this as well.
I say marige is for the church. Let’s stop having the government meddling in marriage. Everyone should be allowed to be civally unified, that is it. Get married in the church of your choice. If marriage is that important to any homosexuals they will have no trouble finding a church to marry them.
By the way, that also means no marriage for the hetrosexuals either, at least not by the government.
martin
Either way your solution is an exercise in semantics. Whether you lower or raise the bar, equality is the goal - no matter what you call it. Many people just can’t accept that, yet aren’t willing to admit why.
Posted by: DaveO at March 9, 2004 06:22 PMI’m a conservative too…
I’m a Christian too…
I am not afraid to state my opinion. I personally believe exactly what David mentioned. I have also seen the thesis that he spoke of, though I cannot for the life of me seem to find it with Google searches.
I think Gay couples are the blaring red flag in the decline of our society. The Gay agenda seeks to trivialize any next step in “freedoms” and “rights” because the issue lends itself to credibility when you discuss it. Are there millions of polygamists chomping at the bit to marry legally. No. Need there be? Need there be a hundred thousand, or ten-thousand, or say maybe a hundred. If two men say they love each other and cannot be denied the legal status of marriage, then there WILL BE a next step whether the Gay community wants to admit it or not. Until today, the line has been drawn at man and woman. The line is not being moved, it is being erased.
I’m not concerned with Gay marriage, I “personally” think it’s ridiculous and would never vote in favor of it, but if it passes… cest la vi - no skin off my back.
What I “AM” concerned with is what comes next. I think deep down inside people know that something will come next, something will come of this new freedom of persons to marry. What I fear of most is NAMBLA. When you have an issue like this, where the boundaries of accepted society get stretched, you make room for more rottenness inside. Are there millions of NAMBLA pedophiles chomping at the bit to marry their sons? No, at least I hope not. Need there be? Need there be 10, nope, just one, and the ACLU who says it doesn’t condone NAMBLA, yet spends millions of dollars defending their rights, will swoop in and convince a radical judge on the 9th circuit court to pass a “NEW” tolerance law sanctioning the union of Man and Boy, so long as pedophilia cannot be proven.
Guess what, I’m intolerant. I’m not okay that this opens the door to something that is guaranteed to be worse than just Gay marriage, and it does OPEN THE DOOR. Just like Rosa Parks moving to the front of the bus, she wasn’t looking to rebel against the racist policies on behalf of the chinese community, but rest assured, her actions started a wave of “Civil Rights” that affected all races in America forever.
Legalize Gay marriage, and you will start a slow but tangible new wave of secular “Civil Rights” that will wash over this society and remove any and all of the final moral remnants that most of the conservative community is laughably expecting to last through the secular onslaught. Morals won’t last, and just like every major civilization before, we will become overrun by “if it feels good, do it…” and the U.S. will die as a nation… for no other reason than the lack of boundaries and the outlawing of people to stand up and say, “I’m not okay with that behavior,” and all under the false guise of tolerance.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at March 10, 2004 02:34 AMThe issue to me is not gay marriage—-though thats what everyone wants to talk about. The REAL issue is this: Should our society have any restrictions on marriage?
Currently, one restriction is that marriage must be between man and woman, as opposed to woman/woman or man/man. Some may agree with this restriction while others may disagree. But the issue is whether to allow a restriction of marriage. The issue is NOT which restrictions to allow.
Most agree with restrictions to marriage. For instance, most Americans do not support polygamy, which is simply a different restriction on marriage. It restricts not who can get married, but rather, how many can get married.
There are other restrictions to marriage as well. No one that I know of supports the ability to marry an inanimate object (a car etc), nor a pet, nor a sibling, child or parent.These are simply restrictions to marriage.
The issue is whether to restrict marriage in any way. To focus only on which specific restrictions one might agree or disagree with is to miss the larger issue.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 10, 2004 09:09 AMYou know, it just ocurred to me that this argument toward a definition of marriage from the government borders on the ridiculous. There are 2 points that made think this. 1) Supposedly we have what is known as the separation of church and state. I haven’t bothered to look because it seems that idea got blurred somewhere along the line. 2) If you look at the History of Marriage as an institution, it was essentially established by the church.
So why not just let the respective churches make the decision? Having lawmakers with differing religious views and politics make it just seems so stupid. The end result would basically be what is happening now: As a whole, most churches (like most cities/states) won’t allow it, but some progressive minded churches (and mayors apparently) will see fit to allow their brethren to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who cares if they’re gay? They’re Americans and should be afforded the exact same rights as everyone else.
Posted by: JT at March 10, 2004 02:23 PMyukon jack-
I have to disagree with your premise; that our government should be in the bussiness of deciding morality. You talk about how or morals won’t last, because we won’t— “stand up and say, “I’m not okay with that behavior.” Well YJ stand up and say it! You are allowed to do that. You don’t have to like what other people are doing, but as long as they are not hurting you thats all you can do.
joebagodonuts-
you have to have restrictions on marriage, because people can and will abuse the right marry however they want. What allowing gay marriage does is make everyone equal. Two people can marry. That’s it. That is the way it has always been in this country, so why do people keep talking about polygamy? Polygamy would redifine what marriage is, it would allow you to marry as many people as you wanted. Well marriage (as far as the government should be concerned) is just part of a tax law. If you add extra people into the mix who decides medical issues? Who gets the kids? As long as marriage is between two people it makes no difference what sex they are! That is a religous issue.
martin
you know….if armageddon hits, are people seriously going to think…”man, if only we didn’t allow gay marriage…..”
i’m more worried about nuclear war, or the rapid deterioration of our environment….
let’s stay focused folks….
Posted by: rob at March 10, 2004 02:48 PMI notice that everyone is saying that marriage means so little nowadays that extending it to gay marriage is no big deal. Marriage started meaning a lot less when divorce laws were changed to make it painless and easy. Its worth noting that the same community groups who say gay marriage would change the nature of marriage were the same groups that opposed easier divorce. They turned out to be right. Is it possible that they are going to be right again?
Posted by: researcher at March 10, 2004 03:17 PMMartin:
I take exception to your point that “polygamy would redefine what marriage is”, while at the same time saying that gay marriage would not do so. Either both would redefine it or neither would. But you cannot simply say that defining HOW MANY can get married is any different than say WHO can get married. They both define the institution.
And, by the way, the reason so many bring up polygamy is that polygamy is in the news currently. It is not some far fetched wacky notion, but rather one that is here and now. For instance, there is a court case in Utah currently where the exact same arguments for gay marriage are being used to bolster an argument for polygamy.
The bottom line, Martin, is this: You are comfortable having restrictions to marriage as long as they are YOUR restrictions.
Posted by: joebagonuts at March 10, 2004 03:32 PM“But you cannot simply say that defining HOW MANY can get married is any different than say WHO can get married. They both define the institution.”
I guess what I am trying to say is marriage is between two people, and it descrimanates if two people cannont be marriad.
if marriage was between more than two people, and only men could have two wives but women could have but one husband that would also descrimanate. no matter if you argue it or not, polygamy and gay marriage in my mind are different issues, we’ll see what the court has to say.
And by the way the bottom line for me is that I don’t think that marriage should be something the gov. is so involved in, leave it to religion, the gov. can make people unified if it wants, for tax reasons and the lot, but please, this is not that important.
“There are more than a few times every week now when I think about how lucky I am that I found my fourth wife”
henri- just wanted you to know how funny I thaught that first line was, it could be a headline on one of those fake newspapers:)
Posted by: martin at March 10, 2004 04:53 PMMartin:
Thanks for clarifying, but I still dont understand why you stand on the principle of marriage being between two people. It seems to me that its inconsistent to put a restriction on the number of people, but not on what sex they are. That simply makes one restriction acceptable but not the other.
Also, many out there are saying marriage is really just a partnership contract, and many partnerships have more than two participants.
Martin, I am not in favor of gay marriage, nor am i in favor of polygamy. But i feel i am consistent in my desire to have restrictions on marriage, while you seem to want only certain restrictions. And that is something i do not understand.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 10, 2004 05:14 PMjoe-
you really don’t understand? you say you beleive in restrictions for marriage, how would you feel if only people of the same sex were allowed to marry?
saying that you don’t beleave gays should be allowed to marry is the same thing as saying that black people should not be allowed to marry white people. it is not like that, it is the same. and it is a restriction that has been changed. you have to concede that change is what stops discrimanation.
joe, i have been with my (female) partner for many years, I am not married, I think that marriage should be a religous institution, and I am not religous, but our government does marry people, so I think if they are going to that, they better not discriminate, based on sexual orientation.
“But i feel i am consistent in my desire to have restrictions on marriage, while you seem to want only certain restrictions.”
so do you joe, you only want certian restrictions.
Posted by: martin at March 11, 2004 05:23 PMI take back what I said about polygamy. My assumption that polygamy decreases the stability of society highlights my own learned bigotry, and gives insight to the opposition to gay marriage. However same sex versus more than two people is a fundamentally different argument, and I suppose we will see where that argument goes in the future. But concerning NAMBLA, the anti gay marriage argument competently falls flat. There have been and will continue to be legislation protecting (and limiting) the rights of children. There is an ethically measurable and understood value to these laws, which allowing gay marriage will have no influence over changing them. To argue this is nothing more than using scare tactics, and is unfortunate when we are talking about increasing equality over legislating discrimination.
