Marriage is a good`

There are books without end on whether marriage is limited to different gendered couples or not. Historically it is clear that there are a wide variety of marriage patterns from serial monogamy to polygamy (Israel from Scripture) as well as variations on gender (Will Roscoe has several booksthat have more than two genders for marital partners. But there's now a paper on the internet by the Institute for Progressive Christianity. Thanks to Straight not Narrow for pointing me to this document

Marriage counts

From the Petrelis Files I heard about a Republican standing up for the rights of all to marry. Given the recent history of the Republican Party this is good news. And it comes from Wyoming which isn't really noted for being at the forefront of civil rights for GLBT folk. But Rep. Dan Zwonitzer stood up when it counted. Thanks.

Oh by the way, though it shouldn't be of interest, the guy is straight.

Virginity pledges

I believe in chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage and committed relationships. But it always strickes me as somewhat incestuous when I read about dad's dating their daughters. It doesn't matter that it's a purity ball where girls are pledging their virginity. Actually that increases the 'ick' factor. I could go into a long list of reasons. But I won't. And I'll not go to any protest against these things. I just tend to think that they're irrelevant. A good class in sex ed which includes birth control methods and how to practice safe sex is more important for the physical and mental health of children turning into adults than any pledge, which if one read statistics on the number of people in the USA who have had premarital sex, is likely to be broken.

I thought I had a link to a study on premarital sexual activity that came out this year. I can't find it right now, but if I do I'll post it.

Yes - gay marriage does threaten some marriages

Here's the thing. Gay marriage is not a threat to marriage, per se. But it is a threat to some marriages. Those people who are in mixed marriages - one hetero, the other homo - will have their marriages threatened, especially when one of the partners has been living in silence about their orientation. So the religious right - that's so often wrong - do have it almost right. But not in a way that they can say.

The religious right and similar bigots are so set on having reality their way - instead of accepting reality for what it is - that they can't make their best argument for why their marriages are threatened by marriages between two people of the same gender.

Marriages like those of my parents - where both people have a mutual sexual attraction (and are attracted to each other for many other reasons) - are not going to be troubled by the marriages of other people. But marriages that were to get married in order to be respectable, in order to do the right thing, in order to hide desires that one didn't want to admit are going to be in trouble. And rightly so. If one or the other partner doesn't go into the marriage in honesty, then the honesty of other marriages will be threatening.

"Just" Discrimination

Paul Varnell at Independent Gay Forum has a good article on why just or supposedly just discrimination isn't. It's about how some say they're in favor of equal treatment until it gets to one or another hot button issues. It's the flip side to saying that little phrase I'm against giving 'special rights' and then turning around and defining any right one doesn't think should be given as a so-called special right. What's special about wanting to marry someone - a consenting adult - whom you love? i can't answer that question, since I've been unable to really figure out any other argument than "I think it's immoral - no matter what anyone else says - and I'm against it."

The vote in Massachusetts

While I am somewhat dismayed that the movement to repeal the ability for all to marry in Massachusetts, basically I say bring on the vote. Every vote brings more gay men and lesbians, more of differing gender and sexual orientations out of the closet. The road to equality has not been smooth for any who lift themselves out of opression, to think that gay men and lesbians, bisexual and transexuals will have anything less than the same amount of work is illusory. Yet with every vote and setback and step forward there is progress. More people know a gay man or lesbain than when I was growing up.

I've seen the signs of change in my family. Homophobic comments weren't rare as I grew up. Yet at a recent family reunion one of my cousins was the one in trouble when she asked (and she knew that I was gay) me, "Is anyone going to carry on your father's name?" All I answered was the truth, "Well, since I've come closer to marrying a woman than either of my brothers... and I'm gay... No, I don't think it's likely."

Twenty years ago the aunts and uncles who supported me would have been on my back and trying to change me. They're not where they need to be, but I'm not where I think I need to be. Yet there have been many steps forward.

I suspect this vote in Massachusetts will turn out very different than those who have brought forth the referendum expect. I certainly hope so. Either way it is a step forward to have the subject discussed in public rather than in whispers in the background and slurs where everyone can hear.

Strong mother and weak father

It is a mystery to me why so many ex-gay sites seem to think that gay men all have overbearing mothers and weak fathers. I suppose if it is twisted more than a little one could say that about my parents - it would be wrong. My mother was a strong woman who raised three sons and my father was a strong man who was involved with his children. In many ways my father looked more like a peacemaker than my mother. My mother was, in some ways, more involved with the church on the state and national levels, while my father was involved more with the local congregation. Yet they were both involved in many ways in the lives of their children. From my dad taking on the leadership for a Boy Scout troop - in part so their would be a troop for his sons to my mother teaching all of her sons how to cook, sew, iron and do laundry - so that they wouldn't be as helpless as her husband when they were living on their own. To both being at almost every event from school to music recitals to scouting to graduations and more; they were involved, supportive parents. They were partners in life and in the raising of their children.

And so on this day, the birthday of my father, I give thanks for both of them.

And I especially give thanks for the love my father had for my mother. Because of the evidence of that love I did not settle for marriage to a woman, even though I came close, since I just could not see the love between myself and the wonderful women who wanted to marry me. I just couldn't marry anyone without what my parents' had and so spared more than one woman the heartache of finding that the man she married was gay. And so I continue to give thanks for the love of those women and remain grateful for the care they have shown me.

Burial plans

I'd just as soon not have a grave site. I'd rather people remember me as I am instead of going to some site. But that's my preference. I have an aunt who would like to have her ashes scattered in the mountains. There are a couple of places she could be buried. One is with her first husband and a child they lost during their marriage. Another is in the plot owned by her second husband's family. But making a choice between those two places is not something she can do.

However for gay men and lesbians in a committed relationship the options are not as simple. A gay couple in Baltimore chose a site together. One of them died. The other faced a court battle in order to carry out his partner's wishes. Finally the decision came down that they could be buried together.

Those seemingly simple decisions that come along with a marriage certificate are but one reason civil unions or marriages or whatever you want to call it should be allowed for committed life partners no matter what the genders involved. It's a simple matter of justice. No special rights are being asked for, only that a couple be permitted to make decisions for each other without having to spend time, money and energy preparing documents that even then may be contested by family members who disapprove of who their relative has found as a partner in life.

Election results

I pondering the election results today. In some ways heartened, in many ways disappointed. There's still no way for me to have the responsibilities and protections of marriage if I ever find (I'm picky so it's still a dream) a life partner. And it's not that I don't trust my family to carry out my wishes, but little things like having the chain clear if I should be hospitalized and need someone to make medical decisions without having to file a ton of paperwork that might not be around when it's needed. If I have a partner - life-long commitment - then I want my partner, not my brothers to make the needed decision. It's little things like being on the medical plan of my partner and having him be on my plan. It's little things like the right of inheritance. There are a number of rights - civil rights, not religious - that come along with marriage. So far no matter how in love I am or how committed our relationship they're not available to me.

So I'm disappointed.

C.S. Lewis

Marriage - is it a civil or a christian ceremony? Andrew Sullivan found a wonderful quote from C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. The point is that the reason for civil control of marriages is different from the religious reasons for marriage. When we confuse the two we get religious leaders arguing that an approval of same-sex marriages is religious discrimination.

The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite
different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of
Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the
community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to
think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the
Mohammendans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.
My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the
British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, and the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought be to quite sharp, so that a man know which couples are married in a Christian sense and which
are not.

Those who are christian view marriage in one (acutally more than one) way but the needs of the Christian are not the same as the needs of society. I'd go further and say that even in a society where everyone is christian, the Christian view ought to be that we provide for those whose view of marriage is different. There are cogent secual arguments against marriage between partners where one is not able to consent because of age or disability. There are cogent arguments against polygamous marriages. There may even be cogent argumetns against gay marriage - though most of the arguments against same-sex marriage (please note that not all of them do this) I've heard boil down to we don't like it and we're going to provide false witness until you don't like it.

If you ask the question "is marriage a civil or religious ceremony?" then any answer is wrong. There are marriages that are one; there are marriages that are the other; there are marriages that are both.