Oh no, not another article about same-sex marriage. Hasn't the subject been done to death? Can't we just give it a rest?
Good idea. I’m sure the African American struggle for civil rights was done to death, too. The farm workers’ battle for a living wage?
Bo-ring! And what about the war we Jews fight against Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism? Dayenu.
When it comes to the denial of civil rights to an entire class of people, there is no rest. There is only struggle until those rights are granted.
To those who voted for Proposition 8, to those who believe same-sex marriage will destroy civilization, to those who think the way to defend marriage is to deny it to millions, I say: You are wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong.
Dismantling the arguments against same-sex marriage is so easy, I’m still astonished Prop. 8 won. To me, its passage (and subsequent Supreme Court validation) was a mass disavowal of logic, reason and fairness.
For starters, though most people wed in a church or synagogue, marriage is a civil institution, a contract granted by the state. As a contract, it is — or should be — no more subject to religious interjection than any other civil contract. That is to say, not at all.
Which means it must be available to every citizen. Depriving gay and lesbian couples that right is identical to forbidding interracial marriage. The two are equally bogus prohibitions, too often premised on Scripture.
And Scripture has no place in the writing of laws or as a weapon to limit equality among citizens. Maybe you can get away with that in Saudi Arabia, but not here.
Even if religion could intrude on civil contracts, arguing that society must uphold traditional marriage is absurd. Who decides what constitutes tradition? In the Bible, men were polygamous. In later centuries, marriage was a business deal struck by patriarchs and matchmakers.
Women were chattel. Dowries, not love, determined who ended up with whom. Husbands could beat their wives with impunity because women belonged to the men. Not long ago, the law forbade blacks and whites to marry.
All formerly tradition. All discredited hogwash.
Those who view marriage as a timeless, changeless institution should admit the obvious. It does change. And now it’s long past time for marriage to change again.
Last month I covered the San Francisco protest, march and rally following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop. 8. Though careful to maintain my impassive reporter’s demeanor, I was moved by the crowds on Market Street chanting their fury. I saw the hurt in the eyes of one woman who charged the barricades at the Supreme Court, which had denied her civil rights hours earlier.
But instead of the sturm and drang of a street protest, better to share a quick portrait of Liz and Ronnie, my mothers-in-law (true, Robyn and I are not married, but after 12 years together, it feels like we are — and her mom, Liz, and Liz’s wife, Ronnie, are family to me).
Liz is a retired therapist, Ronnie a retired pediatrician. Between them they have 10 children and I still can’t count how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Their Berkeley home is the hub of this extended family, and I know of no place else on Earth where I feel as safe or as loved.
Liz and Ronnie’s legal wedding last year was a day of joy for all of us in the clan. I sat there with Robyn, pondering the commitment to love and family these two live every day.
I support any religious institution’s right to forbid same-sex weddings within its sanctuaries. I know of no one in the LGBT community who argues otherwise. Religious freedom would remain as strong as ever with legal same-sex marriage.
Nothing bad will happen if gay and lesbian couples marry. Only good.
Whatever arguments people make in disagreement with these sentiments will likely be grounded, at least in part, in religion. Sorry, but that holds no water whatsoever. Not in this free, secular and ostensibly equitable society. And not for this Jew.
But if, after it’s legal, the notion of same-sex marriage still sticks in your craw, still drives you nuts, I have the perfect solution for you: Don’t have one.
Dan Pine can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
All
06/11/2009 at 11:14 PM
Dan Pine, like so many other advocates of extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, seems to find the “right” so obvious that there’s no need to find it in the law. Neither Mr. Pine nor the vocal opponents of Prop 8 have explained why, if the state can (as it does) deny an aunt the chance to marry her nephew and deny a brother the chance to marry his sister—- regardless of how much in love they are—the state cannot also maintain the definition of marriage as a heterosexual union. As to Mr. Pine’s argument about “contract”, there are also plenty of laws saying who can and can’t make one. The Constitution isn’t altered by Pine’s opinion that his lady friend’s mother and her partner are nice people.
Login to reply to this comment or post your own06/12/2009 at 09:41 AM
Oy, emat. Equating the love of two non-biologically-related, consenting adults, that are gay, with hypothetical perversions like aunts and nephews. It’s such a silly argument at best, and insipid and even perverse in and of itself. We gays have suffered worse associations for millenia, such as being equal to whores, thieves, and sodomites in the Bible, and the Nazi’s horrid take on Jews. We were right there with you in the concentration camps and have a pink triangle to prove it.
We are actually already equal to the highest forms of love, honor, and commitment in a true society, and we wish to receive those rights in the letter of the law. There are 170-some rights and responsibilities that we do not currently have under existing law. That is a fact that must be overcome, and will be. There is no truthful argument against it, only unsubstantial concoctions such as that you offered.
Login to reply to this comment or post your own06/22/2009 at 03:13 PM
then fight for “those rights in the letter of the law” or what is otherwise called a “civil union”.
Login to reply to this comment or post your ownAt the same time, however, please don’t try to redefine the word or concept of marriage—it does not belong to the state, but to the people, and the people have spoken clearly enough: marriage is between one man and one woman.
I also agree with you that comparing you to all sorts of deviant and perverse forms of relationships is quite unfair, and does not serve either side of the argument well. Why not compare it instead to polygamy, as it fits your criteria of an acceptable relationship almost verbatim: “non-biologically-related, consenting adults”. You might argue that it’s not exactly “two”, but the others involved are also adults, and also presumably consenting. And I’d say it’s a lot more ‘natural’ and even has a lot of precedent, both in history and in nature. Shouldn’t the definition of marriage and the legal rights be expanded to polygamists before they are extended to gays?