Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Love ...

I'm not gay.

Some days, I think life would be easier if I were. I've surely not struck on a successful male-female equation.

But today is one of those days when I realize that there is nothing easier about being gay, not when a majority of the electorate in a state strips same-sex couples of their right to marry.

How heartbreaking.

I continue to be befuddled by the gay-marriage debate. What's the problem?

Why can't two people who love each other enough to get married get married?

I wrote the following more than four years ago. I'm still waiting for an answer:

I would truly appreciate it if someone who is not gay and who is against gay marriage could explain to me how allowing gay people to get married weakens the institution of marriage.

That seems to be the prevailing argument against granting gays the right to marry.

And I don't get it.

If churches want to ban gay marriage on Biblical grounds, that's up to the churches. But civil marriage is a legal union. It has no religious roots.

So why is it that my gay friends, who have been in loving, committed relationships for years, aren't allowed to get married because it will "weaken the institution of marriage," but Britney Spears can get married in Vegas, get it annulled 55 hours later, and basically say, "It was just a joke, y'all."

That doesn't weaken the institution of marriage?

The fact that "starter marriage" has entered our lexicon, that couples get married with a mutual shrug, saying, "Eh, if it doesn't work out, we'll just get a divorce," that doesn't weaken the institution of marriage?

Honestly, I don't get it.

I hope to get married some day. But if my friends Dick and John want to get married (they've been together longer than most straight married couples I know), how does that in any way alter what marriage will mean to me?

It doesn't. It won't.

Marriage: Two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, right?

What am I missing?

3 Comments:

Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

This is one point that we can agree on. If two people want to enter a legal contract (whatever we call it), than by all means go for it.

2:41 PM  
Blogger Rick Hamrick said...

Beth, I think the key to it is the point you make about the civil union having no religious roots.

It would seem that, for the folks I have heard vehemently opposing gay marriage, the religious roots run deeply and throughout all rules of law.

The constitution says one thing, the deeply held beliefs of those who think it is perfectly right for their beliefs to trump everyone else's because, well, this is a Christian nation, after all...that's a different thing.

Don't worry--I am not about to attempt to answer your perfectly valid question: what, truly, is the logical and calmly expressible argument for banning marriage between any two adults? I don't think there is an answer which is not a thinly veiled appeal to people's fear about people they don't understand.

One a side note: I'm still working to bring my breathing back to normal after reading that Jeff agrees with you.

Current temperature in Hell: 31 degrees F.

7:36 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

Now, now, Rick, Beth & I agree on a lot of things. We disagree on some, true, but isn't that what makes us interesting?

2:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home