Diaries I Read:
I�m about to share an opinion that is likely to make me unpopular in the online journaling world. Oh well, it�s not like I had a huge audience to begin with.
I�ve been reading a lot of opinions online about gay marriage, so I know that I am in the minority of this particular community. I am against gay marriage.
I�ve been contemplating writing on this topic for a few weeks and I�ve avoided it, partly because I didn�t think I could articulate my ideas as effectively as I really wanted to. And I guess I also avoided it because I didn�t want to be the dissenter. Oh well, I will be brief.
I will admit that many of my feelings on the issue are grounded in my religious beliefs. Marriage is defined in the Bible as the union between a man and a woman. However, I realize that I cannot use that argument when we�re discussing the issue in legal terms. Separation of church and state � yeah, I�ve got that.
But marriage has also been defined throughout history as the union between a man and a woman. However you want to slice it, historically marriage has been the basis for family � meaning its purpose is to spawn children and thus it follows that it involves a man and a woman � and there are few deviations from this norm if you look across cultures and religions throughout history.
I DO think that legalizing gay marriages will undermine, if not demolish, the sanctity of marriage. I think that it will have far-reaching effects and it will change the course of American history (and perhaps the history of humankind) for generations to come. And not in a positive way. However, I also recognize the irony in this argument about preserving the sanctity of marriage. Because frankly, generally speaking, marriage has already lost its sanctity in American society. When 50% of marriages end in divorce and you have shows like �Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?� and celebrities like Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez making a mockery of the institution of marriage, it�s apparent that marriage itself is already in a downward spiral.
However, while I am aware of this irony, I am still opposed to actually making the degradation of marriage official and legal. I am, as I said, opposed to gay marriage and will use my vote to preserve the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
That said, I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed equal civil rights and benefits. I�m all for granting them all the �perks� of marriage. I just don�t think they should call it �marriage.� Call it what you want � a civil union, whatever. I think gay people should continue having commitment ceremonies, receptions; they should register at Crate & Barrel if they want to. But just don�t call it �marriage.� Because it�s not. I realize that gay couples share a deep love for one another. But it�s still not a �marriage� if it�s not between a man and a woman.
And with that said, I will go one step further and say that, if gay couples are allowed to form �civil unions,� then I think that any group of people should be able to form them. For instance, I have a good friend who may very well never get married. Not because she�s gay, just because she�s picky and has had bad luck with men. So who�s to say she can�t grab one of her buddies, form a civil union, buy a house together, benefit from her friend�s employer�s health benefits, etc. Same goes for me and my mom. Let�s say (God forbid) that both my mom and I were widowed. Shouldn�t I be able to form a civil union with her so that she could receive my medical benefits, tax benefits, etc.?
And here�s why I finally decided to post this at all. Somebody forwarded this e-mail to me, and I think it captures my point exactly. I don�t take credit for the �joke,� if that�s what you want to call it. I realize that this isn�t going to convince those on the other side of the issue, but here goes anyway.
Following is a scene from City Hall in San Francisco:
"Next."
�Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same-gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
And that�s all I�m going to say on the issue (probably).
Working at home - Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2004
Toronto - Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2004
On the way to Toronto... - Tuesday, Nov. 09, 2004
A Good Day - Monday, Nov. 08, 2004
Another letter - Thursday, Nov. 04, 2004