So the people of North Carolina have voted to ban same-sex marriage. Well bravo for bigotry. In fact, the people of North Carolina have done more than just ban it. Same-sex marriage has been illegal in North Carolina for the past 16 years; this vote just makes it that much harder to ever get it legalized. So it’s not really a case of North Carolina stopping something that was going on because they didn’t like it, but more a matter of adding insult to injury, just out of pure spite. Not that North Carolina are alone in banning same-sex marriages – a full 30 of the 50 states have banned it. (See http://bit.ly/IE0bXZ for an interesting graphic courtesy of the UK’s Guardian newspaper.) Mostly the ones in the South, where bigotry still runs as deep and wide as the Mississippi River.
Perasonally, I don’t see what the big deal is with same-sex marriage. Given that a full 50% of marriages in the United States end in divorce, it is unlikely that the gays are likely to be any worse at it than the hetties. And I speak from experience, having failed at two “conventional” marriages already. Maybe I should consider a same-sex marriage next time – it can’t go any worse. Problem with that is I like holes not poles (to reverse quote a good friend). Maybe I could just say I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body…
What are the requirements for marriage, anyway? To love someone enough to want to spend the rest of your life with them? Is the argument that gays (and lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, just to be inclusive…) are not capable of such grand emotions? Or is it to want to “love, honor and obey” someone? Are we saying that gays incapable of loving, honoring, and obeying someone? Are gays any less capable of, or likely to be any less successful in, marriage? Of course not. The whole premise has no logical basis. Mark my words, one day it will be just as inconceivably absurd to consider GLBTs as somehow ‘inferior’ or ‘less deserving’ of such basic human rights than it was to think the same thing about blacks not that long ago. (And, again, I believe it was the South who were the last to let go of that particular fallacy. In fact, some might argue that there are pockets of it that still haven’t let go…)
As is often the case where there is no logical basis for an argument, the detractors are objecting to same-sex marriages on religious grounds, insisting that “That’s not what God intended”. But why does marriage have to be about God? (And by God, these naysayers invariably mean the Christian (“one true”) God.) Is the argument that only God can decide who can marry? What about Hindus, or Muslims, or Buddhists? Are they not allowed to get married – even to someone of the opposite sex – because they don’t do so “before (the Christian) God”? And what about atheists? Do they have to seek the approval of a deity they don’t even believe in (and under the constitution are absolutely allowed to not believe in) before they can marry? In fact, why is marriage seen as a religious thing at all, when most of the tangible benefits that it brings (spousal health coverage, hospital visitation rights, pension inheritance, etc.) are legal/fiscal (i.e. ‘civil’) concerns and not religious concerns. Aren’t we supposed to have a separation of church and state? And if so, how come the religious zealots/bigots are dictating what the State should allow? Here’s an idea. Why not call all marriages “Civil Unions”, and make that the sole legal activity, and open it up (with full and equal rights) to all people regardless of sexual orientation. Then, if people want to get their marriage ‘blessed’ in church, as an additional step, then they can go ahead and do so. And the Churchies can lay down all the rules they like on who can have their Civil Unions blessed in their churches. It won’t make the blindest bit of difference to the GLBTs who will have the full benefits of a legal Civil Union, but the Christians can still feel all smug, and superior, and holier-than-thou, safe in the knowledge that the gays aren’t corrupting their religious convictions.
And whither our President while the voters of North Carolina were unconstitutionally reinforcing the bond between church and state? Was he defending our constitutional right to the freedom to practice any religion or no religion? (Because if we choose to practice no religion, why should we be be prohibited from doing something that is “not what [someone else’s] God intended”?) Well, he was conspicuously silent. In fact, he came out (no, not like that…) the day after the North Carolina vote, saying “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married”. Well thank you Obama! This is indeed a good step in the right direction, although if he’d made that statement before the NC vote, it may have had some effect… But then he went and backed down somewhat by stating that this was his “personal view” (so, not the views of the President, the one with power and influence, but of Mr. Obama, the regular Joe who everyone is free to ignore) and that he would “respect the decisions of the individual states”. Which means that he is basically saying “Well, I think it would be nice, but if any of the States want to ignore what I think and ban same-sex marriages anyway, then I’m cool with that, too.”
So really, he’s done nothing. Again. A more cynical mind than mine might suggest that this was, in an election year, somewhat a political move designed to woo the LGBT vote at no personal cost to himself. In fact, for him, it’s a win-win. If a state heeds his words and allows same-sex marriages, he can say “Hey, I did that for you!”, and if a state rejects it, he can say “Well, you know I wanted to allow it, but it’s them other guys…” And realistically, the 30 states that have already banned same-sex marriages are unlikely to change their minds just because Mr. Obama has changed his – especially if they have done what North Carolina just did, and made it even harder to change your mind. Now if the President had said that all states should allow same-sex marriages, we’d really be getting somewhere…
But, when all is said and done, Mr Obama’s comments are a good thing (and a necessary counterpoint to NC’s shameful action), providing much-needed acknowledgement and validation for gays. Shame he’ll be out on his ass in November, because Romney will be much, much worse for anyone seeking a more ‘alternative’ lifestyle…
—
With apologies to my Christian friends. You know I love you. Just like I love my gay friends.
Leave a Reply