Thursday, August 5, 2010

Let Love Win

If anyone should have an axe to grind against homosexuals marrying, it should be me.  Some, maybe most, of my readership realizes what I mean.  I truly believe that I would not have suffered my first marriage had homosexual acceptance been more widespread.

Note that I'm not saying to celebrate homosexuality or otherwise edify it.  I'm saying to give it the same amount of consideration as you would heterosexuality or any bedroom kink.  Which is to say, don't worry about it or think of it at all if it doesn't concern or interest you.

Understand that condeming homosexuals closets them.  Closeted people do foolish things to make themselves appear heterosexual to fit in with society.  Foolish things like marrying a sweet young woman.  Foolish things like trying to start a family with their new wife.  Foolish things like carrying on secret affairs and potentially exposing their naive wife to any number of STDs.  I can not accept a situation that leads people to so desperately deny who they are that they are willing to drag another person into their deception to make themselves look complete by society's standards.

Yesterday it was ruled that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional. 

Once upon a time, I actually gave a crap who could or couldn't be "married."  I mistakenly thought that homosexuals could have "civil unions" and heterosexuals could have "marriage" and everything would be fine.  I kept thinking it was just a semantics issue, but I guess it wasn't.

I can admit that I was wrong.  I was totally wrong.  I mean, as we've seen time and time again, "separate, but equal" never is truly equal.  Do people really want inequality?  I know that I don't.  And, again, this is the opinion of someone who was left with major issues about homosexuals in the wake of a painful marriage and divorce.  But my personal issues don't mean that I support inequality.

What is marriage anyway?  Basically, it's forming a legally recognized partnership within a state.  Kind of like a business.  Would we ever legislate who should be allowed to go into business?  No, we wouldn't.  And the free market would revolt against the very notion of government dictating who can form a company. 

I have heard many people say that allowing homosexuals to marry would make a mockery of marriage and that we must prevent them from marrying to protect the sanctity of marriage.  I say that is complete and utter bullsh*t.  If anyone has made a mockery of marriage, it's the heterosexuals who have had the right all along.  Seriously.  We can get what basically amounts to a drive-thru wedding ceremony and we can dissolve a marriage almost as quickly.  Speaking of such things, does not divorce in general make a mockery of the very idea of marriage being sanctified? 

Personally, I look at marriage itself as a religious rite.  I really wish that the government wasn't involved in it at all.  Unfortunately, our laws and tax code are set up to encourage certain things:  homeownership, child rearing (no gay jokes, please), and marriage.  With that in mind, why can't the government just issue civil union licenses to anyone over the age of majority?  Gay, straight, polygamist (I don't have a problem with polygamy either), everyone.  Let all of these persons enjoy the same rights and benefits.  Would anyone have a legitimate objection to this?  If there is one, I just don't see it.

If the government is issuing only civil union licenses, let marriage remain a religious rite that conveys no special societal or financial perks.  Kind of like a christening or communion ceremony.  The only people who would care to participate in such a ceremony are those who are active in a denomination or those who would like to join a congregation.  This also preserves the rights of a clergy person to accept or deny a request to perform the ceremony.

Before anyone gets their panties twisted about a clergy person denying a request to perform a ceremony, understand that they can do it right now.  Indeed, the person who conducted my second wedding ceremony didn't seem all that keen to marry us because we weren't active in a church, we'd both been married previously, and we were living together.  He actually suggested that we might as well have a judge conduct our ceremony.  Over time, we joined his congregation and won him over in our pre-marital counseling sessions.  But he absolutely had the right to discriminate against us based on our history and what was then our present state.

Ultimately, if homosexuals are willing to make the same commitment that heterosexuals make, why shouldn't they be able to do so?  They should.  And, if they are willing to make the same commitment, why should they be refused the same rights and benefits?  They shouldn't be denied. 

I can't lie; I wouldn't exactly do cartwheels if my son ended up being a homosexual and I also wouldn't be thrilled if he blazed a path across the bedrooms of countless women.  But I wouldn't want him to be punished for either and I'll still love my son no matter what.

Live and let live and let love live.  Yesterday's decision wasn't a judgement against hate.  It was a victory for love.


  1. Seconded. I agree with you whole heartedly.

  2. Ooooh Heather, this is a very good post! Well written and backed up with logical thought. At least I think so. One thing to remember, civil rights is backed up by the Constitution. According to the San Francisco judge this is a civil rights issue. Civil rights cannot be voted down by a State.

  3. Thank you Shannon and Aunt Lorrie for your kind words of support. And, Aunt Lorrie, you're right that civil rights can't be voted against - even if it's the tyranny of the majority. I don't exactly wave a rainbow flag, but I do believe in equal rights.