Marriage, it’s supposed to be a term that evokes a sense of merriment and wonder. A term we use to describe the union of two people who love each other. Yet, when this word is used to describe that very same union of two people who are of the same gender, displaying this same happiness to the world, the word takes on a negative, divisive connotation. It is about rights, about dignity, and about equality; and it crushes me to know that there are people who oppose this concept that is cherished by those oppressing the few who cannot yet achieve this union.
Marriage was once considered entirely in the realm of a proclamation you made in spiritual good faith to stand by your partner, to love them and be with them for time immemorial. Millennia later, the term refers not just to its traditional roots as an evocation of one’s love; it also stands as a legal construct, a way of binding one to another in the strongest of terms. It is this that the queer community wants, we do not want to intrude on religion, only to obtain the rights that are denied to us, that should be given to each person in their turn. There are over one hundred separate rights collectively given to couples who undergo a civil marriage, these rights are not encapsulated in any other legal contract, and include power of attorney and next of kin benefits, legal rights that only the closest of bonds should grant.
To hear opponents, one could be excused for thinking gay marriage was the precursor to universal Armageddon. Opponents of gay marriage are quite fond of using overblown rhetoric, claiming that by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enact a legal contract that has been in our society for thousands of years, the almighty creator of their religion shall bring divine retribution upon us all. Thankfully, I live in a country that is not hostage to religious fundamentalism. There has been no catastrophic disaster, no unparalleled scale of death, and no retribution at all for gay couples in Canada, except that of the ignorant and the bigoted, who believe themselves to be executing the will of the divine.
It is not a difficult task to argue in favour of gay marriage. What right do any of us have to say that gays and lesbians should not have the same legal rights as the rest of society? I can think of no reason why gays and lesbians should be denied rights given to the rest of humanity, unless there is someone who would like to argue that gays and lesbians are, in fact, not human beings.
It is without dignity to tell us that we cannot marry, because it violates your religion. Religion is important; spirituality can be the foundation for a lifetime of happiness and content. What it cannot be, and continually is being used as such, is a bulwark against criticism when preaching intolerance and hatred of fellow human beings. Furthermore, the society we live in is a secular society, for better or for worse, the government and the laws cannot respect one religion over any other, including those who profess belief in no religion. We live in a world with constant grief and sorrow. With two wars and an international credit crisis upon us, why are we continually treating our fellow man with disdain and banning gay marriage?
We have an opportunity as a society to bring happiness to those who cannot express their joy, and equality to those who are not equal under the law. What right does society have to say that we shall only extend our precious rights and equality so far, that we would actively discriminate against those of us who we live and work with everyday of our lives? Please, don’t let your straight life take away my gay marriage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It do agree with everythin said. However,i've always wondred why peopl would want to get married by a church that does not want them...Even though I ask this question still rights are rights and no one should be denied their rights of Marriage.
ReplyDeleteLets remember though, marriage is a legal contract first and foremost. A lot of people assume that marriage is just the crazy thing you see in a church, but that's nothing but a religious ceremony with no actual legal power. Even religiously married couples must go to a state or provincial official and obtain a secular marriage license if they wish to apply for the legal benefits inherant to marriage.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as everyone else -- especially if they are expected to adhere to the same legal responsibilities as every other adult in society.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the history of "marriage" in human society is diverse throughout time and culture. For the *most* part, especially in Western cultures I think, "marriage" has been (and to some extent continues to be) a matter of male dominance, male privilege and a matter of property ownership and property rights. The romantic ideal that has emerged in Western societies over the past hundred years, and especially since the industrial revolution, of two people forming a loving union for the purpose of creating a modular and often a geographically isolated "family," is actually something relatively new in human experience. Prior to this, "families" were extended relationships of near-by neighbors within a local community that had histories and blood ties often going back many generations. Lets not for get that not that long ago (and still to this day in some cultures), "marriages" were arranged by dominant males within extended families to build political and economic alliances with other extended families. All this seems a bit bizarre to us but was the norm to them.
Personally, I think human beings are essentially "tribal" in their nature. Most of human history has been in tribal mode. ("History" generally focuses on the "history of civilizations" -- but human tribal history is far more ancient and less well known or understood outside anthropological circles.) Within "tribal" mode, even when "marriage" (a specific coupling) was sanctioned for whatever reason, it was subsumed within the larger social dynamic of the tribe itself. A man might have multiple wives. In some cultures a woman might have multiple husbands. Again, these relationships were often as much political and economic as they were amorous. Relationships between people weren't necessarily based on our relatively "new" concept of romantic love -- although they might be based on sexual desire. Various social rules and taboos were both enforced and broken -- just as they are today. But, in any case, what was considered "normal" in most instances was NOT one-on-one monogamy.
Continued ...
ReplyDeleteThis brings up the whole subject of homosexuality -- and, again, how this was seen and dealt with within cultures throughout time has been anything but consistent. One sort of use one's imagination to even begin to put one's self in a tribal situation where everyone knew everyone else. Everyone lived together and where, although perhaps privacy could be found, was uncommon -- and most everything was known about everyone by everybody. Attitudes towards sex had a "magical" component that, today, we would view as superstitious -- but I don't hold the common view of these things. For example, there is one tribe in New Guinea, I believe, that had the practice of male warriors passing on their strength, power and virility to younger male acolytes through ritual sodomy -- the seed of a man being part of his "soul" or "spirit." In some native American cultures, certain men were allowed to take on feminine gender roles and marry within the tribe.
The point of all this being that the way we view relationships is the way our society has conditioned us to view them. A general survey of "marriage" arrangements shows a rather wide array of behaviors. What has become dominant in contemporary Western societies (modular families) is actually a rather recent invention in terms of human history. Even our notions of homosexuality in specific but, I want to say, sexuality in general, is not driven exclusively by some "natural" or purely "instinctual" process. I believe that the "magical" view of sex is actually closer to the truth. In terms of human relations and activity it *obviously* isn't limited to mere pro-creation. This begs the question -- what IS sex (really)? But those of us in contemporary society seldom let our minds ask such deep questions; seldom see that our sexual orientation(s) are being manipulated, often for less than obvious purposes. The use of sexual desire in advertising is only one obvious example.
So . . . To my mind, the issue of gay marriage is actually yet another diversion that is put in our political midst for the primary reason of keeping us distracted from far more important concerns: Such as which classes and groups of people within the larger society are politically and economically dominant over the rest. Certainly gays and lesbians should have equal rights -- but that they do not has more to do with the *way* human beings, and in particular working class human beings, are oppressed by social hierarchies than anything else.
IMO.