knowing when to give up...

I've been in the midst of a nasty gay marriage argument over in Fannie's Room. Somewhere between being shot down again after I had listed several sources from (what I believe) are reputable, scholarly sources and being called close-minded (for vowing not to change my stance on gay marriage) I realized that it was pointless to argue. Pointless to try to reason my way to a bunch of men who the issue doesn't, and will never, affect. They sit in their safe, male comfortable heterosexual priveleged worlds and victimize themselves. For surely, their world will crumble if two loving partners are allowed to marry. Similar to the way white men often paint themselves as victims in the war against white racism. (which is another myth I will get to later). men who are afraid to let go of perhaps a tiny bit of their power. or are scared of change, when they don't realize that change can often be a very good thing.

I could go on and on about their arguments and our counter-arguments. and their counter-counter arguments... ad nauseum.

but i fear they would come to this blog and see an opportunity for more arguments.

thus, i am throwing in the towel with that particular group and that argument. finito.

i will never change my stance on gay marriage. i believe that as a tax-paying, hard-working, lesbian, i should have the liberty to marry my girlfriend and have that marriage recognized by the government for all the benefits and penalties that's worth. if that makes me close-minded to a small group of people, so be it. to me, they are the close-minded ones. and i feel that they are, simply, scared of creating a world where gays and lesbians are treated as equals in their hetero-priveleged worlds.

i know who i am in the real world. and i know the people (gay and straight) that i help on a daily basis. but a little part of me can't help but be saddened by the on-line discourse that took place over the past couple days. and how such different views can be had by people who would probably be friends in the real world.

this is something i will have to think about as i blog more.

I'll end with these quotes (from: http://www.buddybuddy.com/quotes-2.html):

"“Marriage is a civil right. If you don’t want gay people to marry in your church, good for you. But you can’t say they can’t marry in your city.”-- Julian Bond, National NAACP chair, October 2006 Spoken at a University of Virginia forum where Bond is a professor


"The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests. With the proper issue in mind — whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry will encourage procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, or child rearing in households headed by opposite-sex parents — I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying samesex couples the right to marry.
“I would hold further that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right, the denial of which has historically received heightened scrutiny. It is error to artificially limit the inquiry, as the plurality and concurrence do, to whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. It is equally incorrect to limit the definition of the right to marry to the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Because the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA’s) denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is not rationally related to any asserted state interest, it is also not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest.
“Therefore, for both of these reasons, I would affirm the two trial courts in declaring RCW 26.04.010(1) and .020(1)(c) unconstitutional. The plurality uses the excuse of deference to the legislature to perpetuate the existence of an unconstitutional and unjust law. I dissent.”--Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, dissenting opinion in Andersen v. King County, July 26, 2006


“The DOMA denies fundamental basic human rights to Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens, human rights that impact the very core of their everyday lives. The plaintiffs in this case represent the ever-growing diversity of the openly gay community in Washington. They are teachers, attorneys, ministers, and foster parents. In their everyday lives they are bosses, coworkers, neighbors, clients, parents, friends, and volunteers. It is in these seemingly mundane, everyday roles that the discrimination imposed by the DOMA is deeply felt, but it is nowhere more wounding than in their very homes. Unless the concept of equal rights has meaning there, it has little meaning anywhere.”-- — Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, dissenting opinion in Andersen v. King County, July 26, 2006


“The National Lawyers Guild strongly opposes the New York Court of Appeals ruling upholding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The Guild believes that everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law, which includes affording the same status, privileges and protections that exist for heterosexual couples to same-sex partnerships.”--— National Lawyers Guild, press release, July 11, 2006


"Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.”--Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, dissenting opinion in Hernandez v. Robles, July 6, 2006

"“I believe all New Yorkers should have the right to marry whom ever they choose regardless of sexual orientation.
“I do not believe the government should be in the business of telling us who we can, and can’t marry … as mayor, I have an obligation to enforce the laws of the city and the state, but I also have an equal obligation to work to change laws that I believe are not in our city’s best interest.”-- Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, in his weekly radio address, May 28, 2006

" ...A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.” --Coretta Scott King, Richard Stockton College, New Jersey, March 23, 2005


"For Planned Parenthood, marriage equality is a critical social justice and equality issue, and the denial of marriage is a threat to our basic human and civil rights. Planned Parenthood stands firm in its vow to end inequality and discrimination, and supports the rights of same-sex couples and their families to enjoy the protection of civil marriage.” --Planned Parenthood, Washington State branch, March 2, 2007, Communication to members concerning the Washington State Civil Union Bill.