Saturday, September 1, 2007

The Aftermath of the Gay Wedding

my thoughts.

the wedding ceremony went on without a hitch. it was beautiful, tasteful, and well, everything a commitment ceremony should be: symbolic of shared love between two people who have decided to commit the rest of their lives together.

there was nothing "perverse" about it.

the straight people in attendance (there were over 300 people there) didn't feel anything was taken away from their own marriages.

there was no talk of legalizing polygamy or bestiality. (surprise!)

while there was talk of raising children together, it wasn't in the context of "acquiring purchasable commodities." it was in the context of "starting a family." these are two loving partners who will undoubtedly be amazing parents. they have the love, compassion, ability, and means to provide a good home to children who will feel loved.

the more i observed, the angrier i got that people are trying to infringe on rights of individuals.

the only people who could possibly get in the way of this family's happiness are those who purport to "protect families." as if family is a catch-all phrase that only represents a mother, father, daughter, son template. as if there are no other functional variations of this.

further, gays and lesbians are quickly becoming the scapegoat to "pro-family" organizations. it seems most, if not all, of their energies are all about banning same sex marriage. the current marriage crisis is hardly caused by gay and lesbian couples.

i would have loved to have seen any anti-gay marriage advocate in attendance friday night, to see what sort of justifcation they could have offered that these people don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. or to call their "union" a marriage.

the truth is, gay people have always existed. and just because a marriage has been between a man and a woman in the past, it doesn't mean it has to stay that way. unless someone doesn't believe that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship, there is no reason to deny someone the right to call their relationship a "marriage." does extending the defintion of marriage to allow for gay couples somehow demean that defintion for straight people? are gay people lesser than straight people?

if you don't want to personally acknowledge someone's marriage, then don't. no one is stopping you from believing what you want to believe. or acknowledging whatever marriage you want to. just don't do it in the workplace. and don't say that someone else's relationship doesn't deserve the same recognition from the public or the state as yours does.

separate is not equal. "unions" are not "marriage." if gay people are ever going to feel like more than second class citizens in a country that has traditionally marginilized and ostracized them, they need to be able to say that their relationships are on the same par as heterosexual relationships.

i know the "feeling like more than second-class citizens" argument doesn't hold much power to anti-gay people, or people who believe their "normal" heterosexual marriage is the only sacred type of union, and that's fine.

but for those of us who this directly affects, it is enough for action.


Marty said...

Any idea how these two (wonderful, obviously) women will manage to "start a family"?

I'm pretty certain there will be a man involved... an icky thought, i know...

Jane Know said...

congrats to marrrrrrty, everbody!he knows how biology works! yes marty, good job. sperm + egg = baby. a grade schooler knows that much.

you're continuously arguing a moot point here.

and yes, they are wonderful women. they have not a hate-filled bone in their body. which is much more than i can say for you.

John Howard said...

Well, everyone doesn't know that in just a year or two, these women might be able to have a daughter by combining their own eggs, or rather, hiring a lab to create a male-imprinted version of one of their genomes that can then fertilize the other's egg. This is legal now, but it shouldn't be. We shouldn't allow people to try to conceive with modified gametes, every person should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex.
This couple should not conception rights, but all marriages should have conception rights. Civil unions could be created that give all the other benefits and protections of marriage, except conception rights.
Either we allow genetic engineering, or we have an egg and sperm law. If we have an egg and sperm law, that means we either strip conception rights from all marriages in order to allow people that are prohibited from conceiving together to marry, or we do not allow same-sex marriages.

Jane Know said...

i appreciate your comment and your opinions. however, that is an entirely new can o' worms that i don't want to address on this posting. not now. let's not get ahead of ourselves quite yet.

John Howard said...

That can of worms is opened by same-sex marriage, and marty's question.

Perhaps a new post about how essential equal conception rights are for you?

Jane Know said...

perhaps i'll decide what i think is important right now on my blog.

John Howard said...

Well, do you think federal recognition for this couple is important right now?

Even if they don't really need it, there are lots of older same-sex couples that could really use the federal equal protections, right now.

So if conception rights aren't important right now, you should support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise. It's a simple solution that accomplishes stuff that probably won't be accomplished any time soon, if ever, any other way.

Fannie said...


Don't let people come on to your own blog and dictate what you blog about, or let them demand answers from you.

It's your blog, your space. Not theirs.

John Howard said...

I'm just letting her know about the issue, the proposed compromise, and suggesting that she consider pushing for it, because she could make a great advance for same-sex couples nationwide if she helped push this compromise. You, too. I don't think you should insist on equal conception rights to have children together that a man and a woman have. It might never be possible, it's really unsafe and unfair to the children that might be created and really exploitive of gay people to dangle this product, an unsafe and unnecessary product, in front of them. Love makes a family and we should send these crazy geneticists away from our doorsteps. They don't want to help gay people, they want to use gay people to justify getting into the baby-manufacturing business, and they won't stop with same-sex conception, they will want to improve the genome and regulate and control what genes are used to make children. In rejecting them, and accepting that only a man and a woman should have the right to conceive a child together using their own gametes, you could achieve the security and protections of marriage, just under a different official name (but there'd be no law against calling it marriage).

Please consider it. I'm not here to harrass you, I'm trying to drum up support for what I think is a great solution, and a necessary solution.