Listening to the news makes me cranky

[treeskin]

So, can someone explain to me why two people getting married is such a threat?

Those of you who know me in person, know I'm married, and know that my spouse and I have been together a long time. We're pretty secure in our partnership. Neither of us have ever felt that gender had much to do with the partnership, beyond the joy we find in "putting tab A into slot B".

A dear friend of mine is planning a commitment ceremony with his partner. I'm not threatened. I'm thrilled, thrilled that he's found someone that makes him happy.

I just don't understand how two people commiting to each other can be a threat. People in stable, loving partnerships are healthier and happier than those who aren't. Why isn't this good for society?

I don't think we should define marriage purely in terms of a man and a woman(*). I don't even think we should define marriage in terms of producing children; that's not realistic, in this time. I think it's a social contract, a commitment two people make, to deal with the rest of the world together. It's a decision to think in terms of "us", rather than "I". It's a difficult choice, it takes work, and I think that anyone who chooses it, and earnestly does their best to make it work, deserves credit. Gender should have nothing to do with it.



* I'm leaving any discussions of plural marriage out of this for now, although I support and have participated in one form of it, once upon a time. What the Mormons did, and still do, strikes me as coercive and unequal...a polyamorous group, entered into by consenting adults with eyes wide open, that's a different thing.

Comments

[eleazar.livejournal.com]

>I don't even think we should define marriage in terms of producing children

And we mostly don't, as a matter of current policy. But it's the same groups that are most in arms about this issues that are also in arms against contraception and abortion. I think the entire set of issues stems from (Christian fundie) religious concerns ultimately, if not directly for each person. But then, I may just be bigoted.

"Be fruitful and multiply." Not just a good idea. It's the Law.

Sigh. And I just heard that Bush finally actually really this time endorsed a Constitutional amendment.

Politically, I've seen a number of interesting theses that point at how beneficial it is to fight these fights, and not succeed. It's doubly frustrating because it's so successful, and so impossible to fight.

Bracing for the inevitable slaps

[sdemory.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the government should have anything to do with marriage at all, frankly. Marriage is a religious ceremony and it irks me like nobody's business that there's any discussion over a religious ceremony being codified in the Constitution. The First Amendment's where religion should begin and end in the Constitution, as far as I'm concerned.

I can buy civil unions falling under some sort of governmental control, and I think they should be extended to any pair or collective group of citizens or resident aliens (or, in that case, foreign national seeking residency) of any genders who reach a rational, impartial age (my vote's for 18, although 21's got a nice symmetry with the drinking age).

That being said, I have no problem with churches declaring what is and is not "marriage," nor do I feel that the government should tell churches "You've got to marry group X or Y." Religious marriage should have the same importance as Christenings or First Communion as far as the state is concerned: none whatsoever.

Listen to the borderline atheist grind his teeth!