Skip to main content

As several people - including my father and a few friends - have asked me, "Why do gays want to MARRY? Why not have civil domestic partnerships and let things go at that?"

Because a domestic partnership is not legally or socially respected as a marriage.

Domestic partnerships are recognized or withdrawn at the convenience of whomever chooses to recognize or withdraw them... a fact evidenced by North Carolina's Amendment One, which technically invalidates all domestic partnerships, regardless of the orientations of the people involved.

As I said yesterday [1] with regards to Amendment One, once again - as in California and elsewhere - one group of people decided to withdraw rights from another group of people through popular vote.

And that is an abomination to the entire ideal behind the United States.

Period.

END. OF. STORY.

Now, I understand why some people may find the idea of gay sex challenging. I have sympathy for people who feel the world is changing in strange and sometimes unsettling ways. Those feelings make sense. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable to deny essential civil rights to your fellow human beings just because the idea might feel challenging to you. Personal disgust may once have been considered a reasonable criteria for denying rights to people or different religions, genders or skin colors, but it no longer is. Not here. Not in 21st century America. And thank everything holy for that fact.

The various generalized assumptions about "what homosexuals want" or "what gays do" make perfect illustrations for why such accusations destroy the fabric of a civil society. And if the reason why is not immediately obvious, here's a demonstration:

Suppose I argued that "all Catholics want" to molest children. I mean, there's unquestionable and overwhelming proof that Catholic priests have molested kids, and that Catholic authorities have covered it up, and so therefore the exact same argument can be made about Catholic pederasty as can be made about gay marriage.

If you're Catholic, do YOU want to molest children? Of course not (I hope...). Do all Catholics want to molest children? What an absurd, offensive idea.

And yet, THE EXACT SAME LOGIC - complete with accusations of pederasty - is being used to define "what homosexuals want"... and being used to deny rights and even humanity to a group of citizens as a result. If I were to convince a majority of my fellow citizens that all Catholics want to molest children, and we put it to a vote, and the result of that vote was to have all Catholic children taken away from their parents by force of law, would that be legally, morally or factually right? Would it be good for society as a whole?

Of course not.

Nor is it right to deny gay people similar rights because of the same kind of factually incorrect slander.

And yet, that is exactly what happens if and when someone in authority is confronted with a "domestic partnership" he or she does not agree with: Whatever rights may be involved are immediately revoked. Children are taken from their parents. Partners are refused hospital visitation. Wills are invalidated. Benefits are denied. Inheritances are confiscated. People are banned from funerals. It happens EVERY SINGLE DAY, and it is wrong. Corrosive to our society, and from the simple human perspective, unspeakably WRONG.

Ideally, laws exist because someone or something is being abused, and that abuse needs to end because such abuse harms society. When one group of citizens, taxpayers, contributors to the society - be they blacks, gays, Latinos, women, Catholics, whatever - may have their lives curtailed, their freedom revoked [2], their property seized, their humanity crushed by legal fiat for no reason other than another group's distaste for their existence, SOCIETY IS HARMED AND THE ABUSE MUST END.

And thus, laws to end such discrimination are passed.

These are not "special laws." They are not "privileges." They are necessary methods to protect a society's citizens from one another.

In a nation like ours, laws exist to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority... and although they were rather bad at real-life applications of that principle when it pertained to blacks, women, Native Americans, and - yes - even Catholics, that ideal goes back to the Founding Fathers themselves. It has taken us over two centuries to gain the promises of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence for ALL American citizens, but the promises are there. [3]

And honestly, I give not one flying fuck if one group of people's 4000-year-old law code can be interpreted as an eternal condemnation of another group of people's humanity. The faithful can believe such things if they like (picking and choosing, of course, which of those law codes to take as gospel and which to discard), but I refuse to have my nation bound by those beliefs. Period. Point-blank. No.

We are not talking about prohibitions against theft or murder within the society - prohibitions found in any society's codes of law. [4] We're talking about the laws in which a group of people is demonized simply for existing.

Meanwhile, as a society, we're clearly not passing laws that make us stone rape victims to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), kill children who talk back to their parents (Exodus 21:17, Mark 7:10, etc.), let us take foreign women as sex-slaves (Deuteronomy 20: 10-14), or invalidate debts every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1). Why, then, do we have such maniacal - and yes, they are delusional, irrational and often violent... and thus by definition maniacal - obsessions about the humanity of gay people?

Saying "Well, my holy book says so" is not a valid argument in this society.

If you want to make laws that way, move to Iran.

As the song says, "This land is your land, this land is my land." Whether certain people wish to accept it or not, gay and lesbian citizens are "you" and "me" as well. It is their land, too. Gay people work for it, pay for it, fight for it and often die for it. To say that gays can't then share in it is an affront to the very meaning of a civil society.

-------------------
Beholdest Thou the Inevitable Footnotes
-------------------

1. This issue isn't about Teh Gayzz(tmOMG). It's about whether or not one group of citizens can deny or revoke the rights of others. It's about whether hate for The Other can be allowed as a tool of civil government. It's about how human beings are denied vital things - things like hospital visitation, medical coverage, child-rearing and far more - on no basis except selected verses from a Bronze Age law code. It's about whether or not Americans can and should decide, through force of law, to reduce the freedoms of their fellow citizens. And to all of those things and more, I say NO. (https://www.facebook.com/phil.brucato, 5/10/2012)

2. When you can be arrested and charged with a crime because a group of voters in your home state said that you can't have the right to request a marriage certificate, then your rights are subject to arbitrary fiat.

And let no one even start with the "She wasn't arrested for trying to get married - she was arrested for trespassing" argument. The irony of people howling about their First and Second Amendment rights before turning around and denying those same rights to their fellow citizens infuriates me to near-violence. It's a very old double-standard, and I am sick to death of it.

3. Various people argue that the historical precedent of cultural taboos against homosexuality support the invalidation of gay rights. But yet, cultural standards of history, law and so forth are changeable. Slavery, genocide, human sacrifice and other things we now consider abhorrent were (and in some places still are) considered perfectly valid by the cultural and often religious standards of their time. And yet, we as a species have changed those standards with regards to those institutions... often because science or experience had shown us that they are damaging to the human animal, society and spirit.

It's time to change this standard, too... and for exactly the same reason.

4. - Don't even get me started about how every society ignores those prohibitions when they apply to other societies; I may start quoting Samuel and Deuteronomy, and that'll get ugly...

Originally posted to Satyros on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:38 PM PDT.

Also republished by LGBT Kos Community, Milk Men And Women, and Angry Gays.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    "Be sand, not oil, to the machinery of the world." - Gunter Eich

    by Satyrblade on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:38:50 PM PDT

  •  Nice job. Additional material: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    Photobucket

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Fri May 11, 2012 at 02:58:20 PM PDT

  •  Why "Domestic Partnerships" Are Not Enough? (0+ / 0-)

    Please forgive me, I'm going in a different direction here but why shouldn't we fight for domestic partnerships to replace the status and benefits that marriage status carries? The idea of marriage and all that it stands for has been bugging me for a long time and I'm going to go on a rant.

    Wait, before I do, I want to say your diary is great and I support equal rights.

    I'm not as articulate as you are but here I go.

    My parents were married twice having gone through a divorce. My great-grandparents were divorced. My siblings have been divorced, all of my married friends have been through a divorce. The act of making a commitment in the house of God, at the courthouse, or in the park doesn't hold the same weight as it has in the past so why should it be held as something special?

    I'm a declared "committed partner" with my partner's employer and I thank the LGBT activists for their work that inadvertently benefited a heterosexual. I don't want to get married under the eyes of the law and certainly not under the eyes of God. I have made my commitment to myself and to my partner. Good enough.

    I resent all the powers that be who single out "married" couples (who the church deems they have a right to define) to get special rights. I resent the pain and sorrow I see my friends and family go through to get legally divorced.

    I think that there should be a war on MARRIAGE. Turn the system upside down.

    •  The only thing domestic partnerships are good for (4+ / 0-)

      I'm a member of one of the 18,000 couples who were married between June and November 2008.  We entered into our domestic partnership in March 2001, and we didn't discontinue it when we got married.  Because of it, and because of a Ninth Circuit decision, I get to file my taxes as part of a married couple, as do people with dps in Washington and Nevada.  

      Otherwise, marriage is marriage and depriving the LGBT community of the ability to marry violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Fri May 11, 2012 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Equal rights for LGBT of course but why should (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Satyrblade

        unmarried couples aka domestic partners, LGBT or not, be deprived of what married couples have?

      •  Yep When You Divorce You Go to the STATE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave in Northridge

        because as you say marriage is a legal contract requiring legal authority. And you aren't legally married until a civil or clergy authority says you are "by the power vested in me by the state."

        So since it's a legal union, you're right it's an e.p. violation to deny the same right to you for preferring a same sex partner as an opposite sex one.

        But barring a Constitutional Amendment, which has no prayer of passing in our lifetimes, a SCOTUS finding would be needed to get our system to acknowledge what's flat-obviously logically just.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri May 11, 2012 at 04:17:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site