I was reading Gay Veteran to Romney and I can't help but think what complete bullshit Romney's answers were.
Garon challenged Romney, saying, “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”
Romney reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and added, “And we apparently disagree.”
“It’s good to know how you feel,” Garon said. “That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”
“No, actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney replied. “And I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”
We don't need the Supreme Court to define marriage because there is nothing in the Constitution referring to marriage. If a case ended up before the Supreme Court to define marriage, they would have to look at how all men are created equal. If we are all equal, then why should it matter what the gender is of the person we are marrying? Republicans try so hard to make marriage this mystical thing when in reality it should not matter how religions look at marriage, it should only matter how the government defines marriage, and how it allows it to happen.
Looking at marriage from a strictly legal point of view, it is just benefits for agreeing to legally bind yourself to another human being. If it comes down to gender, then it is gender discrimination, and then we work on making it so people can't discriminate based on gender legally. How people bump uglies should be a private thing, not a thing for open debate on whether or not it qualifies as being sacred enough for the government to recognize.
As for it being apparent that marriage was between a man and a woman, yes the social contract at that time was between a man and a woman. But if we didn't allowed the same gender to marry in the western world hundreds of years ago, I don't see how that should be evidence that two men cannot be allowed to marry now.
But the fact is that men in the Roman empire, and in Greece often had male lovers. They still had their wives, because they had to have heirs and commit to their duty to their family. Love between men was considered a nobler thing (since they didn't believe women to be their equal).
So I guess that is how it works with in closet Republicans though. Have the family and everything else that you're "suppose" to have, and just keep the gay extracurricular--and when it inevitability comes to light deny, deny, deny, resign.
By trying to fit marriage into a neat little role of being solely for men and women to procreate and anything else or any other reason becomes unsanctioned. I mean let us suppose for a moment that the republicans magically define marriage between a man and a woman for procreation, and magically nullify any who are not in it for the babies.
So exactly how many marriages would make this mythical cut?
I'm certain none of the people who advocate for these kinds of measures would pass. Mostly because last I checked, people like sex.
People marry for a multitude of reasons. Green cards, money, love, convenience, friendship, and so many more. If I just love someone but don't want to have children, should that mean I should never have a wedding? What about someone who cannot conceive, should they never marry because they cannot do their "sacred duty".
I saw this point made somewhere else, but what about my remarried grandparents? Would my grandpa have to leave my step grandma because they couldn't make babies when they met. Are they not entitled to the happiness they found with each other without having to meet the criteria of the government? Should we nullify marriages after child rearing years are past. Wouldn't that mean that women who are older can't get married but older men with good sperm can?
Not to mention, I'm just not entirely sure what exactly marriage is being protected from? People loving each other?
By pushing this agenda that marriage is sacred, and therefore cannot be tampered with and that people who lived hundreds of years ago know better than the people living now is ludicrous.
One conversation I had with a conservative, they weren't so hung up on people wanting to marry, they were just pissed that anyone would dare call it marriage. He asked me why people are so hung up on calling it that and getting that. At the time I didn't have an answer aside from what does it matter what it is called as long as they get equal rights and treatment legally. You could name it snaggletooth and I'm sure that people would still call it marriage because it would be the same type of social contract.
But now, I think it matters because the religious right has tried so very hard to capture as much moral high ground as they can by defining everything that is not them as amoral. Because they have put marriage up on a pedestal that is hollow. Marriage in the past was little more than property exchange using women to broker deals politically and to ensure that your heirs were yours and not someone else's child. Saying that this exchange was sacred and why two people in love shouldn't marry is ridiculous.
Marriage today isn't much better, you marry for the tax break, have kids for the deductions. And then, after realizing that hey maybe marriage wasn't the right choice for this relationship, well have a divorce. If marriage is such a SACRED covenant, then divorce should be outlawed because you would be breaking the sanctity of marriage far more than you would letting people participate in it.
But no, instead politicians feel it is really necessary to deny people happiness based on their personal prejudices and beliefs when it comes to marriage.
Marriage is social contract, plain and simple. Getting married to have kids doesn't mean that God is going to part the clouds and give you two thumbs up for doing it how the Republicans tell you to do it. Getting married means that you have decided to pool your resources and bind yourself to one another legally.
I'm just so tired of sexuality being something that politicians feel like they need to control. If I want affordable access to pills that make me not pregnant, I want to be able to get them without being told I'm a murderer or slut. If I want to marry a woman, I want to be able to do it with the love of my family and without being told that I am defiling other people's love for each other.
People need to be able to live their lives FREELY. Without exception (unless of course you are actually harming someone or destroying something that is not yours).
If I want to love a woman or a man--that's my choice.
If I want to marry--that's the government's decision.
In a country of freedom, it is kind of scary to see just how many choices are being taken away much less denied.
