Dear Straight Brethren (or Closeted Brethren Pretending to be Straight) Who Oppose Gay Marriage:
I want to talk to you about something very important. I’d like to think that we’re all reasonable adults, and I hope you can open your mind to the points I am about to make.
We both know that it really isn’t our business whom gay people marry or if they marry at all. Their desire and ability to marry have no effect on my marriage or yours any more than Charlie Sheen’s “marriages” have.
Before you bring up the so-called “sanctity of marriage,” let me remind you about Larry King, who is on his seventh wife. You don’t seem to care about him (or Tiger and his traveling tool), but you seem to be squawking loudly about the Defense of Marriage Act. Defense of Marriage? Really? We need a defense for an institution that is all about individual choice? People are going to choose it or not choose it, be happy or unhappy, make a mess of it or not make a mess, and no legislation can do anything about that.
So what we are talking about here is discrimination. Let me remind you that gay people pay taxes. They’ve essentially paid for legislation that discriminates against them. That sucks. We’re talking about human beings who have just as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we do. If they aren’t treated equally under the (tax-funded) law, maybe they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Uh oh.
Please don’t talk to me about the Bible. You can’t use the Bible for two reasons:
- If you are going to adhere to one passage, you have to adhere to the whole thing. Should we start stoning adulterers? Maybe we can start with Newt Gingrich. (You know the Bible also says divorce is wrong.) Don’t get me started on why literal interpretations of the Bible are a bad thing in general. Even the Vatican doesn’t advocate a literal interpretation, and you know how I feel about the pope.
- There’s this crazy thing we have here in America called “separation of church and state.” I know it isn’t very convenient sometimes, but there it is. So don’t allow gay people marry each other in your church if you think homosexuality is a sin. That’s fine. But civil unions should be available to give same-sex couples access to state-created rights. You know, the states they pay to operate through tax dollars.
The choices any people make in their personal lives do not affect me at all — unless, of course, they choose to attack me or my family physically, or rob us, or something like that. And that’s when the law should get involved.
You know what does affect me, affect us? Misuse of tax money. Cuts in education. Poor road maintenance. National dependence on oil. I could go on, but I won’t. You are reasonable. You get my point.
Can we please focus on legislation that truly affects how we live our lives?
Let’s be reasonable.
Thank you!!
LikeLike
Thank YOU for reading!
LikeLike
Amen, sister!
LikeLike
I’m sending this to everyone I know.
LikeLike
Thanks … I think!
LikeLike
I know when I go to the ATM, or close the gym at night, I am always on the lookout for gays. They have been know to attack out of nowhere. Also, when I said “I do” I also said “Please Lord! Keep gays from ruining my marriage.” Our children will be so much smarter if we get rid of gays; that is what is messing up our education system.
The sanctity of marriage?! You need look no further than the billboards when you drive. They have made divorce a profitable business.
LikeLike
He’s kidding, folks!
LikeLike
I can only add:
LikeLike
So. Incredibly. Awesome.
How is it that I’ve never seen that clip before?
LikeLike
Marriage, the word, why should that word belong to A church, The Church, however you want to say it.
I believe civil unions, at a minimum the benefits of civil unions should be available to all. Room mates signing a lease together, or not signing a lease together, whatever.
But that’s not enough, if the state sells Marriage Licenses then any two people who want to say they are married should be able to buy a Marriage License regardless of their gender or genders.
It is civil issue, becoming a religious issue only if that license is taken to a church.
LikeLike
Hear, hear!
LikeLike
It’s reassuring to say the least, when someone understands. I’ve had to endure those that say gays have “an agenda” (What, do we have secret meetings and plot our take over of the world?) or that we “recruit” young people to be gay. Really? What’s the selling point? “We have no rights and everyone hates us. Come! Join us!”
Thankfully, there are people like Beth. She shows that you don’t have to be gay to understand, nor do you have to be straight or bi, or tri or whatever. You simply have to be human. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh you gays and your crazy, “I just want to be happy and live my life” agenda.
LikeLike
I grew up hearing constantly about those horrible homosexuals and their agenda against the Sacred American Family (Colorado Springs in the late 80s/early 90s, glory days of Focus on the Family; I attended the same “Christian” school as Ted Haggard’s kids and went to the same church as the co-author of Amendment 2). My first conversation with an openly gay man shattered those myths completely. He was far more decent, kind, and moral than most of the people I’d heard spreading paranoia and lies about the “gay agenda” (Haggard being a prime example). I don’t understand why, as Beth points out, the evangelical movement has demonized homosexuality while ignoring the Bible’s prohibitions against divorce, men having long hair, women having short hair and not covering their heads in church, etc., etc. No evangelical to whom I’ve posed this question has come up with an answer.
LikeLike
The same folks who don’t want gays to marry are bitching because straight folks are having kids out of wedlock and bleeding the system for living assistance.
LikeLike
Well said!
LikeLike
As you mentioned we have seperation of church and state.
Marriage is a “holy” act, and therefore the state should have no input on it at all. Only the church should be allowed to limit (or not) who is allowed to marry under their doctrine.
The correct choice should be that only civil unions be recognized by the state. While I believe everyone should have the right to a civil union, the state could limit who is or is not allowed to enter into one, and what rights are afforded to them under that provision.
LikeLike
Why should the state limit?
LikeLike
my marriage was not “a holy act”, yet i find myself married.
LikeLike
Ah … an unholy union. I love it!
LikeLike
No state should issue “Marriage Licenses”. Civil union certificates nationwide would remove the stigma associated with “marriage” being used in the same sentence as “gay” or whatever. If you want a “marriage” go to a church. If you want the rights and privileges entitled to all citizens of these “United” states then grant civil unions to all who show their desire to have one. You can’t legislate acceptance but you can require tolerance. And really, who gives a damn if two same sex people want to adopt a child and give that child love, care, devotion, and everything parenting demands. I bet if you asked the child what they needed all that child would say is “Love”. And that is the cornerstone of all religions.
Right–quit denying “tolerance”.
Left—stop demanding “acceptance”.
Federal civil union is the answer.
Now Beth, about that dependence on foreign oil……..
LikeLike
Excellent suggestion, Henry!
LikeLike
Things would be a lot simpler if we’d just do away with marriage. What role ought the state play in any marriage? None. Two people — any two or more! — should be able to enter into and unwind a revenue/asset-sharing agreement, which is what the legal aspect of marriage covers in a contract sense.
Two people — any two or more! — should also be able to enter into a “child raising” agreement. This latter one, unlike the first, spells out the duties of the participants with respect to the children, with the children’s rights and needs specified. The state does have an interest in protecting the rights of those who can’t protect themselves (children, among others), and should be able to enforce this contract. This covers “child support” in cases where a seperately-negotiated contract of the first type ends. Anyway, I could go on but I won’t.
LikeLike
Now that’s my practical friend!
LikeLike
Totally agree.
LikeLike
My marriage only lasted 2 years. I bet it would have lasted longer if I’d married a gay man. Just kidding..maybe.
LikeLike
So many marriages would …
LikeLike
You love who you love. Let it go and love. Right??
LikeLike
Love is love. Let it ride.
LikeLike
Gotta watch until the end to get his point, but it’s an awesome one!
LikeLike
and if we’re going to worry about what the bible says, then I must remind you that http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
LikeLike
Love that!
LikeLike