


The other night my husband and I got together with some friends. Although we always look forward to an evening with this particular couple, lately our dinners, which were once so carefree, are now conducted in the shadow of sadness and potential loss. Our close friends might be forced to leave the country.
As same sex partners, not only do they lack the basic rights of any couple in love to marry, since one person is an immigrant on a student visa, they may have to move to another country that acknowledges gay rights and marriage. Fortunately, the other member of the couple, who is an American citizen, is able to obtain work elsewhere. In the long-run, this couple will likely be okay. They get to stay together and there is hope of being in a place that acknowledges basic civil rights.
But the relational cost will be high. They have to leave their friends and loved ones to move to a foreign city where they know no one. And though we will certainly visit them as often as we can, the loss is unspeakable, not only because we love this couple but more painfully, their leaving could be prevented.
Although many people have written about the fact that gay couples have the same loving relationships as their heterosexual counterparts, I find myself, often these days, thinking about how it can be that gay and lesbian couples are so marginalized in a country that promotes itself as free. Pretending that gay partnerships are different from our own is not only false, but threatens our sense of being a dignified society.
Focus on the act of sex itself is part of what leads some to be distant and to deny humanness in same sex couples. In a shocking video of Representative Nancy Elliot, the tactic of disgust is used to distance one kind of sex act from another, with the implication that "bad" sex is gay and "good" sex is straight. Further, there is the use of fear: if gay sex is allowed, then "not normal" sex acts could be done to us. Furthermore, the act of gay sex is opposed to what Representative Elliot thinks of as a "one-flesh union between a man and a woman," clearly a reference to the Bible.
Though Christian values were a part of our country's origins, such values don't quite hold water in a society in which we all reside relatively peacefully given different values and religions. And regarding anal sex, the last time I checked the statistics, many heterosexuals seem to be enjoying this form of intimacy as well.
In order to deny basic civil rights, one has to deny the humanness of the "other." We see this all the time in countries where basic human rights are not valued and where civil war destroys communities, from the Republic of Congo to Iraq, in which one group views another as non-human and where crimes of humanity are allowed to occur. We have also seen this in our own country with slavery and the oppression of African Americans. When a particular group can be viewed as "non-human," basic rights can easily be denied; this lack of consciousness can occur without detriment. Though I agree that not allowing marriage to all is not equivalent to ethnic cleansing, tribal wars, and killing in the name of religion, what does it mean that a supposedly civilized country does not allow marriage based on notions of sexual practices and orientation? That the idea of opposing gay marriage is rooted in Christian beliefs, espoused by a fraction of our diverse nation, suggests that we are not more virtuous than those countries we condemn for lacking basic human rights.
As I was talking with my friends the other night, I felt surprised as to how ashamed I was about living, working and loving my husband in a country that does not allow equal rights regarding marriage. Though I have always been in support of gay unions, it is the potential loss of this couple from our lives that made me feel embarrassed. I felt pressured to come up with an explanation for the shameful practice of not allowing our friends to marry. But U.S. policies in this regard are not rational. Christian religion and ideas about marriage are just as destructive as any other views that have kept people from entitled equal rights. If we admit that gay persons are not so different from us, it will be much harder to oppress them.
Emma Ruby-Sachs: Can Senator Ashburn Keep His Job Now That We Know He Is Gay?
Michael Weinstein: Gay Marriage Will Save Lives
Paul Hogarth: Going After the "Movable Middle" on Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pa. Senate panel tables bill to ban gay marriage | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03 ...
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fimages%2Fcomments%2Fdisplay_comments_title.gif)
You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here
of our newest badge: Community Curator. Read more here.
I would draw your attention to the argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue, very liberal and very influentia
Hernadez v Robles.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institutio
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
"On July 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles[8] decided that New York law does not permit same-sex marriage and that there is no state constituti
The quote from Hernadez v Robles (above) is a more searing indictment than that. Note that they say "those who deploy the (these) argument, ..advocate
Proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-misce
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideologica
State Suprem Courts have gone beyond simply stating that same-sex "marriage" is not compeled consitutio
Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage is clear : as the the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticu
Judge Graffeo noted….
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamenta
2 - Hernadez v Robles. 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3 (J. Graffeo concurring
"not only do they lack the basic rights of any couple in love to marry"
Does a 56 year old man have a "basic right" to marry the 14 year old girl? They are a couple in love. The answer is no.
Does a 60 year old mother have a "basic right" to marry her 40 year son? They are a couple in love. The answer is again no.
Does a polygamist have a "basic right" to marry a fourth wife? They are a couple in love. The answer is still no.
Just because a couple is in love does not mean they have a "basic right" to marry.
Does a mob boss have the right to say, "Kill Freddy the snitch"? It's just speech. The answer is no.
Does a criminal have a right to get on the witness stand and lie about his alibi? It's just speech. The answer is no.
And yet, freedom of speech is still a right in this country. Rights are not absolute. They are subject to some limits when they may run afoul of other rights, such as people's health and safety.
Various legal cases have determined that marriage is a right, and moreover, it is the right to marry the person of your choice (absent restrictio
You are correct. Rights are not absolute. The right to marry does NOT include an absolute right for two people of the same sex to marry.
"Various legal cases have determined
Oh- have they? Do go on?
Yes they do, unless there's a very compelling reason to deny them that right, as in the cases of pedophilia
Please note Smelt v Orange County and other cases ruled against your unfounded claim.
He also keeps asking to name a case that says same-sex marriage is a right, even after being instructed that courts do not posit nor do they answer such absurd questions, yet he'll defiantly insist that your inability to do that which he demands proves his righteousn
"Focus on the act of sex itself is part of what leads some to be distant and to deny humanness in same sex couples."
This is why a lot of the anti-gay factions refuses to call us what we prefer to be called: gay. They insist on referring to us as "homosexua
"In order to deny basic civil rights, one has to deny the humanness of the "other."
Indeed. That is precisely why the Prop 8 campaign, for instance, objectifie
Clearly you are being marginaliz
__________
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but this is still happening today in good ole America. Furthermor
"Marriage is neither a conservati
Walter Fauntroy- Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressio
Your immediate response is what? Contempt.
Look.
A comparison to the civil rights movement is valid in that like blacks, gays are being discrimina
May I ask?
Have you really explored your contempt for gay people?
Why do you let it fester so?
When looked at as a third party outsider (who if god exists, probably plays that role) this entire thing probably looks so pathetic in comparison to the violence that's happening in the world. You "pro marriage" people are fussing about THIS?
People in this country can get so uptight about such stupid ideals. Just because things were written in a book once, just because some self proclaimed messiah said something once hundreds of years ago, just because your parents taught you something when you were born, doesn't mean that those ideals can't become obsolete as the human race progresses into whatever it's going to become next. Why do you think the process of legislatio
Excuse my rant, but damn ya'll... it's really not that complicate
But it also doesn't mean that those ideals have become obsolete.
"It's really easy to love one another."
I agree with you on this.
And a child deserves as many people to love and help raise it as possible. My neice has divorced parents, but they both love her very much. But, in addition, she has grandparen
This entire thread is painful at best.
All of this he said she said and martial law reference and biblical reference and constituti
I don't understand this mess: Nobody in America isn't a minority. NOBODY.
We all are human beings from different walks of life (I don't give a damn if you are a caucasian heterosexu
(part 1)....
Since getting through our situation, I have written about and advocated for other couples in the same situation.
Mainstream and straight America (actually also Gay America) are all barely apprised of this one instance of inequality which often causes the loss of our relationsh
This week there is a March in DC and vigils around the country in anticipati
http://cch
Whenever I hear someone claim they aren't bigoted or prejudiced say, "Oh, I'm all for civil unions. I just don't think they should be able to get married," I suspect that the person may THINK they are pro-gay but in reality there is an odd need to maintain some psychologi
Yes, exactly. Read a book titled "Mississip
Tell me, without hiding behind the divinity of Christ -- how do you feel about divorce?
OK, not being threatened by homosexual
Regarding the liberal notion of feeling "ashamed " and "guilty" regarding the slavery era: Uh, isn't it obvious that your liberal perspectiv
Such cloudy and unexamined thinking is not the solution to our society's problem. Rather, it is just the leading end of the problem itself....
If being gay is a "choice", then wouldn't it be a choice that we'd all be able to make? And if so, then how many members of the same sex have you been sexually attracted to, but refused to act on those attraction
And per your discussion of slavery...
As far as Slavery in America, by the late 18th and into the19th century, slavery was NOT a universal phenomenon and the US hung on long after other nations dropped the practice. So, yes, Americans can feel deservedly guilty for clinging to an inhumane practice after most of the world had abandoned it. (In it's form, in that time...Yes
As far as liberalism it has a long and rich history that goes beyond the modern conservati
So, as you said:"Such cloudy and unexamined thinking is not the solution to our society's problem. Rather, it is just the leading end of the problem itself....
'I know you are, but what am I?'
Therefore, THE PEOPLE have a right to vote on it. And if THE PEOPLE say no, then you have little recourse.
First they say that it was ok to have christian values at the beginning of our nation and
then they will come after christians
Fine..be that way....
God, in his devine wisdom will judge you.
http://www