![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Flowers for gay couples marrying; Gay civil rights
This is a wonderful idea.
I have a little smidgen of money still left from my sale of The Wild Swans. I tithed my advance on that book. 50% of the tithe went to amfAR, to research a cure for AIDS. 25% went to PFLAG and 25% went to the Quilt. I was hanging onto a little bit more because, I dunno, I thought I might buy a poster print of the cover to hang on my wall, but I never got around to calling the artist to arrange it. (I couldn't afford the original painting).
But . . . I think I will take a little of it and send some flowers to a couple. Yeah. In honor of Elias and Sean, as it were.
(Thanks for the banner,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivyblossom)
I had yet another argument with someone at work yesterday about gay civil rights, because of the San Francisco marriages. What is it about these conversations? This is the fourth one. I suppose I'll get around to hashing it out with all the other secretaries eventually. Of the four women I've spoken with, one was sympathetic to my point of view.
I find conversations like this frustrating, true, but I try to be hopeful. The woman I spoke with yesterday (I'll call her Beth) seemed to have a sticking point over using the word "marriage," arguing that it should be reserved for heterosexuals. Granting that status to homosexuals, to her, would be immoral, and it seemed that her objections were religious. I pointed out it was possible to be religious and still feel that gay marriage is good (which is the case for me). I pointed out that it isn't the state's business to enforce the religious aspect of marriage. To the state, marriage is a civil contract, which affects taxes, social security benefits, inheritance laws, etc. She was very polite, but unconvinced . . . although I found it encouraging that she seemed to concede that gay couples should be allows some kind of legal standing, as long as it wasn't called marriage.
Half a loaf, I know, I know, but still . . . look how far this country has come already. I think of the case of Loving v. Virginia. Forty years ago, perhaps a majority of people thought that interracial relationships were "immoral," yet now that view is held only be people on the fringe. I hope and trust that the same will be true of gay civil rights. Although George Bush says he is against gay marriage, even he admits that they should have "some kind of contract." Yes, not enough, but what an enormous shift that represents in the popular culture. I really don't think that the push to amend the constitution is going to succeed. Too many people have had their minds opened too much.
So when I have these conversations with people like "Anne" and "Beth," I think of it as a process like planting seeds, that will perhaps come to fruition years from now. Maybe an argument I give them will niggle at them, getting under their guard, and they'll start to think about it a little, wondering, could it be? I try to be patient.
But I still push.
I have a little smidgen of money still left from my sale of The Wild Swans. I tithed my advance on that book. 50% of the tithe went to amfAR, to research a cure for AIDS. 25% went to PFLAG and 25% went to the Quilt. I was hanging onto a little bit more because, I dunno, I thought I might buy a poster print of the cover to hang on my wall, but I never got around to calling the artist to arrange it. (I couldn't afford the original painting).
But . . . I think I will take a little of it and send some flowers to a couple. Yeah. In honor of Elias and Sean, as it were.
| Marriage is love. | |||||
(Thanks for the banner,
ivyblossom)I had yet another argument with someone at work yesterday about gay civil rights, because of the San Francisco marriages. What is it about these conversations? This is the fourth one. I suppose I'll get around to hashing it out with all the other secretaries eventually. Of the four women I've spoken with, one was sympathetic to my point of view.
I find conversations like this frustrating, true, but I try to be hopeful. The woman I spoke with yesterday (I'll call her Beth) seemed to have a sticking point over using the word "marriage," arguing that it should be reserved for heterosexuals. Granting that status to homosexuals, to her, would be immoral, and it seemed that her objections were religious. I pointed out it was possible to be religious and still feel that gay marriage is good (which is the case for me). I pointed out that it isn't the state's business to enforce the religious aspect of marriage. To the state, marriage is a civil contract, which affects taxes, social security benefits, inheritance laws, etc. She was very polite, but unconvinced . . . although I found it encouraging that she seemed to concede that gay couples should be allows some kind of legal standing, as long as it wasn't called marriage.
Half a loaf, I know, I know, but still . . . look how far this country has come already. I think of the case of Loving v. Virginia. Forty years ago, perhaps a majority of people thought that interracial relationships were "immoral," yet now that view is held only be people on the fringe. I hope and trust that the same will be true of gay civil rights. Although George Bush says he is against gay marriage, even he admits that they should have "some kind of contract." Yes, not enough, but what an enormous shift that represents in the popular culture. I really don't think that the push to amend the constitution is going to succeed. Too many people have had their minds opened too much.
So when I have these conversations with people like "Anne" and "Beth," I think of it as a process like planting seeds, that will perhaps come to fruition years from now. Maybe an argument I give them will niggle at them, getting under their guard, and they'll start to think about it a little, wondering, could it be? I try to be patient.
But I still push.
no subject
The more I read and write about this, the more I realize that the point you make there is the Big Thing to me. I think it has surpassed, for me, the issue of same-sex marriage. I hope no one thinks that means I don't consider the latter extremely important, because I do. But the government's involvement in religious issues is much bigger, and IMHO much more threatening: it threatens everyone, and even if one looks just at gay rights, it threatens more than just the right to marry.
I cannot understand why people who want to impose their religious beliefs through government means do not grasp the nature of that two-edged sword. If one uses the government to impose one's relgious values, at another time in another political climate it can be used to impose others' religious values on one. The only protection is clear, unmistakable, and absolute separation of church and state.
Re:
Re:
See this as an attempt to persuade on-the-fencers using just that argument.
no subject
this made me tear up.
and thank you for pushing. i think it means so much when people who have no vested interest, so to speak, advocate on behalf of same-sex marriage.
no subject
So it's just weird that neocons hold their current view. It must just be secret (or overt in some cases) homophobia.
Chris
no subject
Re:
Re:
In case I haven't mentioned it lately, Peg, you rock. Also, I respect the heck out of you.
(P.S. Hang out sometime soon? I could bring goodies over, even.)
no subject
I have a little smidgen of money still left from my sale of The Wild Swans. I tithed my advance on that book. 50% of the tithe went to amfAR, to research a cure for AIDS. 25% went to PFLAG and 25% went to the Quilt.
Bless you. Just... bless you.
But . . . I think I will take a little of it and send some flowers to a couple. Yeah. In honor of Elias and Sean, as it were.
Passed by SF City Hall the other day. So many happy couples, so many flowers. Keep 'em coming, people.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Personally, I would be fine with no recognition of marriage per se by the state - have it all be by civil contract. Have a standard form. If three or more people want to draw up a contract, fine. If it's the same sex or opposite sexes, or people whose genders are non-standard, no problem.
Of course, that's one more reason we need universal health care. Many of the people I know who have gotten married did it to cover their spouse's or children's medical needs.
no subject
no subject