Photo from source, Free Republic
This is an uncharacteristic post for Greenlee Gazette. I stated long ago that --while pro-gay rights, and featuring the occasional related news item--the aim and focus of this blog lies elsewhere. But occasionally, a rule needs to be broken. So, for this post (and possibly a few in the future) I'm tackling the issue head on.
I am an American citizen with less than the full rights of most other citizens. As a gay man, it is not legal--at least in my home and birth states--for me to marry my partner of 10+ years. Voters were allowed to vote the issue into both Nevada and Ohio's state constitutions, and those states weren't alone.
Opponents of same-sex marriage will often argue that The Other Half and I can obtain any of the rights, benefits and responsibilities of married couples. This is not true. I'll give you just three examples, though there are others. 1) We cannot file joint income taxes. 2) Because of this, while his employer generously offers domestic partnership benefits, we are taxed by the federal government. This adds somewhere around $600 to our annual tax bill. 3) We've attempted to file a quit-claim on the house, to add me to the title. This will cost us $800, where married couples get the same action for free.
I want to pose a scenario to opponents. I could--if I took leave of my senses--run off to Hooters Hotel, get loaded, find an equally drunken woman, and stagger down to the marriage chapel. Once married--having known each other for mere hours--we would be entitled to the full benefits, responsibilities and rights of married people. But I can share a life and a home with the man I love for ten years, and be entitled to none of that. Does that sound fair to you?
The arguments against same-sex marriage go from bad to worse. The first is that marriage is a tradition going back thousands of years. This discounts the fact that the "tradition" of marriage has changed over time, in many ways. Then, it is argued that marriage is for raising children. This assumes that the gay people involved don't already have children, but it also ignores the many existing marriages of people out of childbearing years, or otherwise unable to have children.
As reasons are swatted down, the "slippery slope" argument is often trotted out. "If we let gay people marry, next it will be siblings! Polygamy! Animals! Toasters!" This ignores the fact that the term "slippery slope" is actually a logical fallacy that would get you bounced from debate class. Of course, religion is also used heavily as an argument, despite the fact that we're not supposed to be able to base law on religion in this country.
Unfortunately (with the possible exception of fat people and ugly people), gays are one of the only groups of people you are allowed to insult, degrade and defame to your heart's content, right out in the open. Turn on FOX "News" some time when any gay issue is being debated. Guests and sometimes the hosts themselves will say outrageous, hateful things about an entire population of law-abiding citizens.
And the internet is much worse. Church groups and "family values" websites are among the worst. And I'm not just talking about the disturbing Rev. Phelps, but more mainstream outfits like the Christian Coalition of America, or Focus on the Family. Then, there are the right-wing sites like the odious FreeRepublic. There, you will be treated to page upon page of "gay news"--so much so that they have a permanent section for it.
Freepers speak authoritatively about a subject they have absolutely the barest knowledge of. The commentary is sub-junior high level, with every negative stereotype you've ever heard (and some invented ones). They simply have no idea what they're talking about. This would be easy to brush off as a bunch of kooks in their own private kook-land, were it not for the respect given them by prominent politicians. There was a sanctioned White House event last year, just for Free Republic. And Tony Snow used to be a regular poster there.
The Other Half and I are not deterred by any of this, of course. We intend to get married in California in a couple of weeks. We'll not give a damn if Rev. Phelps is there with his picket signs. We'll not give a thought to the incredibly insulting notion that our relationship is on par with a human and a dog. And if the people of California nullify our union, we'll be no less married, and no less a couple.
I don't intend to link to any of the revolting sites out there. You can find them in about ninety seconds with a Google search. But I will leave you with a couple of comments, found at FreeRepublic today, just to show you that I'm not overreacting. Hopefully one day, this sort of open display of hatred will be as socially unacceptable as using the N-word. But we have a long way to go.
[Sample comments]
"Next: polygamy and marriage to animals. Believe me, these things will happen. In fact, they are already here. What a beautiful thing marriage used to represent. Now it is sullied and meaningless. "
"“Marraige” and “gay” don’t belong in the same sentence."
""Gay marriage" is about destruction of the nuclear family living under god in a free country. "
Enough.
