Marriage equality will be hot legislative issue in 2009

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel people can be taking pride in their anti-gay rhetoric. They fancy themselves God’s little warriors out to do righteous battle against the monogamous same-sex couples who will otherwise surely destroy all of humanity. (Sounds like an American version of al Qaeda to me, hiding behind religion to justify cruelty.)

“The alternative for gays and lesbians wanting to marry,” Prichard suggests, “is to stop being gay or lesbian, find God and marry a heterosexual.” Does this guy have any idea what he’s saying?? One doesn’t ‘choose’ to be gay. Why would anyone in their right mind choose a life that brings them discrimination, hatred, prejudice, and animosity? They never would. Really, think about it: no one would choose that.

The notion that it’s a choice allows anti-gay folks to absolve themselves of responsibility AND even blame the victims of their discrimination for the cruel treatment they dole out to them. It’s disgustuing.

How would Prichard like it if it was his child who ended up marrying a gay person, someone who never felt true love or attraction to his son or daughter, but rather married them out of convenience to appease other people? Then he could watch as that marriage slowly crumbled, and how they taught their children that marriage need not be about honest love, heartfelt commitment and care for one another. Is that your answer Mr. Prichard? Bozo.

Let’s not pretend, for a moment, that OutFront actually wants this bill introduced now. The real reason it is going forward is because there was enough grass-roots gay activist opposing OutFront’s spinelessness.

DavidD hit the nail on the head.

I’m going to take a bit of a chance here at the risk of offending people I don’t want to offend but whom I’m hoping will at least see that it is not necessarily cruelty or ignorance which is at the bottom of their comments.

I support the idea of same-sex marriage as long as it is not something which is decreed by judges who may not have grasp of the complexity of problems and unintended consequences it may create. Simply wishing away and decreeing “marriage” to be the same whether it is between a man and woman or between two men and two women ignores the huge and subtle impact these customs exercise in our culture. The language is just the tip of the iceberg.

For my part, I have to ask: whether you are oriented toward any person a man or a woman: there is no law that says you have to yield to sexual expression. Celibacy has an honored tradition in our culture. Many married men and women admit to having pre-marital sex. That does not make it right. Today, pre-marital celibacy or virginity is mocked. Perhaps it is an unattainable ideal. I doubt that. Is losing 50 pounds in a year unattainable or just difficult. If 9 out of 10 people fail but the 10th succeeds, is that unattainable?

Another question: Does the “GLBT community” include bi-sexuals and trans-sexuals or not? Does a “bi-sexual” person or “trans-sexual” person similarly oriented toward men and women as a heterosexual person? Please explain to me what that means. Please explain also how a “bi-sexual” or “trans-sexual” person has some innate or other quality which the public or the Legislature should recognize as being treated differently from gays and lesbians in terms of marriage? And if they should be treated differently, why should the idea of marriage as between a man and woman who voluntarily choose to commit for life be changed at all?

BTW, I do not in any way agree with or support Michele Bachmann or her views.

Thank you jonerik for your comment. I will take it in the spirit given, as a quest for further understanding.

I understand your view of the importance of marriage in culture. My argument is that cultures evolve and change and that this would be a positive change. We are talking inclusion in a civil institution. Not the redefinition of a religious tradition.

There is no law that says you must refrain from sexual expression. Humans are sexual in nature and sexual expression is a healthy part of our existence. Because someone’s sexual expression lends them to seek same-gender partners should not preclude them to living a life restricted by that sexual orientation. Everyone should be free to live their life to the fullest. I have yet to hear an argument based in reason that would compel me to think I need to live a celibate life.

Yes, the LGBT community includes bisexual and trans folks. Bisexuals have exist between the spectrum of homosexual and heterosexual. In terms of relationships and marriage, most choose one gender or the other. Some vary over their lifetime. If a bisexual male for instance falls in love with a woman, many times they marry. If a bisexual man falls in love with a man, he may not marry, at least in MN.

transgender people can be heterosexual or homosexual. Transgender people have a different gender identity than what was assigned to them as birth. For instance, woman who is straight might transition to become a transgender man. He would then seek other men for love, relationships, etc. That would make him homosexual, whereas if he did not make the transition, he would be heterosexual.

It gets complicated in terms of marriage depending on whether there was a legal change in gender.

These are a lot of complicated questions, and I’ve only given very breif, simplified answers. I hope they were instructive.

Thank you, Andy, for your instructive comment. I hope that this exchange will be beneficial for mutual understanding. I hope you won’t assume I am presumptuous in thinking that you advocate a change in cultural mores for homosexuality or however you would put it. But I asked a question and I think you answered in an honest and sincere way that defines in my humble opinion the crux of the problem for GLBT people.

It is true there “no law that says you must refrain from sexual expression”. It may also be true that “Humans are sexual in nature and sexual expression is a healthy part of our existence.” On the other hand, I think you might find some disagreement with the idea that there is a law that says you must express sexuality in terms of intercourse or physical activity of some sort or another. I am trying to be polite here. But physical sex also entails strong emotions and perhaps as many or more people are as repelled by some people’s idea of such expression as others find it attractive. A lot of people think that what is “healthy” is a normative concept. That has been the idea for a many years if not centuries.

What the GLBT agenda has now argued is that certain forms of sexual expression are not merely normative but genetically or biologically determined. That is not proven to my understanding but it is a powerful,and controversial thesis all the same. Especially if it turns out to be proven in some scientific sense. Right now, the argument against this is bi-sexual persons in my opinion. On the other hand, I think that the idea of trans-sexuality supports the idea that people are somehow born with some predisposition toward certain sexual attractions.

But the very idea that people are predisposed to behave in some fashion whether it is in sex or in their person toward being a doctor or a shopkeeper or a homemaker to me sounds very deterministic and scary. It seems contrary to free will. If that is your position, and the position of the GLBT rights community, I’d like to hear it because it strikes me as having more profound implications than the agenda which is being espoused.

These last few comments – what a wonderful exchange! Just the type of respectful, honest dialogue that needs to happen. Thank you both.

jonerik, in response to your last post I’d like to add a couple points.

That you bring up “disagreement with the idea that there is a law that says you must express sexuality in terms of intercourse” compels me to underscore that sex is not the issue. Sex does not define my relationship any more than it defines a heterosexual relationship.

The relationship my partner and I have is about love and devotion, the unique intimate (and I don’t mean that in a sexual way) bond we have for each other. We are committed to a life of mutual nurturing and care, and unwavering support for each other. I’d give my life for him. If more people focused on the miracle and beauty of that–between any two consenting adults without the fixation on gender–and focused less on the physical expression, I’d like to think there would be less opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Also, you bring up the fascinating topic of the origins of sexual orientation. I can only offer my personal belief based on experience (which I did in my earlier post), and add that environment does not seem to me to be a contributor either. My siblings and I were all raised in the same environment in every way, yet only one is gay. Why?

Part of me looks forward to science getting to the bottom of it. Part of me, though, worries that if science determines a genetic cause while homophobia is still rampant I don’t think it’s far-fetched to imagine pregnant couples being more likely to abort or conservative scientists attempting to engineer out non-heterosexual children.

Lastly, I agree with Andy that bisexuals “exist between the spectrum of homosexual and heterosexual.” In the same way that it can be hard for heterosexuals to comprehend attraction toward one’s own gender, both homo and hetero people might find it hard to comprehend attraction toward both genders.

Jonerik, you are correct that the science is not clear whether sexual orientation is genetically determined, culturally determined or some mixture of various factors. The answer to that question isn’t relevant to whether gay relationships should be treated equally under the law. I don’t think anyone argues that there is a religion gene (that is, people don’t inherit being jewish, or lutheran, or catholic genetically – it’s by upbringing.) However discrimination law covers religion.

When you talk about celebacy, are you suggesting that gays should be celebate throughout their entire lives rather than be sexual with a same sex partner?

Jonerik, crossculturally and transhistorically it has been quite normative for cultures which feature coupling as the basis of household and family formation to treat “same” and “opposite” sex couples the same. In fact the oldest civil marriages we have record of are from court records written in cuniform on clay tablets from ancient Sumeria nearly 4,000 years ago from which it is clear that under the civil law “same” and “opposite” sex couples are treated equally under the same laws whether they were treated the same under the various religious traditions of the day or not. As it sees in Ezekial, “there is nothing new under the sun.”

I recall the alleged discovery by Wycliffe Bible translators in the 1950’s claiming that they had found a society where homosexuality did not exist because the tribal language did not have a word in any way comparable to “homosexual” or “homosexuality”. Later they discovered occassional same sex coupes, some raising children amon families in the tribes numerous villages. When asked to explain the difference the locals where puzzled because their was no conception of difference in their language between these couples and families than any other couples or families.

As far as origins of sexual diversity, it is innate to being a single sexed animal species. While the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms on the face of the earth are hermaphroditic we odd generally binary single sex organisms inherently create the opportunity and among species among which long term pairing occurs homosexual pairing is known to occur whether the animal species be invertebrate or vertebrate.

We do know that the more socially complex and larger the brain of the mammalian species the greater the degree of variety of sexual expression which includes increases in same sex partnering among those species which partner and same sex sexual behavior generally.

Remember the popular hit song about the lesbian sea gull? Yes it’s true. Many bird species also experience same sex pairing.

I’ve seen great video footage of same sex sexual behavior among octupi!

Squid do it too.

Now there are humans who are in one way or another termed to be “intersex”. Not to mention other genetic, hormonal, and identity variations. I have a friend who is a mosaic. Ze has cells in hir body which are XX and cells in hir body which are XY. A mosaic is when two fertilized eggs fuse to form one zygote and become one person. So tell me, who should ze be allowed to marry? Should ze identify as he or she and who should decide?

Inevitably given all the varying factors which can arise physically, mentally, socially and many would say spiritually it is clear that the best individual to determine a person’s gender identity is the person themselves.

Civil marriage and sacramental or religious marriage are technically seperate institutions. No church, synagogue, mosque, coven, friends meetign house, tribal religion, or other religious body or group has the power to deny someone a marriage license as that is the province of the state. Similiarly the state does not decide who any given church, synagogue, mosque, coven, friends meeting house, tribal religion, etc. may marry sacramentally or religiously.

Same sex couples already have the right to marry sacramentally or religiously if a religious group or body chooses to celebrate their union in that manner. Alabama actually tried to make it illegal for licensed clergy in the state to celebrate relationships between same sex couples and marry them sacramentally or in a religious sense and that was struck down as a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the constitution. What same sex couples do not have access to is a civil marriage license from the state and the 515 rights it accords under Minnesota state law and the 1340+ at most recent count of federal rights a marriage license affords.

No religion or religious body is required to marry anyone they choose not to under the law and that would not change if same sex couples are allowed to civil marriage unless the religon or religious body chooses to change it’s own requirements.