I was on the phone to my sister in Seattle. You have to understand; at several points in the last couple of years, I’ve asked her, “So, any regrets about voting for Bush?” And so far the answer has always been no.
“Did you hear?” she said. “Washington just said no to gay marriage.”
“Washington, really? Of all places! That’s too bad.”
“Too bad?” she said. “You don’t think gay people should be able to get married, do you?”
“Yeah, I think gay people should be allowed to get married.”
She was incredulous. “Why?”
Well, it was a teaching moment as pure as any I get offered. And wouldn’t you know, I was stumped for what to say.
I don’t know that gay marriage is one of my big important issues, and yet it sort of is. It’s one manifestation of freedom, which is a big deal for me. Letting people have the kind of relationships they want, with social sanction and wedding cake, just seems to me like the way it should be.
It wouldn’t sound right to say that there’s no reason not to have gay marriage, and that it won’t affect straight marriage at all, even though I think that’s the case. What right does a society have to deny a certain group of people the right to engage in a contract?
Should I argue, as Dan Savage did, that gay marriage will bring familial stability to children of gay parents?
But my answer was, “I think gay people should be able to get married because I believe in equality for all Americans, period.”
I think for a moment my sister might have compared that to her reason for banning gay marriage, which was “Gayness is icky.”
31 July 2006 at 2:28 pm
Simply put Marraige is a legal status supplied by the state that gives certain rights to the participants. Sexual orientation shoudn’t be a barrier to State supplied rights. Period.
Good example: Arkansas had a law that made it illegal for gays to have Foster children, that law was struck down as unconstatutional. They are now reworking thelaw to state that only “legaly” married couples can have foster children. Using the State sanctioned marriage as a constitutional barrier to gays being foster parents.
I was most offended that the Washington supreme court used procreation and stability as two of the reasons for upholding the law as it stands.
2 August 2006 at 8:48 am
My mom’s a Seattlite and I really thought my heritage was on the right side of the country…perhaps not! I’m very surprised at this and thoroughly disappointed.
Most queer people aren’t after the right to marry or enter into civil unions simply because it seems ‘fair’, but because there are many other basic rights currently afforded only married and defacto couples.
Wills that leave things to a person’s same sex partner can be contested by [queerphobic] surviving relatives and the partner has no grounds for fighting back. Similarly in the health system, a same sex partner can be denied visiting rights and any say in a partner’s treatment because they aren’t legally family.
It’s these sorts of sad truths that I find tend to bring many people around. Though perhaps not those still stuck on “gayness is icky”…
6 August 2006 at 5:19 am
This is a perfect example of my favourite saying; ten minutes with the average voter is enough to turn you off democracy. I certainly don’t want to have a go at your sister, I just find ‘gayness is icky’ incredible! I will rant further here:
http://faerielaura.livejournal.com