On the flip side, the majority of the state of California voted to WRITE INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION A BAN AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

How can a constitution DENY RIGHTS?

So now, all the tens of thousands of couples who already entered into the marriage contract may be told, “Whoops! It turns out you’re actually NOT citizens! Your marriage is annulled! Sorry! But we can still be neighbors and friends and co-workers, right?”

What. The. Fuck.

You want to talk about change?

How about recognizing ALL citizens as having inalienable rights?

The New York Times Online has an article by Adam Nagourney entitled, “Ruling May Revive Gay Marriage as Issue”.

Revive?

It’s ALWAYS been “an issue”. Whether or not presidential politicians want to speak publicly on the subject is a different issue altogether. They’re too busy trying to get as many votes as possible, alternately caving to competing sides until they’re so in the middle it doesn’t matter which one you vote for.

For until two women or two men* can legally enter the marriage contract, it will remain “an issue”.

We need to question what type of “issue” the same-sex marriage issue truly is.

For just like the bumper sticker proclaiming evolution to be some sort of hoax, so too do groups of folks proclaim same-sex marriage to be some sort of threat to the institution of marriage as a whole. Where do people come up with these ideas?

Walking home with The Partner tonight, I remarked on how moved I was to read about couples publicly celebrating the California court ruling.

To publicly celebrate being able to enter into a state contract.

My mind boggles that such a thing has to happen.

Same-sex marriage, as it is so called, is an issue of “separate-but-equal” treatment, which, as has been shown, is NOT equal.

Listening to NPR today I became enraged at a woman they interviewed who was “against” same-sex marriage because it “threated marriage”. First I couldn’t believe NPR actually gave air-time to this person, and second, that she would rather actively participate in the prohibition, the denial of two fellow citizens’ rights than mind her own relationships and legal contracts.

What the fuck kind of mentality is this?

I actively question folks I know on their reasons for entering the marriage contract, if they are so privileged to legally do so. Thus far their answers have been a resounding “for the benefits”. Benefits such as sharing health insurance packages. Benefits such as sharing the right to decide how their lives, both independently and jointly, should be lived.

With reality surrounding you, if you can’t fathom evolution or reason as to why two consenting adults should not be able to enter a contract of their choosing, then you’re an idiot.

_________
*However we shall define those terms.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The majority said that is not enough. [source]

California joins Massachusetts in being the only two states to legally support marriage equality.

Idiots and godbags (as much as there is a difference) in California are not willing to focus on their own families, though:

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot in November and approved by the voters, [today's] decision would be overridden.

There must be something wrong with me, because I think it’s silly to get all huffy over two women or two men entering the marriage contract together.

In 2003 Canada ran these commercials on television stations across the country:

Here in the US:

Advocacy and awareness go a long way.

Banned Books Week is September 29 through October 6. You can find an online catalogue of banned and challenged books at The Forbidden Library, either arranged by title or by author.

Or you can head over to your own public library. My city library has a display devoting several shelves to banned and challenged books. The Partner and I stopped in on Saturday, not knowing it was Banned Book Week at all, and I came across the display on our way to the counter.

I picked up Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden (1982). According to Wikipedia, in 1993 this book was banned by the Kansas City school system and was burned in protests. Students filed a First Amendment lawsuit, and the book was returned to the shelves in 1995.

I started the book that Saturday, only reading about 20 pages. I picked it up again this afternoon and have just finished it. It is the story of Liza and Annie, two 17-year-old gals who fall in love, told through the point-of-view of Liza.

Chad kept kidding me that I was in love, and asking with whom, and then Sally and Walt did, too, and after a while I didn’t even mind, because even if they had the wrong idea about it, they were right. Soon it wasn’t hard any more to say it—to myself, I mean, as well as over and over again to Annie—and to accept her saying it to me. We touched each other more easily—just kissed or held hands or hugged each other, though—nothing more than that. We didn’t really talk much about being gay; most of the time we just talked about ourselves. We were what seemed important then, not some label. (p. 118-9; emphasis in original).

It is an extremely moving story which brought me to tears many times.

I went downstairs to Dad’s encyclopedia and looked up HOMOSEXUALITY, but that didn’t tell me much about any of the things I felt. What struck me most, though, was that, in that whole long article, the word “love” wasn’t used even once. That made me mad; it was as if whoever wrote the article didn’t know that gay people actually love each other. The encyclopedia writers ought to talk to me, I thought as I went back to bed; I could tell them something about love. (p. 143).

Although listed in Young Adult, this book should be read by everybody, and I am extremely disappointed I didn’t learn of it years ago.

And in case you’re like me and usually out of the loop, on September 19th San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, held a press conference in which he stood in solidarity and spoke out in support for gay marriage, a complete turn-around for him.

The United Church of Christ’s rulemaking body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage…

[The resolution] also asks churches to consider supporting legislation granting equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples and to work against laws banning gay marriage.

[Source]

I do not endorse the institution of marriage, but I will endorse equality. It is absurd to deny equal rights to people, but it is even more absurd when the reasons for discrimination are backed by religion, but that’s nothing new.

I took a course last semester entitled, “Religion in America”, and unfortunately, the instructor limited our class discussions, not allowing for debate to take place. All but one of my classmates were religious, one even toting his Bible to class with him each day, and everyone had an opinion on the so-called gay marriage issue. All discussion was cut short before real dialogue could take place.

On a societal level, discussion of issues such as gay marriage works only to separate people onto different sides of some fictional fence – are you pro or anti? It is this separation and preoccupation with labels that keeps us from making real progress. We’re too concerned about who’s fucking who or what some holy book says, neglecting to examine that it is our governments and religions that are fucking us. I fear that when folks think about gay marriage, they think about two men or two women together sexually or think about what their holy book or preacher has told them, and not about who has the right to deny another person equal rights under the laws of this country.

It is beyond my brain capacity to fathom advocating for the denial of a beings’ rights.

Cheers for the UCC!