Cake and Commitment
Aug. 5th, 2004 08:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsJust a quick note about recent events.
I guess I'm wary about Washington State's judgment that you can't deny same-sex marriage, on the basis of equal protection under the law. This is a good thing, and should be an example of the difference between civil law and religious tradition. The ruling must be reviewed by the state's Supreme Court, as a similar lawsuit hangs in the balance there.
Meanwhile, a state away in Oregon there's a pending constitutional amendment that will be voted upon this fall. The amendment is being pushed by those who support the state limiting the definition of civil marriage to that of religious tradition. While Oregon is a pretty progressive state, the solid passage of a similar note in Missouri shows that it's a difficult proposition to show people the inherent bigotry of such a motion.
I'm afraid that tradition, and those who support it, are clouding people's minds, and we aren't getting the word out. Look, Massachusetts hasn't fallen into a pit of depravity. Oregon itself has wed same-sex couples who hopefully will be able to show the populace that there's no threat to society when two people of any gender get together.
I hear the taunts that if we accept same-sex marriage, then the state will force churches to accept it. Where did this notion come from? Parishioners will be the ones to change that, not the state. No state has any business telling the pope, or Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson that they have to have their church accept this. what they truly worry about is normalization. They can see that if same-sex civil marriages pass, then they become, in the state's eyes, just as valid. Eventually, society will see it as such, and then they will pressure the churches to see our relationships as just as valid.
With groups like Dignity, it's already happening, slowly. Same-Sex marriage would just snowball the momentum.
The thing I'm worried about is the backlash, which is already occurring. There's an increase in violence and certainly a smear campaign against Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered citizens all across the US. Along with this comes more and more efforts to change state constitutions.
I'm afraid that Washington's decision could trigger another attempt by the Republicans to try the Federal marriage Amendment again. Just a little way to say, see, this wouldn't just stay in one state! Marriage is in trouble!
That's right, heteros, your marriages are doomed, just because some queers want you to join them for some cake and a ceremony.
I know we need to fight on, but a part of me wishes we could do it until after the presidential election, when things calm down, an this possibly becomes a non-issue.
Still, sometimes you have to take the momentum when you've got it.
I guess I'm wary about Washington State's judgment that you can't deny same-sex marriage, on the basis of equal protection under the law. This is a good thing, and should be an example of the difference between civil law and religious tradition. The ruling must be reviewed by the state's Supreme Court, as a similar lawsuit hangs in the balance there.
Meanwhile, a state away in Oregon there's a pending constitutional amendment that will be voted upon this fall. The amendment is being pushed by those who support the state limiting the definition of civil marriage to that of religious tradition. While Oregon is a pretty progressive state, the solid passage of a similar note in Missouri shows that it's a difficult proposition to show people the inherent bigotry of such a motion.
I'm afraid that tradition, and those who support it, are clouding people's minds, and we aren't getting the word out. Look, Massachusetts hasn't fallen into a pit of depravity. Oregon itself has wed same-sex couples who hopefully will be able to show the populace that there's no threat to society when two people of any gender get together.
I hear the taunts that if we accept same-sex marriage, then the state will force churches to accept it. Where did this notion come from? Parishioners will be the ones to change that, not the state. No state has any business telling the pope, or Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson that they have to have their church accept this. what they truly worry about is normalization. They can see that if same-sex civil marriages pass, then they become, in the state's eyes, just as valid. Eventually, society will see it as such, and then they will pressure the churches to see our relationships as just as valid.
With groups like Dignity, it's already happening, slowly. Same-Sex marriage would just snowball the momentum.
The thing I'm worried about is the backlash, which is already occurring. There's an increase in violence and certainly a smear campaign against Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered citizens all across the US. Along with this comes more and more efforts to change state constitutions.
I'm afraid that Washington's decision could trigger another attempt by the Republicans to try the Federal marriage Amendment again. Just a little way to say, see, this wouldn't just stay in one state! Marriage is in trouble!
That's right, heteros, your marriages are doomed, just because some queers want you to join them for some cake and a ceremony.
I know we need to fight on, but a part of me wishes we could do it until after the presidential election, when things calm down, an this possibly becomes a non-issue.
Still, sometimes you have to take the momentum when you've got it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 07:53 am (UTC)For more specific coverage, check out yesterday's NPR "All Things Considered" archive.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 10:10 pm (UTC)I'm thinking we're going to need to do better to show them that we have better intentions for this than they think.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 07:56 am (UTC)You are the first person to articulate with words some of the feelings I have been experiencing. Your words are well chosen and thoughtful, although may not be well received by all, are right on.
The next 4 months will be interesting to watch in this battle. I think that once the election is over and people heads are back to thinking clearly, there may be some unexpected backlash against the Christian right (of which I used to be a member). The constitution of any state or of our nation was never intended to be used to legislate discrimination, which people have forgotten. In the end, the Supreme Court will have to settle this once and for all.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 10:18 pm (UTC)I'm thinking it's going to be awhile before that backlash occurs. They will continue to say their pro-family (with out mentioning their narrow view of family), pro marriage (if you see it in their terms), and, of course, righteous, with the power of the lord behind them.
I don't make fun of faith, but of intention and bigotry from it.
it's going to take time, and certainly more gay couples standing up to show that their marriage is valid, and doesn't threaten others. the right won't be able to bring forth a man or woman who can truly say that their marriage was harmed by same-sex unions.
I fear that the Supreme Court can be skewed very right in the next few years. another reason to push away from George W.
Thanks for reading!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 08:48 am (UTC)Personally, I'd love churches to no longer be able to call their "marriage" a LEGAL marriage.
Personally, I'd love for the legal act to become calls "UNION" and the religious act to stay marriage.
But if they refuse to change it, then yes, religious organizations WOULD have to recognize same-sex marriages.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 10:24 pm (UTC)I'd say we're more likely to see a hybrid, straits could get a civil union, or marriage, gays just the civil union, much like the scandinavian countries and the Netherlands.
I hope they would give us the full enchilada, but that's doubtful.
no subject
Here in Utah, I think the non-fundies (the "Don't Amend Alliance" http://www.dontamend.org ) may be better funded... but the depressing thing?
The LDS church came out and got political. GRRRR! They came out in support of the federal FMA and then the state amendment. Utah's constitution has never been amended, and now the battle to not have it changed is almost assured failure. :((