![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Column Fodder: Here Comes the Bride
Sep. 18th, 2003 09:34 amThis weekend a friend of mine is getting married. As I talked to him over the past weekend, I could tell he was nervous, as you would expect a bride to be.
That's right, he's the bride. Thanks to the provence of Ontario, he can get married, but since legal gay marriage is so new in Canada, the forms haven't been updated. A coin was flipped, and David became the bride. A title he's held with pride.
David has started the naturalization process to eventually become a Canadian citizen, but until that happens, he will come back to the states and work, and according to these United States, his marriage never happened. Currently, states like my own Texas only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. In this country, there's plenty of people who want to keep it that way.
Currently 38 states, including Texas, have passed the bizarrely titled Defense of Marriage Act. The act already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's already been tested when a transgenedered woman married another woman. According to her birth certificate, the wedding was perfectly legal.
Still, some people are worried that the laws of the states aren't strong enough to keep gays and lesbians at bay. They see the courts ruling again and again for gay rights, eroding the so called traditional values of this country. They see what Canada's courts have done. They wait, as do we, to see what the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decides, expecting that it could send marriage laws tumbling across the country.
They are so worried about this, they have chosen to support the toughest action they could, the Federal Marriage Amendment. The reasoning is, that if it were passed, it would prevent the courts from being able to enable same-sex marriage. The amendment has already been introduced in Congress, but has found no sponsor in the Senate, yet. The controversial amendment will be a big topic of the political races for the next year.
The amendment states:
The problem is the dividing line. As you might expect, the biggest supporters of the amendment are those in the religious right. While their should be a line drawn between Church and State, of those of the religious right would rather you didn't think about that. This is where the Canadian ruling comes in. The courts in Canada realized that civil marriage is not religious marriage. Civil marriage is about rights and tax credits and the ability to have visitation rights and probate. Civil marriage doesn't have anything to do with validating love. It's all pretty clinical.
Religious marriage is not threatened by the opening of civil marriage. Canada did not require any religion to accept same-sex marriage. Marriage under religious values can stay the same as it always has. The fear is that once same-sex couples get married under the auspices of the state, they will ask for the churches to reply in kind. Still, that's not the real issue.
The bigger fear, the one that truly scares the religious right, is the actual validation of homosexuality by the state. If the state promotes perversity to be the same as regular heterosexual couples, how do you keep the kids on the farm? They already believe that homosexuality is a choice, so what's to keep little Billy from choosing Johnnie, instead of Jane?
So, why the push for the amendment now? Certainly there's the courts, if pressed, they may see that the only real part of the constitution that applies to marriage is equal protection under the law. Civil marriage is logically only equal when all couples, regardless of gender, are able to participate. To separate, even as a civil union, is to discriminate. This argument is being made now, and the amendment may be trumped before it can get out of committee. This is also the same argument that brought down the texas sodomy laws a few weeks ago.
In the longer run, people like Jerry Falwell see that they have to put a stop to moral decay before it worsens. By his own admission, he's pushing for this amendment to "protect the children". The 70 year-old Fallwell sees that anyone under 40 has had much more exposure to gay people and lifestyles. They've see dozens of "Real World" episodes. Gay relationships don't trouble the younger generations like they do the older.
A CBS News/New York Times poll from August shows that while 55 percent of responders polled opposed same sex marriage, 61 percent of those from 18 to 29 favor it. A significant difference in views. Naturally, Fallwell's demographic opposed it by 82 percent.
So it's time to stop it, I guess, before every gay man, lesbian woman and bisexual persons run to storm the neighbor to the north and get married. Before people like David come back to this country and demand that their marriage be recognized. Before being homosexual is too much like being heterosexual, you know? There has to be some moral stance, right? Shouldn't the government be regulating the morality of their citizens, it's only the proper thing to do.
Still, there's a nervous bride who takes off for Toronto tomorrow. He's getting married, for the benefits, for love, for the right reasons. He's getting married in a Toronto park to prove to the world the love between him and Josh, his soon to be husband. More than we can say for several marriages in this country. I wish I could be there. Congratulations, David.
That's right, he's the bride. Thanks to the provence of Ontario, he can get married, but since legal gay marriage is so new in Canada, the forms haven't been updated. A coin was flipped, and David became the bride. A title he's held with pride.
David has started the naturalization process to eventually become a Canadian citizen, but until that happens, he will come back to the states and work, and according to these United States, his marriage never happened. Currently, states like my own Texas only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. In this country, there's plenty of people who want to keep it that way.
Currently 38 states, including Texas, have passed the bizarrely titled Defense of Marriage Act. The act already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's already been tested when a transgenedered woman married another woman. According to her birth certificate, the wedding was perfectly legal.
Still, some people are worried that the laws of the states aren't strong enough to keep gays and lesbians at bay. They see the courts ruling again and again for gay rights, eroding the so called traditional values of this country. They see what Canada's courts have done. They wait, as do we, to see what the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decides, expecting that it could send marriage laws tumbling across the country.
They are so worried about this, they have chosen to support the toughest action they could, the Federal Marriage Amendment. The reasoning is, that if it were passed, it would prevent the courts from being able to enable same-sex marriage. The amendment has already been introduced in Congress, but has found no sponsor in the Senate, yet. The controversial amendment will be a big topic of the political races for the next year.
The amendment states:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"
The problem is the dividing line. As you might expect, the biggest supporters of the amendment are those in the religious right. While their should be a line drawn between Church and State, of those of the religious right would rather you didn't think about that. This is where the Canadian ruling comes in. The courts in Canada realized that civil marriage is not religious marriage. Civil marriage is about rights and tax credits and the ability to have visitation rights and probate. Civil marriage doesn't have anything to do with validating love. It's all pretty clinical.
Religious marriage is not threatened by the opening of civil marriage. Canada did not require any religion to accept same-sex marriage. Marriage under religious values can stay the same as it always has. The fear is that once same-sex couples get married under the auspices of the state, they will ask for the churches to reply in kind. Still, that's not the real issue.
The bigger fear, the one that truly scares the religious right, is the actual validation of homosexuality by the state. If the state promotes perversity to be the same as regular heterosexual couples, how do you keep the kids on the farm? They already believe that homosexuality is a choice, so what's to keep little Billy from choosing Johnnie, instead of Jane?
So, why the push for the amendment now? Certainly there's the courts, if pressed, they may see that the only real part of the constitution that applies to marriage is equal protection under the law. Civil marriage is logically only equal when all couples, regardless of gender, are able to participate. To separate, even as a civil union, is to discriminate. This argument is being made now, and the amendment may be trumped before it can get out of committee. This is also the same argument that brought down the texas sodomy laws a few weeks ago.
In the longer run, people like Jerry Falwell see that they have to put a stop to moral decay before it worsens. By his own admission, he's pushing for this amendment to "protect the children". The 70 year-old Fallwell sees that anyone under 40 has had much more exposure to gay people and lifestyles. They've see dozens of "Real World" episodes. Gay relationships don't trouble the younger generations like they do the older.
A CBS News/New York Times poll from August shows that while 55 percent of responders polled opposed same sex marriage, 61 percent of those from 18 to 29 favor it. A significant difference in views. Naturally, Fallwell's demographic opposed it by 82 percent.
So it's time to stop it, I guess, before every gay man, lesbian woman and bisexual persons run to storm the neighbor to the north and get married. Before people like David come back to this country and demand that their marriage be recognized. Before being homosexual is too much like being heterosexual, you know? There has to be some moral stance, right? Shouldn't the government be regulating the morality of their citizens, it's only the proper thing to do.
Still, there's a nervous bride who takes off for Toronto tomorrow. He's getting married, for the benefits, for love, for the right reasons. He's getting married in a Toronto park to prove to the world the love between him and Josh, his soon to be husband. More than we can say for several marriages in this country. I wish I could be there. Congratulations, David.
