![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cake and Commitment
Aug. 5th, 2004 08:31 amJust 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.
