Adam and Steve

I thought I was going to write something productive. Then I made the mistake of going on livejournal. Now I suddenly feel the desire to express something, which to me should seem so painfully obvious that it staggers the imagination. (I can’t believe I even have to declare this.)

From today’s AP: Mass. Court Clears Way for Gay Marriages

Before I begin: 2 things.
1) Given the nature that LJ has taken on lately, this is directed at no one. It is simply my opinion, my self-indulgent little rant, and at the end of the day, no one cares about my opinion except me. The same holds true for you and yours.
2) For those of you that think that this has something to do with religion, take your Bible, or your Torah, or the wood blocks that your “holy man” scribed on with a magnifying glass and the sun, or whatever religious text you live by, and shove it up your ass. For the purposes of this topic, your faith is completely irrelevant.

[spprs cracks knuckles]

Now, let’s begin.

There are two kinds of marriage in this country: that observed by the government, and that observed by an organized religion. For a legally binding marriage, the former is mandatory, the latter is optional.

It so happens that many marriages that are bound by a religion are observed as legal by the government. However, when you get married, you and your spouse still have to sign a contract with the state. I don’t care if Jesus comes down from Heaven and does the ceremony. Your governor doesn’t care either. You still have to sign the dotted line.

The benefits of this contract are that the newlyweds are now possibly entitled to (among many things) the following:

  • More affordable insurance. Unless one spouse works someplace with the wisdom and benevolence to provide for domestic partner relationships, insurance is much more expensive, especially if one person is unemployed, self-employed, a homemaker, etc.
  • Better banking. Banks will laugh in your face if you’re just two people scraping nickels together to get a mortgage. Married couples, however, are bound until death. There is safety in numbers.
  • Tax breaks and incentives. ‘nuff said.
  • Ditto all of the above for cosigning on anything, like a car.
  • Power of attorney. Let’s say you and your lover (regardless of gender) are living happily ever after. Said lover saws his/her hand off, because you were so excited when you got that Vietnamese spin-fuck chair, that you couldn’t be bothered to read the OSHA warnings. You take said lover to the ER. Before the healing begins, they need you to sign a bunch of forms, assuming you’re married. But you’re not. Only next of kin can do sign. You stand there like and idiot, while the doctor stares at the pieces of your lover bleeding on the floor. Now would be a good time to test your faith in miracles.

The list goes on. The point is that without that government observed contract, the tables are significantly turned against two people who are not, much less cannot be, married.

Now, there was a time when the local priest or rabbi or crazy guy with magnifying glass represented the common good, and his word was your contract. Religion and law were merged. However, we have since leapt out of those times, and with the invention of a constitution that separates church from state, there are now legislators, judges, and lawyers that have nothing to do with your god(s). There is the law of the land, and there is the law of your faith. The two may resemble each other, but they are distinctly separate.

It is true that the leaders of organized religions are recognized by the government to perform marriages. Part of this is a carry-over from ye olden dayes. Part of it is strictly a matter of convenience. But your priest still has to fill out the red tape and submit it to the justice of the peace. So does Captain Stubing, when you get married on the Love Boat.

Am I saying religion should observe gay marriages? I couldn’t care less. Every religion is different, and that religion is responsible for setting those rules. That is the beauty of the First Amendment. You can choose your religion. Or you can choose to not choose a religion. Is a marriage that is strictly done by a judge at the courthouse recognized by God? No idea. You’ll have to ask God. But for the sake of marriage in the United States, it does not matter.

If you must stand by your holy book, ask yourself: does it condemn marriages by members who belong to separate religions? After all, the 10 commandments strictly state “thou shall have no other God but me”. So, does that mean heterosexual Hindus can’t marry each other? After all, aren’t they living in sin? Stick this in your pipe: if the Church of Satan is recognized as a religion in your state, then Satanists can marry each other. That is, of course, if they’re straight. What’s Yahweh’s call on that one? I can play this game all day, because everyone’s religion is different, and everyone’s holy text is completely and subjectively interpreted by each individual. As far as law goes, it is foundation built on loose sand. That’s why there is a separation between church and state.

It seems to me that two people who truly love each other, are dedicated to each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives supporting each other and fostering a binding relationship, should not be condemned, regardless of who those two people happen to be. They should be supported and encouraged to grow. I don’t think I’m out of line by saying that’s something Christ would expect.

I assure you, whatever you have done in a bedroom that got your jollies going would gross out someone else on this planet, not to mention clash with someone’s religious code. Cope. And mind your own fucking business. The world is hard enough as it is without creating more conflicts and divisions between us.

Remember, Jesus did not say, “Love thy neighbor… unless they’re faggots.”

Written by

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet

Related Posts

111 thoughts on “Adam and Steve”

  1. It’s funny, I wrote this big long letter to our congressional reps (who responded to me in a form letter) about my advocacy for same sex marital rights after being clued in by Mark about the whole issue. Testament to how bored I was at Verizon one day, I was asked to sign a petition and I wound up writing a 500 word essay. Anyway, I’m forever on the human rights campaign (as they call it) mailing list because I stuck up for the gays, saying they had every bit as much of a right as us straights did to lose half their shit in a divorce as the next guy. Furthermore, legally bound couples promote social and economic stability in neighborhoods and strengthen local economies, etc, etc. I often wonder if our dear departed friend read the letter I wrote at his behest and cc’d him on.

    And the whole religion thing… well, you know where I stand. I’ve never felt so compelled to stab a holy man in the eyes as on my wedding day. But I try to let go of that. And every day I fail. Maybe one day…

  2. “For the purposes of this topic, your faith is completely irrelevant.”

    Then why do you bring faith and religion into it throughout the entire post? Does this mean you are saying that anything you write here about religion is to be ignored on the grounds of irrelevancy? Please clarify.

    “You stand there like and idiot, while the doctor stares at the pieces of your lover bleeding on the floor.”

    In my 5 years of working in the medical field, I have never seen a doctor refuse to treat a trauma patient like the one cited above due to the lack of a authorization for treatment signature. Your mileage may vary although I think the above stated is a gross exaggeration intended for no other value than shock.

    “For a legally binding marriage, the former is mandatory, the latter is optional.[…] and with the invention of a constitution that separates church from state, there are now legislators, judges, and lawyers that have nothing to do with your god(s). There is the law of the land, and there is the law of your faith. The two may resemble each other, but they are distinctly separate.”

    Yet even in a religious marriage, the secular laws demands that the phrase, “I, take you, to be my lawfully wedded…” or it is not binding. This is an example of how secular authority is at the very least intruding on a religious rite. If one is allowed to intrude on another then it must go both ways or not at all.

    “Remember, Jesus did not say, “Love thy neighbor… unless they’re faggots.”

    Since you invoked talking about what Jesus said, I shall reply with other things he said that may be relevant:

    1. Love the sinner, not the sin.

    2. From Mark 10, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    And let’s not forget the letters of the Apostle Paul, who spoke with Jesus’ authority in Ephesians 5:25 when he wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it[…]”

    So, the Bible is quite clear on what marriage is and is not. To allow the secular authority to determine that a religious body must allow a thing to occur, and then back that decree up on the grounds of unlawful discrimination, is, to me, a clear violation of the First Amendment which clearly states, “Congress shall make no law […] prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof […]”

  3. And FURTHERMORE:

    Those limp dick fucksticks who are always whining about the economic growth and stability should be ALL in favor of the whold gay marriage thing, if only for the value of they way they come into crap neighborhoods and fix them up and make them into the blue cards on the Monopoly board. Every kissy-kissy prick living in Hyde Park should stop to reflect that they’d be living in crack town if the gays hadn’t moved in there in the late 80s and fixed the place up. Hell, I bought my house from a couple of old queens, and they more than doubled the property value in the five years they had the place. Imagine how many crucifixes, napalm, and stealth bombers you could buy with that kind of investment return!!! RELEASE THE KRAKEN!

  5. Yet even in a religious marriage, the secular laws demands that the phrase, “I, take you, to be my lawfully wedded…” or it is not binding. This is an example of how secular authority is at the very least intruding on a religious rite. If one is allowed to intrude on another then it must go both ways or not at all.

    “lawfully wedded…” Could mean as much “wedded by the laws of the church” as it means “legaly recognized by the local, state, and federal government.” So that arguement doesn’t exactly apply.

    A couple who goes through a religious wedding ceremony will be be recognized as a marriage by the church, even if the legal paperwork (i.e. the marriage certificate) is never filed. However, the same marriage will not be recognized by the law… it doesn’t matter if they “I, take you, to be my lawfully wedded…” or not.

    Also, I’d like to think that my marriage is legally binding… Which it is… but we did not use that phrase at all. It was “I… give my self to you…to be your wife/husband” “lawfully wedded” was not part of the ceremony. But the license was properly applied for, filled out, and filed… so it’s legit.

  6. Yeah, I wondered about that (the assertion that the ceremony has to include “I take you….”). It didn’t jive with stuff I remembered, or with how things are done in Canada.

    Being a complete research hound, I went and looked it up. According to usmarriagelaws.com, “There are normally no “mandatory” words in a marriage ceremony. The couple is simply required to indicate that they intend to take each other as spouses and say words to that effect.”

    Ironically, for the purposes of this discussion, that whole intent thing comes to us from the Christian influences on the institution, since it’s Catholic doctrine that states that the intention to wed is essential for the sacrament to occur.

  7. Yeah, my marriage vows didn’t say anything about being lawfully wedded, nor did the marriage vows of the wedding I went to the last time in Jacksonville (and that involved a cop).

    According to this web site the only thing required for it to be legal is for the two people getting married to take a “vow” of some sort. I figured that maybe this wasn’t exact enough, so I looked up the Statutes in Florida law. The only reference I found to solemnizing the marriage at all was 2003->Ch0741->Section%2008″>here, and that said nothing about vow requirements.

    Next?

  8. The list goes on. The point is that without that government observed contract, the tables are significantly turned against two people who are not, much less cannot be, married.

    The list goes on, indeed.. even *with* a government observed contract in some cases.

    Take marital immigration to the US The US federal government usually bases “whether you’re married” on the laws of the country a couple are married in (going so far as to deny or delay petitions from people who don’t have pictures of specific ceremonies in India, for example).

    However, that goes out the window when the country in question allows gay marriage.

  10. You can list all the rational, logical reasons you want. It won’t change the opinion of people who prefer that there was no seperation of church and state.

  13. isn’t that just silly? i mean, if you want to live your life to a higher standard than the laws allow, then GO FOR IT – just don’t get your panties in a wad because other people don’t. it’s a freeeeee country – that’s the whole point.

  14. *shrug* I suppose so. I just see debating government with someone who keeps falling behind their interpretaion of religion to support their views about as entertaining as bashing my bald and unpadded head into a brick wall.

    You want to convince me that homosexuals should not be married? Give me statistics. Give me facts. Show me where it would be bad for the people of this country by supplying me with irrefutable truths about the negative effects of same-sex marriages. If you can’t do that, your argument only holds up if the people in power are of the same mind.

    Unfortunately…

  15. Actually it’s not ironic, as the current intent is to show that both parties agree to the union. The groom can say “I Do” until he turns blue in the face, but if the bride doesn’t agree, it ain’t happening.

    Come to think of it, I’m sure that’s why the Catholics introduced it… but it’s more of a “common sense” thing than a religious one.

  16. You know, there is actual demographic data somewhere that proves what you are saying. I’ve got a friend of mine who is a city planner for Clearwater that did a whole presentation on it. I just can’t find any on the net because the words value and homosexual in a search pull up a billion (yes, exaggerated) webs sites about how homosexuality is evil.

    sigh

  17. that’s pretty much why the Catholics introduced it, yes…

    I meant ironic in the sense that the inclusion of intent was being complained about as an intrusion of the state into the church — given that the whole intent thing came into “legal” marriage when the Church insinuated itself completely into marriage in the 12th Century.

    ::shrugs:: It’s really only ironic in the context of the thread. Or maybe ironic is the wrong word.

    Damn you Alanis.

  18. Then why do you bring faith and religion into it throughout the entire post? Does this mean you are saying that anything you write here about religion is to be ignored on the grounds of irrelevancy? Please clarify.

    Every rationale against gay marriage is based to one degree or another on religion. For those interested in speed reading and abstracts, I put the point of my post at the top. That point is that religion doesn’t have a leg to stand on as far as this topic is concerned. To explore and explain this, I talk about all of the reasons for this. These reasons follow my point.

    In my 5 years of working in the medical field, I have never seen a doctor refuse to treat a trauma patient like the one cited above due to the lack of a authorization for treatment signature. Your mileage may vary although I think the above stated is a gross exaggeration intended for no other value than shock.

    Yes, it was a gross exaggeration. If this exact scenario happened, after the doctors and nurses were done rolling on the floor with laughter, the doc would deal with the trauma first, the paper work later. However, once a situation reaches a point of less than critical, then paperwork stands between further treatment and consent by next of kin. And by the way, the intention was humor, not shock. Vietnamese spin-fuck chairs are funny.

    Yet even in a religious marriage, the secular laws demands that the phrase, “I, take you, to be my lawfully wedded…” or it is not binding.

    According to the above posts, that’s not true. Thanks , , et. al. for doing the leg work.

    Since you invoked talking about what Jesus said, I shall reply with other things he said that may be relevant:

    Take the following quote in consideration:
    “Shoot the pasties off the nipples of a ten foot bull-dyke and win a cotton candy goat.”
    Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

    Know what your quotes and mine have in common? Neither of them mean a goddamned thing as far as legal marriage is concerned. I mentioned what Jesus would or would not say, as a gentle reminder that Christians – the predominant group against gays in this country – are followers of Christ, who took ANYONE into his open arms. There is a sick irony that the most ardent of Christians are typically the ones that act the least like Christ when it comes to their fellow man. And before your head explodes, I offer you the KKK, as well as any good, God-fearing Christian brother who hung darkies, beat the Irish, abused Chinese slaves, regarded anyone with brown skin as a savage of the dark lord, and abused the hell out of their wives because they found a scripture somewhere in the Bible that said it was okay.

    It’s discrimination, and by the very nature of the tenets behind this nation and its government, it should not exist. No other book, text or law outside of U.S. state and federal legislation have any say in the matter. If a gay couple wants to be persecuted and unable to marry, there are plenty of countries they can move to. However, if they want to escape discrimination (and persecution), this should be the one nation on the planet that should absolutely provide that haven.

  19. haha, this is the same arguement i used on all of the racist motherfuckers in pompano who were FREAKING ’cause it was becoming a hatian neighborhood.

    the white trash bastards were letting their homes go to shit, cars in the front yard up on blocks, never mowing their lawns, being big and fat and lazy (seriously, clyde, my across the street neighbor was john boudreux-sized, shirtless, and would sit in a lawn chair under an umbrella in his front yard, with a hose and a few beers, and that’s how he’d water his lawn, couldn’t even be bothered to STAND), and losing it cause the “niggers” were taking over.

    ya know, those same “niggers” who came in, fixed the holes in the houses, made beautiful gardens, worked their ASSES off to make thie homes better places. totally drove up the property values of that area (and, also, as a bonus perk, flooded out all the racist dickheads who couldn’t handle it).

  20. Are Japanese spin-fuck chairs funny, or is it just a general asian slant (no pun intended) the the spin-fuck chairs that makes them funny? If the latter is true, can your statement be considered to be a racist one?

  21. Hey, you know what? I just thought of something else. The government does NOT impose it’s guidelines on marriage to religious institutions.

    Case in point – The MCC church. They conduct homosexual marriages all the time. In their church two men or two women can be married in the eyes of God. This is not an illegal activity. They are not breaking any laws. The government isn’t telling them that they cannot be married, they are telling them that they will not assign the rights and privelidges of marriage to same sex couples.

    The Government says – “Ok, if you’re married you get to do all of this stuff, and in order for you to be married in our eyes you have to meet the following criteria : blah, blah, blah.” If you don’t follow them, you aren’t “legally” married, but that doesn’t change what happened between you, your spouse, and your God.

  22. I don’t think it really pertains to area so much as a specific country. See, the Japanese probably invented the spin-fuck chair. They probably have spin-fuck chairs that sing to you and spray Eucalptus bathroom freshener when you use them. It’s not difficult to imagine one, and therefore not surprising, where the root of the humor is. However, a Cambodian spin-fuck chair instantly sends the imagination spinning in who-knows-what direction. Likewise, a Brazilian spin-fuck chair sounds all kinds of knotty and kinky. On the other hand, a Canadian spin-fuck chair sounds like your standard office chair, maybe with some KY on the seat. Not funny. It’s not so much a racist joke as one that implies exoticism and imagination.

  27. You should try a search for “gay” and “real estate” and see what you find. And no shit, I’m living in proof of that paradigm. That’s my advice to anyone buying a home: find out where the gays are buying houses and move there.

  28. Ah, gentrification. Yeah. It happens when any cohesive community comes in and does something collectively with a neighborhood. I think gay people tend to have better tase in decor and making shrewed materiel decisions.

  29. Heh…

    Funny story involving that word. A friend of mine moved into a house in a neighborhood that was “coming up” (in other words, it still sucked ass but had potential). She wanted to have a block party and invite all the neighbors over. So she makes this great big banner and hangs it on her roof.

    “NEIGHBORHOOD GENTRIFICATION PARTY”

    The neighborhood was predominantly African Americans on the low end of the income scale.

    Fortunately, they didn’t seem to know what the word meant any more than she did. At least, if they did, they chose not to firebomb her house as a result.

  30. I think the reason I’m basically an atheist is because while in every other forum of argument where you have to present logical and supportable paramaters for your arguement, in the case of religion, you are asked to sit by politely and sit on your hands while you listen to a platform that would literally be laughed off the stage in any other form of debate. I just can’t make allowances for it anymore and I can’t keep being that polite anymore just for the sake of what is a minority in my personal circle.

    Don’t forget – they used to think Earth was flat, and that Earth was not only the center of the universe, but the totality of the universe.

  31. The arguments against gay marriage essentially come down to predjudice, which I believe arises partly because of religious condemnation of homosexuality. If you dig deeper into the nature of some people’s antipathy to gays (and in part to some church’s), I think a factor in that predjudice is fear: fear of unresolved attraction to those of the same gender that lies deep within all of us. Some folks act on it; other folks acknowledge it, accept it as part of the pan-sexuality in human nature, and don’t act on it; and some, in fear of themselves and in shame (see religion, above), repress it and project it negatively as part of their shadow selves on “the other”–in this case, gays. That Jesse Helms…you know, he kind of uptight, but that boy got a purty mouth on him….

    My personal opinion: we live in a world short of love. We ought to be grateful that people of any gender want to take a shot at making a life together.

    splatt

  33. Heh,

    Is this a case of SCA “contamination”?? *grin*

    (so speaks an ex-scadian… who keeps popping up with the oddest pieces of trivia from old SCA research when she’s at work.)

  34. Show me where it would be bad for the people of this country by supplying me with irrefutable truths about the negative effects of same-sex marriages.

    No can do.. but I can show you two examples of the positive effects of same-sex marriages when it comes to child rearing…

    Me

    And

    Both of us well adjusted, well educated adults, who are contributing to society.

    Which (to totally change the subject) is one of the reasons that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. Actually it isn’t a change of subject… because the adoption agencies rarely say that the issue is “same-sex parents”. Instead, they say that without the security bonds of matrimony, there is a “higher risk of instability” in the household.

  36. Yup, yup and yup.

    Re: you’re last paragraph: you got that right. Especially when you look at the divorce rate in this country.

  37. You also forgot that that when two same-sex partners share title in property and one of them dies, the surviving partner is not protected by the Homestead Act. A surviving spouse or child is.

    Mom has been working with her lawyer for about a year now, but there is still a chance that she might loose the house because of Linda’s creditors demanding her half of the property to pay off old debts.

  38. Oddly enough, it’s not.

    I did two of my senior research thesis on the history of divorce (and by extension marriage) in England. The first was a survey of the relevant literature, which meant I had to read all the relevant literature. The second focused on divorce law reform in Great Britain at the turn of the 20th century, which also necessitated going back to the Victorian changes in law. If I ever go back to do a doctorate, it’s going to be a further examination of the topic.

    I also studied the history of English Common Law in school.

  39. Canadian spin-fuck chair sounds like your standard office chair, maybe with some KY on the seat

    Excuse me.

    Wouldn’t that be a standard office chair, with some KY on the seat, mounted into a canoe?

    hrmph

  41. WOW…

    Yesh…. yet another person who makes me feel totally uneducated/under-educated.

    *sigh*

    I think I’m going to go hide under my desk now…

  42. meh

    an education is only as good as what you do with it.

    I’m very lucky to have the education that I do, and I like to think that I made the most of it while I was doing it.

    OTOH, some of the most important people in the world to me never finished college, and I still enjoy talking to them and exchanging opinions.

    Come out from under the desk – I’ve read what you’ve written here and in other places. You have no reason to hide.

  43. No, Miss Smarty-pants, there would be no canoe involved. A canoe would make it interesting, and hence, not Canadian.

  47. yeah, the hatians were clean, but some of the colors picked for homes were… interesting.

    in all honesty, i was jealous. i would have had a lavander house, or teal. why the hell not? be different! stand out!

Leave a Reply