One of the mantra of Gay / Bi / Lesbian rights movements for the ages I have been an adult has been a cross-issue, simple and bold set of catch phrases: “Keep Your Laws Off Of My Body” was one that was used in tandem use with pro-choice as well as the gay community since the early 1990’s.
Another simple phrase “Keep the Government out of My Bedroom” and myriad variants are still widely used as battle cries of the gay and lesbian “movement”…
The idea behind these statements is simple: The government has neither right nor jurisdiction in my love life… It is simple, effective, and 100% true…
Now I don’t know what kind of people are giving the marching orders these days, but they seem to have a selective memory of what the gay and lesbian arguments that I grew up with ever were… The argument was that the government had no right nor mandate to tell me what was wrong or right in whom I choose to sleep with… It was none of their business…
You know what… you were right… I thought so then, and I think so now…
‘Pity that the gay and lesbian community at large no longer believe it….
Because in this zeal to make your mark on marriage, in this rush to get new laws passed for the sake of feeling good, or whatever it is… you are now, and have been, betraying the very principles for which you should be standing…
You are inviting government at its biggest and most intrusive right into your bedroom…. You’re demanding that government take you under its albatross wing and confine the definitions of your love, of who you are legally allowed to “do” and not “do” to legal definitions in the custody and care of the mighty government…
You are allowing the government to tell you how to love… That is not what I ever believed your movement was all about, yet you are fighting for it, intimidating people for it, and ruining people over it…
Were you the movement I admired at one time, you would reverse course on this issue, because you were right the first time… The problem is NOT that the government doesn’t regulate gay marriage; the problem is that government regulates ANY marriage…
It is the bastardization of a religious bond for purposes of governmental advantage and power that you should be fighting… Marriage in any form is a bond founded in faith, and recognized by the faithful or the not so faithful in a cynical manner… It should never have come to regulation by a government, because it is NOT the mandate of government to tell you how to feel…That is social engineering, not government…
There is a growing belief that gay marriage is merely a tool with which the church will be controlled, that by redefining marriage you are then in a position to revoke churches of their tax free status because their narrow definition of marriage is non-compliant with standards.
If this is so, then the gay and lesbian community is being used as a shoe-horn for another movement’s bidding…. Is that what we want this to all come down to? Even I as an atheist hate that idea in more ways than I can name, but again, it is the manipulation of who an individual chooses to sleep with that becomes a government tool and a regulation forever more…
So if you are truly the movement of choice, if you are indeed a community that believes that love is all we need, if you are anything like the movement I once admired strong enough to shed my blood for, then turn this around…
Take the energy, take the momentum and use it to OPEN the definition of love and commitment to anyone who feels it for each other… Stop trying to push the government into our bedroom, and help to get the bastards OUT of it… You don't need a license to commit to someone, you only need love...
Marriage is a matter between those whom you love, and the faith in which you choose to state that bond forever...
Let love decide who you love...Isn't that what we all want to believe?
Posts
5 comments:
My jaw, she dropped at the ludicrous level of ignorance you have about the law. I'm not even a lawyer and I know clearly more than you do about this situation!
The gov't only recognizes "marriages" out of necessity. Legal "marriages" are nothing more than a complex set of contracts (as they have been for centuries); they merely set, in writing, clear, definable, easily-identifiable individuals to whom you have denoted your are sharing assets with and whom you trust to be your decision-making partner in certain key areas.
Without the gov't in some form "regulating marriage", your parents - whom you did not choose and have no control over and may not like or agree with - have the default right to pull the plug on you or refuse medical treatment or even donate or refuse to donate your organs contrary to even your own stated wishes... as opposed to a spouse, whom you DID choose, presumably based on shared philosophy and values, making those decisions.
Without the gov't "regulating marriage" for that matter, the love of your life can't even visit you in the hospital if you fall gravely ill, because there is no "legal proof" that you trust them to that extent that you would allow it, which means that for security's sake they wouldn't.
Without the gov't "regulating marriage" child custody would even more of a messy complication than it already is, and once again the love of your life and one you trust most, would not be able to visit the children they helped raise if they were hospitalized.
There is a reason why these things are regulated; it is so that strangers and jilted lovers and the like do not get access to you or your kids when lying in the hospital, so that doctors can be as sure as possible that the person you trust most is the one who gets access and so that they have a way of knowing who is "family" and who is not.
And that's not even covering the more complex issues involved child custody and shared assets.
There are valid uses for such contracts and bonds in society, which means the gov't is by necessity required to recognize them in some way.
And there would be no problem at all with recognizing this, if it weren't biased along lines of sex and sexual orientation.
In short: the recognition of marriage - which is NOT just a "spiritual" or "religious" institution but rather a set of common law contracts - is not wrong at all. What is wrong is saying "you can't have these contracts if you're not one man and one woman".
It is true that some semblance of marriage, i.e. a substantial equivalent of it, can be achieved in some areas through various contracts in tandem, however, this process is considerably more difficult; most people are unaware of how to do it; and some local laws make it potentially impossible to do so outside of marriage anyway. I point you to Florida's 2008 "Prop 2", which outlawed any marriage or "substantial equivalent" that was not between one man and one woman.
In short: there is a reason marriage is "regulated" by authorities other than churches, since it is NOT a purely religious matter but rather a matter of common law contract. Marriage is a useful, practical contractual setup; there is nothing inherently wrong with it, as it makes it easier, quicker and more convenient to become someone's partner in all important matters. However, there is also obviously no good, legally defensible reason at all for it to be more difficult or impossible for a same-sex couple to achieve the same contractual setup as a heterosexual one.
You, sir, are just as wrong as the people who complain that, "homosexuality is just wrong and we need to protect the children and the sanctity of marriage!" Because you are just as confused about the difference between "sanctity" and "secular function".
I too recall the 90's movement of "keep your laws off my body." However, when existing laws are in place and exclusionary, for any reason, such laws should rightfully be deemed unconstitutional as they create a separate class of people.
Marriage is more contractual than religious, it has been historically. The Romans, for example, rarely had any ceremony associated with a "marriage" other than agreements between parties.
Religion later took marriage to a "sacred" place rather than the law taking a religious ceremony into account.
If there is one thing that history shows, it is that religions (particularly Christian based religions) rob ideas from other aspects of life and other religions then stakes its claim to it.
Do not be fooled, marriage was not and is not a "religious" matter.
Although, in principle, I can see the argument to remove legislative marriages, if straight couples had to spend nearly the time and money on estate planning, POA's, tax attorneys, etc. as gay couples - there would be riots in the streets. Instead, they get a $35 or so marriage license. We gay couples get attorney fees upon attorney fees and still don't have the same rights.
Couldn't disagree more Jayjay...
I agree with much of your assessment, but in the modern western world, love is the basis for which people enter marriage...
Look at even the vows of an atheist... God may be excluded, but love is not...
Love is an act of faith, it is unquantifiable by legal means, you can enact it for myriad reasons and none of them have definition...It is a matter of faith.... No matter how you define faith...
Governments deal in tangibility...Yes you can write up a contract, and yes you can do that now... Go for it...have a ball...That makes you a small business owner...
In fact I invite that... I want everyone to get a good contract..
Love has nothing to do with property nor contracts... If some people never get to experience that, then I do honestly feel sorry for them...
I am a married atheist because OF LOVE...NOT to "get stuff"...
If you are the opposite, then go write up a contract...it's the easiest thing in the world...
(I mean it respectfully)
Jamie:
You are talking about stuff, and ways that you can "get stuff"...
If that is your view then you know nothing about what I am speaking of...
If it's law and stuff you want...draw up a fucking contract...that's what those are for....
If you don't understand love, then stop inviting the government in to tell me what it is....
Lets get one thing straight (no pun intended...)
This isn't about two men or women having equal rights to something 'cause I don't have an issue with that...
Read it again if that's your fucking hangup... Seriously...READ IT AND PUT THE BROCHURE DOWN... I'm sick of the canned arguments...
It's about keeping the government out of all of our lives...
Post a Comment