Poodles: recently Fifi experienced, first hand, the discrimination perpetuated upon the GLBT community by not allowing its members to enter into the legal contract of marriage with their partners. You needn’t be weighed down with the details, but suffice it to say that had I been legally bound to my partner of nearly 10 years (sorry to disappoint, boys) that this discrimination wouldn’t exist. Or at least we would have legal remedy to counter it.
I would like you to take note that I say legal contract, because — after all — that’s what marriage is. A legal contract between two consenting adults. We often get mired down in the religious debate when talking about GLBT marriage and forget to focus on the law in this matter. Even I struggle to articulate the case for GLBT marriage. But today I stumbled upon a gem of an opinion piece by Cheryl Capages, of News-Leader.com, that does the job nicely:
“…The state – not religion – regulates civil unions, which is what all marriages are. Churches bless marriages; they don’t make them legal. Parties buy a license to enter into the contract, which gives rights enforceable in court.” (1)
Capages also points out that, for many, the objection to GLBT marriage is the idea of intercourse between two people of the same sex. However, she maintains that “What occurs in a bedroom between consenting adults is private and no one else’s business in this country.” I couldn’t agree more. And if it’s the “sex” that makes people uncomfortable when discussing this topic, then let’s take that out of the equation. I propose that we stop referring to this issue as “same-sex” marriage, and in its stead add GLBT marriage or same-gender marriage to our lexicon. Personally I find term “same-sex” crass, offensive and demeaning. I much prefer the term GLBT marriage, as it tends to be more inclusive. And if any of our straight friends object to that, we can simply offer to switch to the all-inclusive term, GLBTS Marriage.
TTFN, poodles. Be sure to read Capages’ whole article, it’s worth it.
Lots of interesting reading on the subject coming my way today. Although I’ve not had a chance to read Capages’ full article, someone else posted this piece (link below) by Rob Thomas (of Matchbox Twenty – who knew he wrote opinion pieces?), which makes an excellent point that GLBT partners should also be able to enjoy the religious/life/commitment aspect of marriage (whatever that might mean for them) too… not just the legal/civil/sick/dying part.
http://is.gd/g1PCI
Thanks for that link, Poodle. This, too, sums up a lot of what I’ve been trying to articulate.