Going to the chapel..

by Steve, May 2nd, 2007

And we’re gonna get… uh, domestic partnered…

The Oregon legislature has finalized legislation to set up a system under which same-sex couples will enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. While this is a sort of “separate but equal” treatment for gays and lesbians, it at least gives all citizens equal footing under state law regarding child custody, insurance, inheritance, visitation in the hospital, etc. Governor Ted Kulongoski has said he will sign the bill into law.

As a happily married heterosexual, I’ve always been baffled by the notion that gay marriage is a threat to “traditional” marriage. How in the world could my marriage be threatened by allowing other loving couples to enjoy similar benefits?

Congratulations to all those who worked long and hard for this small step forward on the road to equal rights for all citizens.

6 Responses to “Going to the chapel..”

  1. Comment from Wacky Mommy:

    It’s like that New Yorker cartoon — one woman says to another, “Gay marriage isn’t a threat to my marriage. My husband’s girlfriends are a threat to my marriage.” heh heh heh.

  2. Comment from Matt:

    2 points:
    1. A homosexual man can marry any individual that I can marry as a heterosexual man; therein lays equality of rights. If the contention is that he cannot marry the person that he loves, then that is a different argument. We limit marriage in many situations where loving people are concerned. I cannot marry an already married woman, my sister or a 10 year old. The question is where the line is drawn; not equal rights.
    2. Marriage under the law (which is the debate since any 2 people can find a church to marry them before their God) is, in essence, government approval and sanction of a given relationship. The traditional view is that the ideal family situation for our society it a man and a woman who have made a commitment to each other and thus we automatically give tax breaks, legal recognition, etc. to those in this relationship. Since these perks can be achieved via existing legal avenues, what homosexual advocates really want is the government to approve of their activities. Being as ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people – of which I am one – and I happen to not approve of these activities, I don’t see it as hateful or bigoted to ask that the government not give its approval.

    Please understand that this is a situation where there is a great deal of difference between the micro and the macro. While I do not want the government (macro) to give official approval to a homosexual lifestyle, in my own life (micro) I have great deal of sympathy for the individuals affected. As I am sure you can guess, my disagreement with this lifestyle is Biblically based and as such, it is illogical to blame people (you or homosexual advocates) who don’t share my convictions for not adhering to my religious beliefs. This does not however, change my conviction that homosexual behavior is wrong.

    Sorry if I’ve disappointed you with my continued lack of froth on yet another contentious issue. Oh I almost forgot; Wacky Mommy, I love the cartoon you quoted. I must confess that, completely outside the gay marriage debate, we heteros have been pretty bad stewards of the institution of marriage.

  3. Comment from Himself:

    What I find interesting in the gay marriage debate is that it always comes down to sex for the opponents. If they don’t want to talk about it directly, they code it as “behavior” or “lifestyle” or “activities”.

    Seriously. It’s not about sex. It’s about being able to pass on property or power of attorney to whoever the hell I want.

    My position has long been that the state has no place in sanctioning marriage. I’d sooner abolish state sanctioned marriage altogether than add gay marriage. But that’s probably not going to happen in my life.

    So in the interest of fairness to my gay and lesbian friends, I support, commend and celebrate their victory in Oregon, small as it may be. Governor Kulongoski signed the bill this morning, and it goes into law January 1, 2008. Christians needn’t worry. I’m pretty sure this won’t lead to people marrying siblings, children or goats.

  4. Comment from Matt:

    Yes, you caught me; I was using euphemisms for sex. We are actually in agreement that this shouldn’t be about sex. I have no desire to dig into what someone does in their bedroom, but the homosexual lobby has brought what they do in their bedroom into the public square. If 2 men live together, the neither I nor the government should care whether they are roommates, family or lovers. It is only when they bring their sexual behavior into the national discourse that it becomes an issue. I repeat, they, not I, made this about sex.

    While selfishly I enjoy getting tax breaks for my marital status, I am certainly sympathetic to your position of no governmental sanction of any sort of marriage. That said and as I mentioned earlier, I am of the opinion that the government has a vested interest in promoting what the people deem to be good for society and intact families are good for any society. We are actually dangerously close to crossing two post threads (kind of like Ghostbusters), but I must point out that Western Europe is dying out (ie declining native population) due to its rejection of the traditional family structure.

    As to the “siblings, children and goats” comment, I see the humor, but intellectually this one is definitely below your usual high standards. I did not even imply that this was what concerned me. I only brought it up to illustrate that we do differentiate between relationships and thus it is not an argument of exclusion vs inclusion but rather where to draw that line.

  5. Comment from Himself:

    In the political debate leading to Oregon’s new law, the supporters never talked about sex. The debate in the state house was not about sex. I’ve never had a gay friend try to talk about sex with me. They don’t want to hear about my sex life, and I don’t want to hear about theirs. The only ones I’ve heard talking about sex are those who oppose gay marriage based on their own personal beliefs.

    You wrote “I cannot marry an already married woman, my sister or a 10 year old.” This implies the slippery slope argument. Whether you intended it or not, the idea that gay marriage will lead to incest, polygamy, child abuse and bestiality is a very common objection from fundamentalist religious opponents. It’s not beneath my standards to poke fun at the laughable fallacy in that argument.

  6. Comment from Matt:

    Well, you have clarified and I still stand by my earlier comment. We have gotten to the point at which the crux of the argument is out on the table. In my experience, for people who are as set in their beliefs as you and I, this is as far as civil discussion can take us. Generally it just moves into restating our cases in louder voices (or larger font).

    I honestly appreciate hearing your side of the debate and that you are willing to listen to mine…even if it makes you think less of my intellectual abilities or leads to nausea. Have a great day.