julifolo ([info]julifolo) wrote,
@ 2008-11-05 06:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: shattered
Entry tags:marriage equity, rant

Too little sleep last night. 4 for 4 homophobic votes
Big relief, Obama won.

Maybe the recurring WWIII nightmares will calm down & let me sleep.

California Prop 8 still isn't called, but odds are very bad.

So 3 states vote against gay marriage (and one was wiping out the only pro-gay votes in how many years?) And Arkansas won't let gays adopt.

I feel ill. My heart is breaking for what the gays & allies must be feeling -- Having been battered and surviving this long those with experience are going to keep fighting. But I wonder how many more teen suicides are being bred in this toxix environment?

Massachussetts, the sky hasn't fallen. ButProp 8 was heading for Fail until the huge influx of mormon money and feet on the ground. I'm so glad it's so much harder for amendments to be voted in Massachussetts.

I'm not being very coherant. This really hurts.


(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]mrowe
2008-11-05 01:36 pm UTC (link)
Yes, it's really a bummer, that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
All this talk about Change
[info]julifolo
2008-11-05 02:02 pm UTC (link)
I was hoping it might include gays this time. For a change.

Thanks for the hugs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]telperion1
2008-11-05 08:21 pm UTC (link)
*sends hugs* I'm so sorry - it amazes me that there is so much hate. And I know this is an issue you care deeply about.

If it's any consolation, I was talking about the issue with a Christian Tolkien group, that probably has more conservatives than most groups I belong to. I started a conversation questioning why exactly gay marriage was wrong, and in the end it really came down to semantics. It seemed that most people who really looked at the issue agreed that gays should have the same rights as anyone else, but they objected to the word "marriage" being used because this was a religious ocncept for them. Actually the most popular idea was for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely, and for there to be no different treatment for two adults living in the same house whether they were married or not.

I know that doesn't affect the vote, but maybe it's a sign that dialogue and hence change is possible for the future?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
The trouble is
[info]julifolo
2008-11-05 09:14 pm UTC (link)
"Separate but equal" hasn't worked in those states that have "civil unions" rather than "civil marriage equity".

The reason why there's a distinction between "civil marriage" and "church wedding" is that "marriage" is *both* secular and regigious. And, at least for christianity, marriage started out not being a religious matter (weddings were done on the east porch, not inside a church).

So I'm not in favor of governments getting out of the "marriage" business. Rather, like many other words in the dictionary, there are multiple meanings.

Thanks for you're sympathy. I'm still badly hurting and fragile.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The trouble is
[info]telperion1
2008-11-06 12:30 am UTC (link)
I didn't mean what I said as a separate-but-equal thing and (if I'm reading the other people I'm talking to correctly) they don't either. I actually agree that their shouldn't be one term for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals. Rather, the suggestion I keep hearing is that the same word be used for same-sex and different-sex unions by the state, but that this word be something other than marriage.

I said that as a bit of an encouragement on a dark day. (See my recent post on prop8 if you like - I'm very discouraged by it, too.) I am trying to believe that people aren't so very far apart as they might seem and that, through dialogue, we can make steps forward very soon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Unfortunately, that doesn't feel like a fair compromise to me
[info]julifolo
2008-11-06 04:29 pm UTC (link)
I appreaciate that you are trying to be fair. But when the language change has already happened it's unfair for religion to claim "marriage" as its territory, especially when there's so much power attached to the word, when the religious and legal meanings of the word have been comingled for so long. Especially if when it's only some of the religious dominations claiming exclusive use while other religious dominations (such as UCC) and secular humanists would be fine with using the same word having for both church and civil weddings.

What this feels like is the defacto USA requirement that politicians for high office have to be religious, even though the law says "no religious requirement allowed". Pragmatically, my being a public atheist makes me unqualified for elected office. There's a whole lot of other reasons why I shouldn't ... but that reason is unfair.

I know that you are trying to be fair. But as a person who got married over 30 years ago, who likes being married, who has benifited from marriage, who wants this for my gay friends -- that you sincerely, and in good will, are unable to see that your request is unfair -- that hurts me. I suppose that it will hurt you that I can't see the point that you are trying to make, why the distinction is so important for you. I'm trying to understand, but I don't get it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…