I don't even like the idea of gay marriage. I never did. Way back when, in the 18th Century, when I was a so-called "gay-activist", marriage was not on our radar. In fact, if being married meant having to live a life like my mom and all of her husbands had had, then no thank you, I was not the least bit interested in your
patriarchal
sexist
mysoginistic
eurocentric
judeo-christian
bullshit.
thankyewverymuch.
What I wanted was the freedom to f*ck my brains out with like-minded men.
And so I did.
And then a lot of us started dropping dead as a result of it.
So some dimwit came up with "Hey! Screwing around is dangerous. Let's emulate the breeders!" And a bunch of other dimwits went along with it.
The next thing you knew, everybody was piling on the "Hey! We're not a bunch of hedonistic sex fiends! We're just like you, only slightly different!" bandwagon. We even started adopting kids, or corraling willing sperm and egg donors into service. We even started hiring women to have babies for us.
I, for one, think that government has no business being in the marriage business at all. Government is in the business of sanctioning contracts. Business contracts. It should make up the rules by which both sides of a business transaction must abide, establish the rules by which the law can enforce those contracts and, when things unravel, oversee the dissolution of the contract in a mutually amenable (read: both sides lose) way.
I, for one, think that government should establish the granting of "Union Licenses" between two, consenting, semi-sane people. Union licenses, when properly signed and witnessed in the presence of some semi-government official, and a couple of friends, would automatically create all of the same contractural rights and obligations that "marriage licenses" do now, except they would no longer be called "marriage" licenses.
If people want to get married, fine, they can go see their local clergyperson and have him or her or it arrange to do the deed in a place of worship of their choice.
However, that clergyperson would NOT be authorized to oversee the establishment of the contractural union. That function must be performed by a representative of the civil authority.
Problem solved. "Marriage" remains the sanctified private property of the fire-breathing right and gay people get the right to have their in-laws treat them like shit every Christmas.
How exciting.
Like Iraq, is this really worth fighting for?
3 comments:
The rights are worth fighting for. The label, not at all. I enjoy your writing, by the way.
I agree the rights are important, but instead of trying to shoehorn ourselves into somebody else's definition of what a proper relationship "should be", I want gay people to be free to define that relationship, as we see fit.
The very word "marriage" has a ton of negative implications to somebody like me.
And thank you for the compliment. I like a psychological pat on the head now and then. :-)
While some feel the word "marriage" is important, and others don't, the mere fact that a group of people is told that they can't have the same thing that everybody else has just because some have decided that the wrong tabs and slots are lining up makes the fight worth fighting. After there is equality, the equals can decide what they want to call it for themselves.
Post a Comment