Stop Same Sex Marriage

Written by

Warning: this content is older than 365 days. It may be out of date and no longer relevant.

… the term. By delineating it with its own term, you imply that it’s somehow different than “regular”, heterosexual marriage. The gay and bisexual couples I’ve met in my professional and personal life have had relationships just like I’ve had as a heterosexual male. Using the term same-sex marriage to me implies that it’s different, and should be treated differently in the eyes of the law, the same way that any hyphenated-American automatically separates that group of people from an unbranded American.

Either you’re married or you’re not. Either you’re American or you’re not. Any additional qualifiers are just noise designed to distract and confuse.

Should certain groups of people be prohibited from getting married? Swap out any term and see how well it flies.

Should black people be prohibited from marrying? Same-race marriage.
Should elderly people be prohibited from marrying? Same-age marriage.
Should poor people be prohibited from marrying? Same-economic-status marriage.
Should Catholic people be prohibited from marrying? Same-religion marriage.

Want to start changing minds? Start by changing your own. Eliminate the confusion around marriage and the term same-sex marriage by not using that term any longer. Call it what it is.

Bigotry.

Comments

12 responses to “Stop Same Sex Marriage”

June 15, 2007

Chef Mark

YES! I’ve been saying this for years…now maybe with a straight guy saying it, people will start to listen! 🙂 Luv ya, Chris!

Reply
June 15, 2007

Podcast Mike

The post isn’t around at the moment (due to reorg of personal site), but I put up a post about gay “marriage” a couple years ago. Basically it said, as a Lutheran I don’t believe gays should be able to get “married”. Marriage is a function of the Church since the times of the Bible. HOWEVER, I do feel that gay couples should have the exact same rights as a married couple.

Reply
June 15, 2007

Chef Mark

YES! I’ve been saying this for years…now maybe with a straight guy saying it, people will start to listen! 🙂 Luv ya, Chris!

Reply
June 15, 2007

Podcast Mike

The post isn’t around at the moment (due to reorg of personal site), but I put up a post about gay “marriage” a couple years ago. Basically it said, as a Lutheran I don’t believe gays should be able to get “married”. Marriage is a function of the Church since the times of the Bible. HOWEVER, I do feel that gay couples should have the exact same rights as a married couple.

Reply
June 16, 2007

Christopher S. Penn

Podcast Mike – if marriage is a function of the church, then technically isn’t any treatment of married couples vs. single couples discrimination based on religion?

Reply
June 16, 2007

Christopher S. Penn

Podcast Mike – if marriage is a function of the church, then technically isn’t any treatment of married couples vs. single couples discrimination based on religion?

Reply
June 16, 2007

LeoC

Podcast Mike: You’ve *almost* hit the nail on the head. The problem is that marriage is BOTH a religious ceremony AND a civil contract. Over history, the importance of the two factors has varied, but they’ve become badly entangled. And THAT is the fundamental heart of the problem.

Same-sex couples want the same civil, secular treatment as others. Including the opportunities made available by the legal condition of marriage.

You might want to remember that, throughout history, established churches have failed to recognize marriages by other clergy. So protestant marriages were not recognized in catholic countries and vice-versa. Today, we have “solved” that problem by allowing any clergy to sanctify a marriage, and we accord them equal weight in law.

So the Lutheran church may deny a same-sex couple a Lutheran wedding, but Buddhist weddings, and Hindu weddings, and Shinto weddings are equally valid before the law. And it’s that part of things – the part before the law – that is what the legal efforts are primarily about. This is why Canada’s bill C-38 is the “Civil Marriage Act” ; because it’s about civil law. Canon law may be very different, but we have separation of church and state.

Reply
June 16, 2007

LeoC

Podcast Mike: You’ve *almost* hit the nail on the head. The problem is that marriage is BOTH a religious ceremony AND a civil contract. Over history, the importance of the two factors has varied, but they’ve become badly entangled. And THAT is the fundamental heart of the problem.

Same-sex couples want the same civil, secular treatment as others. Including the opportunities made available by the legal condition of marriage.

You might want to remember that, throughout history, established churches have failed to recognize marriages by other clergy. So protestant marriages were not recognized in catholic countries and vice-versa. Today, we have “solved” that problem by allowing any clergy to sanctify a marriage, and we accord them equal weight in law.

So the Lutheran church may deny a same-sex couple a Lutheran wedding, but Buddhist weddings, and Hindu weddings, and Shinto weddings are equally valid before the law. And it’s that part of things – the part before the law – that is what the legal efforts are primarily about. This is why Canada’s bill C-38 is the “Civil Marriage Act” ; because it’s about civil law. Canon law may be very different, but we have separation of church and state.

Reply
June 17, 2007

Mike Bellina

I agree with you 100%. For a country that preaches tolerance, we certainly put people into definable categories. Hispanic, African-American, Gay, Straight, Blue, Purple, you name it. Why make these distinctions? I think we would be better off just calling everyone in this country what they are… Americans.

As for same-sex marriages, marriage is a state of mind. Yes, there are vows and such, but I know of people who treat them as just words. To be married is not a function of any church or state, it is a commitment between two people regardless of sex. What is the big deal if two men or women chose to share that commitment? They’re going be just as miserable as the rest of us. 🙂

Reply
June 17, 2007

Mike Bellina

I agree with you 100%. For a country that preaches tolerance, we certainly put people into definable categories. Hispanic, African-American, Gay, Straight, Blue, Purple, you name it. Why make these distinctions? I think we would be better off just calling everyone in this country what they are… Americans.

As for same-sex marriages, marriage is a state of mind. Yes, there are vows and such, but I know of people who treat them as just words. To be married is not a function of any church or state, it is a commitment between two people regardless of sex. What is the big deal if two men or women chose to share that commitment? They’re going be just as miserable as the rest of us. 🙂

Reply
June 20, 2007

JohnC

In my opinion the worst term used in this debate is “One man, one woman.” It demeans gay marriage by implying that it is on par with polygamy and marrying inanimate objects or, gulp, animals.

That is very, very thinly veiled hate.

Reply
June 20, 2007

JohnC

In my opinion the worst term used in this debate is “One man, one woman.” It demeans gay marriage by implying that it is on par with polygamy and marrying inanimate objects or, gulp, animals.

That is very, very thinly veiled hate.

Reply