Saturday, March 07, 2009

No Matter The Outcome, No Harm Done To Straight Marriage

Look, here's the fundamental burden of proof not offered by Ken Starr or any of the other Prop H8 supporters - where's the harm if two men or two women marry each other? Regardless of the outcome of the California Supreme Court case we already have positive proof that same sex marriage neither diminishes the institution of marriage nor harm existing heterosexual marriages. The very fact that 18,000 or so couples have been married in the window of opportunity offered by justice and the heterosexual community has, as of yet, not offered one shred off proof that their marriages have been harmed by it aught to be proof positive that their argument is false.

Really, we are in a surreal time where the bigotry of the slim "majority," is forcing it's values on the liberties of a minority. This is why the constitution exists - to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
It's the moment when the anti-marriage-equality forces might want to coast downhill, to revel in their courtroom comeback, to finally savor their 52.47% victory at the polls last November. To the most smug among them, I will be able to say this:

I'm still married.

A $50-million election battle, two high-court showdowns, and what do the pro-Proposition 8 folks have to show for it? California still has what is likely the largest population of married same-sex couples -- an estimated 18,000 -- anywhere in the world. That's 18,000 raspberry seeds stuck in their teeth for years to come. California won't be a gay-marriage-free zone again unless we all die or move. If they believe Proposition 8 hollows out my marriage, well, my marriage hollows out their political victory.
Really, shouldn't the rhetorical mashing and mincing of definitions be irrelevant when it comes down to it? What's the harm if two old ladies want to get hitched? How does it hurt heterosexual marriage if Phylis Lyon can actually claim she was able to marry her life long love, now deceased?

It's time to stop standing on bigotry to foist a relic of puritanical values upon a people who should be allowed to marry if they wish. Really, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry some one of your same gender. But, simply because you believe something so strongly doesn't make your position correct, or right (we learned that the hard way in Iraq).

I ask one more time - where's the harm & what is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection? A very legitimate argument to be made is the exact opposite position - that when you open up the legal system to allow gays, lesbians and transgendered people to be married, heterosexual marriage is strengthened, not harmed. Ultimately, the irony of the yes on H8 crowd is that they suggest that they are "protecting" marriage by preventing marriage. Is that really a tenable position no matter how strongly a person believes that gays should not be married?

Blog on friends.

Blog on all.


Anonymous said...

H8 is about disadvantaging, by law, a class of people, for the relative advantage of another class

H9: Short women can't wear high heals because the height advantage of normally tall women is relatively impaired. Tall women can wear high heels because, well, they're already tall.

I can, you can't. And I can pass a law that says that you can't. The advantage for me is that I don't have to change my mind. And you can't wear high heels. Whoopee for me, I'm a bully.

SheaNC said...

I always wonder what they are afraid of, too. I think it has to be their own repressed homosexuality haunting them, making them feel so guilty they want to stamp out homosexuality lest they be reminded of its existence and thus tempted to submit to their hidden desires.