(no subject)

[brigdh]

icediamond asked:

This is going to sound odd, but I really don't get why everyone is so upset about it. I mean, I look at it and I just see Bush doing a political move that'll get his constitutency happy with him. *shrugs* I'm not thrilled with it, but I can see why he did it. But could someone explain why they're so upset about it?

I'm sure there are other people on my friends list wondering the same thing, but who didn't want to seem rude or un-PC, so I'm posting the whole thing. (And also, it got too long for a comment, but I thought I'd make it seem like I was really just thinking of others.)



Well, I can tell you why I’m angry with it, but I can’t guarantee everyone feels the same way.

I’m because, you know, like most people, I want to get married someday. And as of right now, I am not legally granted that right. I know that it’s unlikely that there will ever be same-sex marriage in the US, in my lifetime. I’m not happy with it, but it’s pretty much a fact, and as such I’ve dealt with it. That doesn’t mean that I will not do what is in my limited capabilities to change that fact, that I won’t get angry about it if caught up in a debate with someone who just refuses to see my point of view, but on a day-to-day basis I truly don’t think about it that much.

But I don’t need it slapped in my face. And that is what this ‘Marriage Protection’ week feels like for me. It’s another example of how I do not get to do some of the things I want, just because I’m gay. It’s proof that Bush, and a good deal of his constituents, think I do not deserve the same rights they do. It makes me bitter. And sad. And angry. And worse is knowing that there are people who will read his proclamation and go “Hey, that’s a good idea.” And it’s not just the idea of marriage. Yes, when/if I get married, I would like it to be based on love. But there are also over a thousand legal rights that are also conveyed with marriage, such as designating heirs, tax breaks, welfare breaks, hospital visitation rights, right of attorney in case of injury or sickness. It’s easier for married couples to adopt children, to buy a house, to do lots and lots of things.

It’s like being black, and seeing yet another study that you will not get a job/raise/promotion as easily as you would if you were white. And in most studies, there would be a paragraph or so at the bottom about how wrong this trend is, and what Americans can do to make a difference. Except I don’t even get that paragraph. (By the way, I am not saying here ‘homophobia is worse than racism!’ Because, um, no. It’s just a metaphor.) Instead, I get pseudo-religious babble about how man-woman marriage “is essential to the continued strength of our society.” That, “by supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home.”

I’m told that I can’t even raise my children as well as a man and a woman could. And then this is all packaged with the obsequious “And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect.”

‘All people’. Why am I not part of ‘all people’? Why do I not get ‘dignity’ and ‘respect’?

These are all quotes from Bush’s proclamation, by the way. If you go to www.marriageprotectionweek.com there’s much worse. Like, “I do rise to speak on this issue out of brokenness, realizing the many families in our own church who have lost family members to the homosexual lifestyle. I have seen them weep, grope and beg God for divine intervention. I have sat in a circle with them, their faces drooped, so burdened with something that is beyond words. I have had some say to me, "Pastor Floyd, it would have been easier to have lost my child to death than to homosexuality. It is killing me." With this same burden, I have attempted to assist those who are in that lifestyle who want out but are so blinded by their sin they do not think there is a way out.” (From the article ‘A Biblical Response to Unholy Gay 'Matrimony').

Or: “Yesterday’s outrage has become today’s standard. Today, homosexuality, which at one time was morally unthinkable, is on parade before us as normal, acceptable, and—in order to show its authoritative status—unquestionable.” (From the article ‘Same Sex Controversy’)

Look, I knew about this kind of stuff. I’m not particularly upset or shocked by this, there always has and always will be weirdos in the world. But for the President of the United States to give his approval to this group and their actions? Yeah, I’m a little sickened by that. I’m also incredibly upset by the date. October 12 is the anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s death, which is likely the most well-known gay bashing ever. I can’t believe not one member of the Bush demonstration took the time to look up the date and see if maybe there weren’t some connotations there. It’s rude, and disrespectful. It shows no concern to gays as a group, and reeks of arrogance and the assumption of rightness.

Was it a political move? Probably. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. This is something that I can not agree with, can not stand for, can not abide. There’s no need to protect marriage. Same-sex marriages are already against the law. So why this, other than to say, “Hey, we still hate you! Nyah nyah nyah!” There is no reason I have ever seen to explain why I should not be allowed to get married. None. Did you expect me to take this for granted, to say ‘oh, well, political maneuvering, you know how that is’? This week, the Defense of Marriage proposed Amendment, the maybe-never-to-occur same-sex marriage laws- these things have huge consequences for me. I can’t just blow it off. I don’t think it would be right for me to blow it off.

This isn’t like a tax break, or the education budget. This is whether or not I have the right to be in a relationship with someone I love. There’s no way I can look at this and not be upset.

*sighs* I don’t know if I explained that to you at all. But, well, I tried.