Ten basic truths about the fight for equal marriage rights for gay couples

[Spryboy]

We need to be working harder at the grass roots level to be spreading the truth about equal marriage rights, especially considering what is going on in Maine and Washington State today. So here are ten basic truths to get out there, to counteract the lies and fear-mongering and disinformation the right-wing and anti-gay forces of ignorance and bigotry and all-too-successfully spreading:

1. Gay couples are not asking for 'special rights'. Gay couples just want the same rights and privileges as every other American Citizen has and takes for granted. If anything, marriage is currently a "special right" of heterosexuals, and , "special rights" aren't fair.

2. Same-Sex Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is asking for any changes from any church at all. Gay couples just want to be able to go to City Hall or Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license, like anyone else can. Just because The State allows a given marriage, doesn't mean any church has to support or perform that e marriage. Many churches will not marry interfaith couples, requiring anyone getting married in their church to convert to the church before marriage. This is fine. Churches can set their own rules. It has nothing to do with the state or the actual obtaining of a civil marriage license.

3. Gay people do NOT already have these rights, and civil unions or domestic partnerships do not provide equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Separate is not equal. It's amazing how many people actually seem to not understand that gay people are being denied rights in this area. There are over a thousand rights and responsibilities granted by the stroke of a pen in a marriage license, many of which can be obtained in no other way. Civil unions and somestic partnerships, where they exist, are only partial solutions. They make things a little better, but it's still not even close to equality.

4. Legalizing same-sex marriage isn't redefining marriage for any heterosexual. It doesn't affect any straight person's marriage, or definition thereof, in any way. It doesn't change the definition for any church. If you're not a gay person, your life continues as before.

5. Marriage is constantly being redefined by straight people already anyway. Marriage never used to be about love, now it is. Divorce never used to be allowed; now it is. People of mixed race used to be unable to get married; now they can. It goes on and on. Marriage has never been this pure, static, unchanging thing. Marriage has also never been a purely religious thing. Marriage also didn't used to be considered a "sacred rite". And even today, right now, "marriage" means different things to different people. Some see it as a spiritual thing, some see it as a romantic thing, and some see it as a meal-ticket. It's an expansive, big-tent institution.

6. Marriage isn't solely about religion. Atheists can and do get married all the time. If two straight atheists can go to City Hall and get married, without any church or religion stopping it... why can a church or religion stop two gay people from getting married?

7. Marriage isn't solely about children. Elderly people past the child-bearing years, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had their tubes tied or who have had hysterectomies, as well as couples who have no interest in having children, all get married all the time. If barren people can go to City Hall and get married, without any church or religion stopping it... why can a church or religion stop two gay people from getting married?

8. If you don't "believe" that gays should get married, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it... however, your opinion should not be enshrined in the secular legal system as a law, forced upon everyone. It is wrong to legislate opinions. An awful lot of people don't believe gay people should be treated as second class citizens and denied basic rights and security in their lives with their partners.

9. Many, many churches actually support same-sex unions, and some have performed them for decades. This is about religious freedom. Just because YOUR religion doesn't like it, doesn't mean your religion should trump every other in terms of what is legal under secular law. Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Reform Jewish Synagogue, and Liberal Quakers all perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, as do many other individual churches within broader religious sects (Methodists, Episcopalians, and others). Why should marriages performed by those churches be "less real" in the eyes of the law than those performed by, say, the Mormon church or the Church of Scientology? And for the record, the "religious ceremony" conveys no rights at all. Gay couples can get "married" in a church right now, today, if that's what they want... but this isn't REAL marriage. REAL marriage involves a secular and civil marriage license that is recognized by the state, regardless of whether any church recognizes it. THIS is all we're talking about in the "gay marriage" debate.

10. This is simply about equal civil rights for all Americans. Gay marriage will eventually pass. Our country has always moved forward, expanding civil rights for all Americans and struggling towards being that more perfect union. History is on the side of gay marriage. It will happen. It's sad that our country is not leading on this issue though, and that we're so far behind countries like the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and even South Africa. All these countries have legal and full marriage (and more are being added to the list all the time), and there simply hasn't been any negative effects in these countries. All the excessive fear-mongering going on in this country about the sky falling if gay marriage becomes legal is just a lie. This country should be leading and championing equal rights for oppressed minorities. It's a shame we're being held back by irrational fear and ignorant bigotry.

[msongs]

1. if it's not in the bible u can't have it, sorry nt

[WonderGrunion]

2. Maine thrives on shellfish

Something that is referred to in Leviticus as an "abomination". I think we can ignore Leviticus in all other areas too.

[Spryboy]

3. Heh

I wonder if any of the ads fighting the anti-gay-marriage ballot issue brought up that idea.

It'd be a shame if they didn't, but I'm guessing nobody actually went there.

[WonderGrunion]

4. Mainers tend to prefer dry humor

Snark doesn't always go over well.

[Spryboy]

5. Perhaps

But pointing out the hypocrisy still seems of value to me, on some level. Anyway, this list isn't just about main, it's about what we all need to do to confront the ignorance and fear-mongering we have nation-wide. Hopefully Maine will keep gay marriage, and the tide will start to turn in other states... but for that to happen, we have to educate people and reduce the fear.

[Spryboy]

8. I wonder...

I wonder how people would like it if they actually applied that rule across the board :-)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. 8/10, I think.

I agree with 1-7 and with 10.

But there are all sorts of corollaries to #8 that I think make it a dubious line of argument at best - try replacing "gays getting married", (or "having abortions", for which the same argument is often tried) with something genuinely immoral, like murder or rape. The whole point of a legal system is that if enough people hold the opinion that a type of action is immoral, it should be banned.

To expand #8 into a valid line of argument, you have to add a great deal of additional explanation as to why gay marriage and abortion are not immoral, but rape and murder are. And once you *have* that additional explanation, the line of argument set out in #8 doesn't add anything to the strength of your argument.

And #9 is slightly misleading. There are lots of small religious groups that support same-sex unions. And most big religious groups have large minorities of their followers who support same-sex unions. But the fraction of religious people who are members of a church that does not officially condemn same-sex unions is quite small (I think - I'm not 100% confident on that one).

[Spryboy]

7. I disagree... obviously

It's not about just liking or not-liking something. I mean, murder or robbery HARM SOMEONE ELSE.

Well, denying gay marriage HARMS OTHER PEOPLE, while allowing it HARMS NO ONE.

I also don't see how #9 is misleading in any way... I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. This point is, the argument that "my religion forbids it, therefore it should be illegal" is an invalid argument. And irrelevant in a country that claims religious freedom as one of its tenants.

[endeavourniche]

9. Law and Church

If we truly have separation of church and state then it should not matter what the church or bible have to say about it.
It's the State (us, the people) that have to approve or disapprove. You need a license and a judge to make your marriage legal not a church. Plenty of people get married every day at the courthouse. Is this good or bad for gay marriage? I don't know.

[Spryboy]

10. Exactly

That's exactly right, of course.

But I think it's good for gay marriage. Most of the opposition to allowing same-sex couples to marry comes from religious feeling and fears that their religion or their church would be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

The reality, of course, is that no such thing would happen. There are already lots of state-sanctioned and recognized marriages that individual churches won't perform, and there is nobody trying to force them to. First cousins (in some states), or interfaith relationships, and even interracial relationships. And that's fine. Freedom of religion.

It's critical to get across that this isn't about religion and that people who are for same-sex marriage are just as against the state telling churches what to do as those who are against it.

Correcting the misperception that "gay marriage" is about forcing churches to marry gay couples would go a long way, I think, towards reducing the opposition to equal treatment under the law for gay couples.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. You've done exactly what I was talking about.

You've expanded #8 into a valid argument, and that valid argument no longer relies on #8.

Yes, exactly - gay marriage doesn't harm anyone else, murder does.

*That's*, in essence, why gay marriage should be legal and murder shouldn't. Ad note that at no point in the chain of
reasoning does it refer to #8.

Consider the line of argument "The sky is blue, potatoes grow underground and therefore we should refrain from eating babies".

[Spryboy]

12. But 8 is still a valid argument

I'm sorry, but this is still a valid argument:

"8. If you don't "believe" that gays should get married, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it... however, your opinion should not be enshrined in the secular legal system as a law, forced upon everyone. It is wrong to legislate opinions. An awful lot of people don't believe gay people should be treated as second class citizens and denied basic rights and security in their lives with their partners."

Taste shouldn't be legislated. Opinion shouldn't be legislated. How exactly do you disagree with that?

Example: I don't like FOX News. That doesn't mean that FOX News should be banned by law. I don't like mushrooms. That doesn't mean mushrooms should be banned by law. Jewish law says one shouldn't eat pork. That doens't mean consumption of pork should be banned for everyone via secular law.

Secular law is not where you enshrine religious belief.