No offense taken – it’s an extremely offensive attitude! And I most certainly do not agree with it. I will try to be more clear in the future.
I didn’t choose to be the 95% straight that I am. I just…am. What or who I have sex with has nothing to do with that. I could have sex with a woman but it wouldn’t make me gay. I assume the same thing goes for gay folks; straight sex doesn’t make them straight any more than gay sex makes me gay.
So the “it’s what you do not what you are” argument makes absolutely no sense to me. And even if it was true, I don’t understand what the hell the problem would be.
How’s this for Prop. 8 supposedly being in defense of marriage:
Gender is, at times in the California Code, defined thus:"“Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth."
So if it’s decided that Prop. 8 is retroactive, does that mean that one party to a male-female marriage can somehow unilaterally nullify it (i.e., cancel the marriage without getting a divorce) by changing their appearance and claiming that their gender identity is the opposite of what it needs to be for the marriage to be legal?
Or a slightly different question: if the California Constitution now defines marriage as between a male and female, mustn’t it also define male and female?
Exactly. I understand the historical reasons to emphasize that homosexuality is an inherent characteristic, rather than a choice (that would be to keep out of jail, the nut-house, and/or hell), but I think it is time to just drop the whole discussion. It’s an unprofitable side-issue.
It’s time to take the position that it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a characteristic or a choice; it doesn’t matter if I want to marry some one of my own or the different gender, both or neither; it doesn’t matter if someone else thinks it’s a sickness or a sin.
(Of course, my opinion doesn’t really matter, as I am 1. already married 2. to a person of the other gender.)
(wr, you were clear; I, clearly, was not. I did not think you shared that attitude.)
Without making light of the subject here, how would I feel if my marriage was nullified?
DAMN LUCKY!!!
Well, to be technical, I’ve never been married. But if I had been to the one that I asked to marry me, once upon a time, then I would have felt, you guessed it, DAMN LUCKY!
Hearing about the Prop 8 stuff as it was going down, I was pissed about the fucktards pushing it, but that was about the extent of my reaction.
Now, when they try this shit, I’m ready to go oil up the guns and make sure they’re all sighted in. Er, I mean, I’m ready to go march for freedom…yeah, that’s what I meant.
I hate to spoil your indignation… but the Catholic Church considers you married. If you were to divorce your husband, and he sought to remarry in the Church, hewould not be free to do so without first obtaining an annulment.
As a resident of that big swath of red in the middle of California, I became increasingly discouraged by the conversations I had as the election drew near. I was hoping the blue parts of the state would outnumber the morons who surround me.
It boggles my mind that one of the most militant supporters of Prop 8 that I know personally is someone whose husband informed her through e-mail of his intent to divorce her. Sanctity of marriage indeed.
As for the OP’s question, I’ve been married a month. It’s an interracial marriage, which I seem to recall the religious folks having a problem with in years past. If they came to nullify it, I would tell them, “You can have my wedding band when you pry it off my cold, dead finger.” That the gay community is saying basically the same thing makes me smile.
Eh, I have no indignation (well, not much, anyway) - this is just what my husband told me. It doesn’t matter to me what the Catholic church thinks, because the Catholic church and I have happily ignored each other for 42 years so far.
I have gay friends who got together. They have had 11th anniversaries. They have had 25th anniversaries, complete with big parties and presents. They have had 35th anniversaries.
I don’t even know any straight people (other than those of my parents’ and grandparents’ generations) who have had 35th anniversaries, and yes, I’m old enough. The people in my generation have just all gotten divorced before then.
Except the gay couples.
Sure it would be nice if their unions could be recognized in some meaningful way, but it’s not like anyone’s keeping them from living together or being happy.
PS as to the question of how I’d like for my marriage to be nullified, I’d be relieved and happy. Marriage has depressed me from the very first, and possibly that’s why I’m in no hurry to inflict it on gay couples.
As far as I know, the Church doesn’t recognize purely civil marriages in any way that would require the couple to obtain an annulment before a second marriage could take place. If their union was not sacramentally blessed then there is nothing to annul.
Oddly enough, the gay couple I know that’s been together longest live in Oklahoma. They have owned homes together for 30 years, and they’re both on the deed.
It’s too bad these people didn’t do the paperwork properly, but of course it’s only a problem because they’re gay. There are never succession problems or contested wills when the participants are hetero.
Well, damn. If only the bigots would start attacking gays with dogs and fire hoses then maybe they could get equal rights.
As it is now however, they are merely being attacked in a manner that while being insidious, humiliating, immoral, and unconstitutional (unconstitutional in the reality-based United States; not unconstitutional in a delusional Christ-Fuck-Land kind of way) it lacks the perfect gnashing teeth Photo-Op and hence, somehow escapes the notice of subtlety-challenged but purportedly Liberty-Loving Americans.
Gays attacked by dogs?? YOU BET!!! I’m tuning IN!!! Gays being denied basic, Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights??? (Yawn) “Honey? Whut time’s 'Murican Idol on? Hey! Bitch?!! Whers my pork rinds? BITCH!!! Dontchu try’un hide, bitch, you know I’ll only whup you that much harder, now!”
And don’t forget–those might have been dirty niggers down south in the 60’s, but at least they weren’t no faggots!
Oh, please. It’s far, far harder and more expensive for gays because they simply don’t have all the rights and legal machinery of marriage. And of course they can safely assume that the majority of judges they go before will be bigots who will do everything in their power to ruin them.
The lack of legal protection for same-sex couples is a big part of the issue. Marriage creates a legal status that is recognised by numerous laws. Trying to duplicate that status purely by contracts between the couple and by wills is costly and not nearly as effective as simply plugging in to the bundle of rights conferred by marriage.
And with respect to the comment that no-one’s keeping same-sex couples from being happy - the cousins of the deceased who popped up and successfully claimed the estate seem to doing their best to keep the survivor from being happy. It’s also a cautionary tale for other same-sex couples, who have to worry whether something similar might happen to them. It can’t be easy living with that kind of anxiety.
Marriage is different; marriage is legal. Some times it’s just easier to stick with something if you know you can pack up and walk away at any time.
When you’re married and things start to go south, you have to make a decision. When you’re partnered, you can hedge your bets.
I will try to be more clear in the future.