I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .
Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:
“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”
Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.
Thank you. Always stand up for what you believe–we’ll be around.
Another good take on this was Bill Maher’s Valentine’s Day op-ed.
Unfortunately, I have realized recently than in supporting gay marriage, I am very much in the minority in the U.S. I wish that weren’t so. I doubt it would change anyone’s feelings on the subject, but perhaps one thing we could do is reframe the debate (and remove many of the Republican “objections”) by not calling state-sanctioned marriages–between whomever–“marriage,” since that *is* a religious term. State-sanctioned unions should *all* be called civil unions, between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. And all couples should have the same *civil* rights–inheritance, health decisions, tax (dis)advantages, adoption, etc etc etc. If a couple chooses to also have a religious “marriage” that should be up to them and whatever religion they adhere to.
We are no doubt heading for a Constitutional crisis–the Defense of Marriage Act is patently unconstitutional since it is in opposition to the full faith and credit clause (says states have to recognize each others rules–why if you get married in Texas, you’re still married if you move to Cali). And marriage is clearly reserved as a “states’ rights” issue vs a matter for the federal government. Having a consitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage (unions, whatever) is the only way around this, legally, though morally it’s abhorrent.
I worry that such an emendment does have a chance of being approved in the current climate. But I also pray that it would eventually become the second amendment ever to be repealed.
Right on, Wil!
I love it when gay marriage opponents claim that God says gay marriages are wrong. Using that logic, I think I’ll sell my daughter off into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. Why not? It’s in the Bible!
Excellent post Wil.
As an attorney, I would encourage everyone to read Loving v. Virginia, 1967 Supreme Court case. (Just Google it.) It is a short but enlightening read.
He’s going to realize he’s gone too far with this one when even the most hardline of his supporters are telling him he’s out of his fucking tree!
Some of the things going on in this country right now frighten me, but I will not give up hope.
A few comments:
1) Bravo, Wil.
2) For those who are swallowing the line that the proposed amendment will still allow states to establish civil unions, read the text:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
[emphasis added]
…in other words, no marriage for homosexuals, and nothing that confers the same legal rights either. Don’t believe the lies.
3) For the Christians out there who believe that all good Christians must be against homosexuality because of the bible, this should be an interesting read.
Thank you.
Seperate but equal doesn’t work for race or gender so I don’t see why people think it should work for sexual orientation, either.
Thank you for your post today! I couldn’t agree more if I’d written this myself. I love what you said ‘An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!’ Amen!
Gorgon,
Bush’s “support” for marriages and civil unions is support for “separate but equal” treatment.
Get real.
Many people of all orientations are not happy with “civil unions” because those unions DO NOT provide the same rights as “marriage” does. There is more difference bewteen the two than just the sex of those involved.
Marriage is a unique legal contract and is recognized by governments around the world. Marriage creates between two people a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. A civil union is a legal status which is provided by the state. Civil unions provide legal protection to couples at the STATE level, but do not come with any FEDERAL protections. This is a very important distinction.
When a married couple moves from state to state, they know that their status will be respected and they will be provided the same rights and priveleges due to that status. A couple bond by a civil union does not have that assurity of freedom. Partners in a civil union cannot take leave from work to care for their partner, sponsor their partner for immigration purposes, nor recieve Social Security survivor benefits. Because civil unions are not recognized federally, these couples face problems regarding taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and programs such as Medicaid. Even something as simple as filling out a form requesting your marital status causes problems. Technically, civil unions create a single family unit, so these partners are not single. However, they are not married either and their claiming that status would be considered fraud.
So, yes, there IS a major problem with civil unions. Haven’t we learned that there’s no such thing as “separate but equal”?
As a Member of another “Minority”. I have nothing but praise for Wil!
Hey Wil if you ever run for President I’ll Win you Texas!
Seriously. The Republicans are all about division among america to gain strength. And they not only use it against gays but syill use it against other minorities.
If I had my way bush would be banished from Texas for all time!
Thanks so much for the amazing post, Wil. I’m a lesbian and a very devoted stay at home Mom… my partner is a dentist. I think that what everyone forgets is that we all pay taxes, we gays and lesbians contribute to society just as much as a straight person, so why shouldn’t we have the same rights? I also think they forget about the little part of the constitution that defines a separation of church and state. You can’t legislate morality, and I wish they’d keep their morals out of my bedroom, because it’s no one’s business but mine.
Also, all this mud-slinging about gays not being right, blah blah blah… I’m sorry, but before this all started. you didn’t see Gays and Lesbians attacking the right wingers saying “They’re not right! Immoral sinners, burn in hell!!” We just wanted to live our lives, raise our children and be left alone. Unfortunatly, GW and Marilynn Musgrave have now made that impossible.
Anyway, thank you so much for the support, and thanks again for the eloquent post.
I have been with my partner for over five years. We have three children. We had a commitment ceremony four years ago because we felt there was importance in standing in front of family and friends and publicly declaring our commitment to each other.
I have so much to say on this issue, I just don’t know where to start. But, I’m going to save it for my elected officials. This is not an issue our politicians need to waste time on right now. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are without permanent families, and Bush takes time to talk about THIS? I could go on about this country’s ill’s that need attention, but that’s not the point.
Thank you, Wil.
Thank GOD! A voice of reason – no one has the right to tell anyone else – especially in our wonderful land of freedom – who you can and cannot love. Government should stay out of people’s bedrooms and worry about healthcare, education, and getting us out of a war we should never have been in.
Run for president Wil! I’d vote for ya!
Most everything I would like to say has been said, so I’ll just say “thank you” to Wil for posting and to everyone else for keeping it polite. It shouldn’t matter to anyone else if two consenting adults of any gender wish to make their relationship official in the eyes of the law.
Interesting post. Last night’s Daily Show had on a guy who wrote a book called Bush Country (I think). The Daily Show site should have the video up in a week or so, but it was a very interesting interview, suggesting that Bush isn’t as stupid as he looks, but treats America as stupid. For example, rather than telling us that “We need a bastion of democracy in the Middle East,” he’d say “Iraq has WMDs.” Bush can be as wrong as you think he is, but the key is not to call him an idiot or Hitler or a moron. I’m voting for whoever can get him out of office, but I don’t see him as stupid, just wrong.
Interestingly, the Onion’s new issue has a good articl eno this topic: “Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry” – http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1
It is the ramblings of people with a large audience (notice I didn’t say celebrity) that are dividing Americans against one another.
This is accomplished by lumping everything that occurs in society as being the fault of one of the two major political parties.
Republican vs. Democrat cannot be neatly described as right vs. wrong.
I get the feeling that Wil’s political views are blindly democratic. It is this blind support (be it republican and democrat) that is driving a wedge between the two parties and this can cause more harm than good since we are no longer working together to make this country better. It seems more effort is made bitching about the other party’s views versus working to mend those fences and working as a team.
I like this blog. It’s always good reading. I have even donated to the marathon Wil is in. Just quit the political pissing and moaning and offer solutions to the problems you mention and bitch about.
My thoughts exactly, Wil!
I could never understand how or why people could be hurt by other people loving each other.
I just hope this sparks our generation to get off our collective butts and take some action. We can not let this adminstration get away with tearing our country apart!
-al
Well said, Wil. You just exercized your freedom of speech as stated on Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. :^)
I read somewhere that the Declaration of Independence was the promise of a new country and that the Constitution was the fulfillment of the promise — or something along the lines of that. Yes, America became nation because people were fleeing religious persecution from Great Britain. Why add something that discriminates and favors a religious view? What happened to equality for all and the separation of church and State? Yes, I did not vote for GW.
P.S.
I asked a librarian about the possibility of the amendment passing. She didn’t think it would pass. As someone above stated, 2/3 of both the House and Senate must approve the proposed amendment — not an easy thing to do. There is also a time limit on how long the proposed amendment can be on the floor. Something like seven(?) years.
(upon decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada) “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” – Pierre Elliot Trudeau
The man was a bit of a wing-nut, but at least he was a forward thinker.
Good post wil
I couldn’t agree with you more!! I can’t wait to get Bush out of office. Grrrr. You said it best, Wil!
*claps* I think it’s great when people stand up for what they believe in no matter what the consequence may be. If it helps, you have my full support. 😀
*claps* I think it’s great when people stand up for what they believe in no matter what the consequence may be. If it helps, you have my full support. 😀
I’ve said it once and then again…. If you can’t beat ’em, we have plenty of space up north in Canada… Come one come all! lol
Cheers,
P
Is it any wonder a lameduck president came out against gay marriage? I was not surprised by it he’s very much being led by the nose.
If the majority of people in this country said ‘eh, we don’t give a crap… let gay people be married just as straight people are with all the benefits the law provides a married couple,’ GW would be going right along with it.
However, since a great many people have an issue with gay marriage and are so very vocal about it GW has no choice… he has no spine… he MUST side with the loudest mouths and denounce gay marriage to the fullest. To do otherwise could cost him in November.
He knows it and I hope those who support him know it too.
This isn’t about saving the sanctity, the definition or the institution of marriage. That’s a smokescreen to give the impression that he really gives a damn about any of those things. Fact is, all Bush cares about is not becoming a one term president.
Hell, if people were hopped up mad and this pissed off nutso about the lack of jobs, Bush would speak to it. However, people aren’t up in arms over that but gay people getting married… dammit! that’ll destroy the whole country!!!
The very idea of taking what Bush says “troubles” him and seeking to ban it by altering the constitution sickens me. It’s so homophobic it is beyond words and I just wish he’d come right on out and admit he’s homophobic and get it done with. That’s what is at the heart of this. Gay marriages won’t destroy the definition of anything but rather enhance and improve it to what it should already be… a union of two people that love eachother.
That anyone could make an argument against gay marriage and make an argument for discrimination… it boggles the mind. To be the most intelligent species I am constantly amazed, on a daily basis, just how stupid so many of us are.
To fellow WWdN monkeys–
I posted very early in the day. I am thrilled to see how unhappy most readers about Dubya’s anti-gay marriage stance. (I figured Wil was in for some flaming, as he himself feared.)
While Wil’s Posse may not be representative of the overall US popualtion (or the voters therein), I can only hope the “prevailing sentiment” here means that Dubya has sealed his electoral fate. Bye-Bye Bush!
Your thoughts are welcome at http://www.CloseTheBooks.com. You can post publicly to my Guest Book (“personal” pages) or write me privately via link at top of r
Thanks for posting this, Wil, and for providing a place for reasoned discussion to occur among all parties and all viewpoints.
I went up to SF City Hall on President’s Day to help folks get married, not for any agenda, gay, striaght, liberal, conservative. I just went because people wanted to get married and helping them was the right thing to do.
Folks wishing to read about it further are welcome to do so. http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmjwell/287952.html
Thank you Wil, for taking a stand on this issue. I’m not a terribly eloquent guy, so I’m just gonna say I (and countless others) appreciate it.
You rock, and I have no doubt you will continue to rock.
To any and all who say, “That amendment will never pass.” I say this.
As long as there is the slightest fraction of a chance that the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America will be constrained by an amendment to said Constitution, then the risk is too high to not fight.
Our complacency is a weapon of our opponents that we have the power to control. Don’t let them have it.
Helen
Amen.
<rant>
Meh, who knows if anyone will get down this far (127th post?!?) As a resident of the Metro-Boston area, I can tell you how fed up I am with this whole issue. I’m glad Kerry came out against a constitutional ammendment, but you’d be pretty hard pressed to find a national politial figure who’s willing to stand up in support of gay marraige here. Every one (Kerry included) just go on and on about “Well I think everyone should have the same rights, civil unions are okay, but I’m against *marraige*.” Like they’re afraid of losing those votes if they actually came out and admitted supporting gay rights and gay marraiges.
Honestly, we’re darn lucky our State Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, or no one would have the guts to stand up for what’s right.
The Constitution doesn’t say you have to make friends with a black man, nor like him. It says you must allow him to vote, you must count him in the Census, and you must not interfere with *his* other rights. Similarly, if gays get married you don’t have to associate with them or be their friends or like them. You just have to *BUT OUT* of their lives. Marraige is a formality, or a contract, for some, and they chose to ignore the labels society places.
But please, Mr. Bush, don’t impose your values on me.
</rant>
Wil,
No one thinks more highly than I do of our country and patriotism. Different people often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to people if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak my sentiments freely and without reserve. The question before us is one of awful proportions to this country, and her people. For my own part, I consider it nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject should be the freedom of all human beings to do with their life as they see fit. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to our country…freedom, and the ability to make choices. Should I keep back my opinions, through fear of offending someone? I should consider myself as guilty of treason, and diloyalty towards my counrty, and human kind if I say nothing.
Is it unnatural for all involved to indulge in the hope of prosperity, and happiness? Are we supposed to shut our eyes against a truth, and listen to the uncareing tyrant until he transforms us into immoral hate mongers? Is this the part of a wise man, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty and freedom to all? Are we suppose to be followers of one who, having eyes, does not see, and Having ears, does not hear, the things which so nearly concern all involved? For my part, whatever backlash of body or of spirit it may cost, I am willing to extend my hand for the whole truth; to know the worst, and to prepare for it, if the so called leader should restrict a simple right to marry whom ever one chooses, and to support those who believe in happiness.
I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. Ask yourself how this leader of our country can be warlike against his fellow human beings? Is George W. Bush’s purpose to force us to submission? After all things are said and done, may we indulge in the desire of peace and happiness for all involved? There is no longer any room for intolerance. If we wish to be free…if we mean to preserve privileges and rights for everyone for which we have been so long restricted… Those who believe will not abandon the struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the object of our contest shall finally be obtained.
They tell us, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary, called conformity, But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and unprepared for the final decision? shall we be bound by hand and foot so that we may not fight for what we believe in? We are not weak if we make a proper use of the way we live our lives. I shall not let my family of human beings fight this battle alone. The battle, is not for the strong alone; it is for the vigilant, the active, and the brave. The chains that bind us are to be broken! I support same sex marriage, and wish that certain people would wake up, and realize that the world does not revolve around only them!
Artemis Jade Wetzel
Mother, Wife, and Humanitarian
Thank you. Just… thank you. That’s all there is to say.
Thanks Wil.
I have one question for those few people here who agree with President Bush.
Does your country have a state religion or not?
If the answer is “no”, why do your personal religious values belong in the Constitution?
Yeah, Ralph Nader for president!… I mean, hehheh, well put, Wil. Don’t worry about your book sales, man, George W. wasn’t going to buy a copy anyway…
Thanks for chosing to post this Wil, you carry a point very well and it was great to read.
All I can really say is, I’m very very glad not to be living under direct rule of Bush, just indirectly via his great pal Tony, joy.
The State/Government should have nothing to do with which Gods you choose to worship, who you can love, who you can marry or what you can think. These are things that only the individual can decide, to try otherwise would be foolish.
It seems they’re only fooling themselves when they say that these could sew the seeds of society’s collapse. Maybe they should put “Distrust and disbelief of anyone who wants to be in power” above everything else on that list of dangers to their current hold on society.
Oh and don’t worry, if anything I’ll buy two copies of all your books now. You’ve gained a new regular reader of WW.net
Wil: thank you for posting this!
to some other commenters: civil union is not Not NOT the same as marriage! it excludes over 1,400 rights that ‘marriage’ entitles couples to. do some research before you open your trap to whine “but it’s the same thiiing!”
The question is not discrimination but what is right based on some standard. That standard since the beginning of our country was the Bible. The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think too many children are going to be confused as to their own sexuality when they do not have a man and a woman in their life helping them to know what it means to be a man or a woman. I believe homosexuals should have their rights when it come to work, health care, living where they want; but I draw the line on changing the defintion of marriage and changing the definition of the family that has stood since Adam and Eve. Our society is lost many of its standards as we feel all people should be what they want as long it hurts no one elce. A Christian society (and supposedly this country) have been weakening for the past 200 years what ideals our country was founded upon.
First, I want to say that I am strongly in favor of extending the rights, privelages, and responsibilities of marriage to homosexuals. I don’t care if you call it marriage, a civil union, or a chocolate parfait, it should be avaliable to any couple who wishes to undertake a marrisge like situation should have them avaliable.
You have a slight fallacy in your arguement, and it is one that the pro-gay marriage folks usually accept and ignore. You seem to be taking “Gay marriages will undermine the institution of marriage” to mean that it will be an assult on individual stong marriages while the folks who are claiming this mean that it will weaken society’s respect for marriage. They don’t think that you will get divorced because Mike and Danny get married, but they think that Mike and Danny getting married will make it more likey for people in general to get divorced. This is not a particularly more defensible position, but if you are going to argue against someone’s position, it is best not to use fallicies to do so. I like my epistemic and logical fallicies to all be on the sides of my opponents.
To the folks who are decrying Wil as a kneejerk democrat: I don’t know the man. I’ve only read his blog. But from what I’ve read he comes off as a dedicated liberal. I suspect that he would vocally disagree with the democrats if they took a stand that he disagreed with. It is not that he blindly supports the democrats, it is that they are the party that currently backs the causes that he agrees with and opposes the causes that he disagrees with, or at the least, does more so than the republicans. (Well, I guess now I’m not only putting words but ideologies in his mouth. Oh well. That’s why they call this a forum.)
Insightful post and I agree with your comments…but isn’t this just an election year ruse of sorts to placate conservatives? In a way, he had nothing to lose. So he lost the gay vote…never really had it anyway. Lost the liberal vote? Never really had that either. I doubt there will even be a full-fledged attempt at an amendment, and if there is it won’t pass congress.
Wil,
Your words are eloquent and written with conviction. Do not reconsider stating your opinions. I am honoured to say that I just recently attended a marriage between a dear friend and his husband here in Ontario. It was broadcast on our national television network, the CBC, and provided and excellent forum for debate on the topic.
To those who say, why not let gays have civil union, I would ask them to consider whether they would be willing to accept their own marriages as civil unions. For those who say that this is not a matter of discrimination, try replacing the word gay with ‘black’. History will judge these zealots and their ridiculous interpretations of the way that love should be legislated in the way that persons who made the marriage between a black man and white woman reason for violence and hate.
For those on the side of the ‘it’s a slippery slope argument’ and what will happen next, replace ‘gays get married’ with ‘give women the vote’ and again you will see how ridiculous the claim could be.
Keep talking wil, your words are important. There is a large segment of the population that is uncomfortable with gay marriage because they have never had to think the issues through. These are people who do not fall in line with the religious conservative ‘we built this country on religious principles’ nutjobs, but who need forums such as these to help them work through the debate.
Keep it up, from a long time reader, first time poster.
~S
Just a few words for all the people who believe that gay marriage is against the word of God…
THAT’S IRRELEVENT!!
We are living in America people! A little thing known as the separation of church and state. Remember that?!?!
This is yet another example of Conservative Republicans wanting to do nothing for the people but scream ‘limit government and let big business take care of everything
Personally, I think that marriage is a religious institution and the U.S. Constitution should have nothing to say on the matter. If Mormons can argue they are allow (or used to be allowed) to marry multiple partners, then I think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry (As long as they find a church that accepts them).
I was married at City Hall, and I would have no problems calling it a civil union as long as I love my wife and we get the same civil benifits as a married couple.
Sure seems like Republicans don’t want gay people to be loose lovers and more upset that they want to be monogomus.
On a side note, I am concerned that gay people want to marry. I am happy with my life with my wife, but I could have strung on the engagement for a few more decades.
I think it is shameful that with the larger concerns of our economy, the war on terror, the rebuilding of Iraq, the problems in Haiti and Wil Wheaton’s acting career that George W. makes this is Waterloo.
My wife and I were couple number 32 on Monday morning, February 16, in San Francisco.
We camped on the sidewalk overnight to be in line in time. We stayed there through 9 hours of torrential rain, 40 degree weather, and 20 mph winds.
I wish everyone had to go through that to get married.
oh yeah…also…as an addendum to my previous rant. For those of you looking for an argument to those anti-gay marriage folk. Consider this, one of the most bandied about arguements is that marriage has been the same for ‘thousands of years’ and should not be changed. Take it from a cultural anthropologist, nothing could be further from the truth. How many of you Americans paid or received a dowry upon your marriage? How many of you consider it a duty to bear children as part of said marriage. The nuclear family and the ‘institution’ of marriage is rare historically and cross culturally, and changes in form and function over time.
Dear Dubya, you are not the boss of the future.
grr…ranting now.
~S
hear hear
Way to stand up and be heard Wil. I agree with you fully.
And I don’t think you need to worry about your book sales. (I just pre-ordered Dancing Barefoot from Chapters.ca (Canadian Online Book Seller) Anyone who chooses to boycott your book because of your views obviously doesn’t believe in the constitution to begin with.
You know, the whole freedom of speech thing. 🙂
I can’t say how thankful I am that you wrote such a thoughtful, heartfelt, and well-organized piece. Especially when there are folks on the loose writing things like this.
Is there an echo in here? Well I will add to it just enough to say thank you Wil for the great post. And equal thanks go out to those who disagreed but said so respecfully! I’m really impressed with WWDN readers!
I utterly agree. I’ve never liked Dictator Bush and this will hopefully be the wake up call to everyone that he is the epitome of evil!
I’m so anti-politics, but there are 2 things:
1) Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
2) Mayor Richard Daley said, “I don’t think it’s fair to blame [the ruination of] marriages on homosexuals. Divorce has done that.”
Sometimes, well, most times, and especially this Maddux year, Chicago is a cool place.
And we’ve got great Mr. Beef and Popcorn. You all know it, too.
I think that pretty much sums up the opinion of a lot of people right there.
Thank you!