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 Wil. Your post almost made me cry, because you are one of the first straight allies I have seen who has got it down perfectly. I also want to thank everyone who reads this and sees the amendment for the smoke and mirrors distraction that it is. It seems that the world has not caved in from the marriage of a few gay people, and that should be patently obvious to all of the people who are secure in their relationships, as Wil and Anne clearly are. Hopefully this is an announcement of desperation from the Bush Administration that they are willing to demonize any one they can, just to win elections. I hope Americans will not stand for it.
Thankfully, here in Ontario (Canada), gay and lesbian marriage is 100% legal! This spells excellent news for a lot of my friends, and I think it’s an absolutly wonderful thing. I suggest to all you guys (and girls) out there who are looking to marry your sweetie, but can’t ’cause your el presidente is a prejudiced and close-minded fuck, come up to Ontario! We don’t care who you marry as long and you’re happy!!
If the word “marriage” is supposed to mean a spiritual ceremony, then why did I have to go get a MARRIAGE license from my county clerk’s office?!
To all those folks who are honestly uncomfortable at using the M-word to describe committed same-sex pairings, I am truly sorry. But right now, that is the word that the government is using to describe the legal binding of an opposite-sex couple. And in a perfect USA, the government’s co-option of the word “marriage” means it’s been spiritually neutered, because the government is not supposed to have spiritual influence.
If you’d rather see “civil union” used to describe the same-sex legal bindings because “marriage” has religious significance to you, I can understand that. But I would rather see you try and get *all* legal bindings, heterosexual *or* homosexual, renamed as “civil unions”. I’d actually support you on that, ’cause it’d make it just that much more clear that the government can only bestow the legal rights and privileges currently assigned to marriage; the couple is on their own to bring their particular vision of God into the relationship.
My husband and I have gone round and round about this and he finally understood it when I used one of his friends as an analogy – letting him know that his friend wouldn’t have the same rights as we do should something happen to him.
The constitution was not set up to provide for racism in any way and anyone who uses it for that purpose should be ashamed.
(and i liked GW. However, he killed me with this one)
Good job Wil. I totally agree with you (and am a fan of Andrew Sullivan too). Keep the faith, brother.
I’m proud to be a fan Wil.
I do not, in any way, shape or form, agree with gay marriage. I am a strong Christian and it goes against the Bible and what God meant marriages to be.
However!
God also said to hate the act, not the person. I think dragging the Constitution into this is a mistake. I think letting each state chose it’s stance is a good thing. Here in Kansas, a church in KC isn’t doing marriages at all anymore, gay or otherwise, because they do not want to discriminate. I think it would be better to take a calm approach to that. Stating that they do not believe in gay marriages and will not be preforming those marriages in that church.
My church has made it clear that we do not support gay marriages, but in no way has alienated it’s gay members. We welcome them and though we do not agree with what they do, we don’t dwell on it and make it a big deal.
In Topeka, where I’m from, there is a church there that reguarly stands on the corners, holding signs and shouting that God hates gays, God wants gays to die. Had they ever taken the time to actually READ the Bible, they would see that God doesn’t hate anything he had created. What he hates is the act and instructs us to love our enemies as ourselves. How are we to do this when small issues like who sleeps with whom are blown up to such an enormous size?
The country is acting like a bunch of petty teenage girls in my view. What’s going to happen will happen. As a Christian, we pray against gay and lesbian marriages and hope for the best, waiting on God, but we don’t go around making a spectical of ourselves. We state our beliefs, explain why we believe that and leave it alone, putting our two cents in every now and then, hoping it will sink in.
Sometimes, like now, it seems that we fail but that is part of being a Christian or Catholic, Methodist, Babtist, whatever you call yourself. Dealing with failure. The trick is to not get overly upset and make a mountain out of a mole hill. God never intended for that. He’s a quiet, laid back sort of dude. If he wasn’t, he’d have gotten pissed off centries ago and ended this who life thing, leaving NO ONE behind to see the rainbow.
As a human being, an American and a gay man, I thank you for your post. I agree with you 100% in your well thought out position statement and can appreciate how you might have been apprehensive to post it.
As someone who shares many of the same political views as you, I found it gratifying to hear you state what I had been thinking but had been unable to put into words. To see so many comments in support was pretty cool, too!
As a Buddhist (or even just as a non-Christian) I find it frustrating that most of the dissent on this issue has centered around Biblical reasoning — at least from what I read. I’ll admit, though, that I stopped reading at 12:30 last night around 100 comments in and started skimming. I was hoping that more people who support relegating me to second-class citizenship despite the fact that I pay the same taxes (like most gays & lesbians do) and served in the army (under “Don’t ask” — which many of us have done and continue to do) would do so with some kind of reasoning that didn’t go back to the Bible. But it keeps popping up.
So, finally, to all the people who commented in support — especially those Christians who support equality and fairness for all in the true spirit of this country as well as of their religion (which, I believe, is based on love and compassion), THANK YOU. And thank you again, Wil!
Wow, Wil.
Mirabile dictu, seriously.
You’re dead on, and I can only pray [irony check] that you’re right about this backfiring on the Dubya Administration. I have long since had enough of him.
Wil, thanks for posting your reasoned and reasonable response to GWB’s new strategy of division.
I wonder, though, has Mr. Bush gone far enough? As several of your commentators note, the Christian Bible is interpreted by many as literally classifying homosexuality as a sin. This is then advanced as the justification for codifying into a law — no, an AMENDMENT to the US Constitution! — what is essentially a prohibition against that sin. On that same basis, it would seem to me, Mr. Bush needs to do more. For, if there is anything that Jesus seemed to be crystal clear about in His teaching, it was the unacceptability of divorce. The Gospels of the NT have Jesus in four different passages prohibiting in pretty absolute terms divorce. And, if marriage between a man and a woman is such a sacred and divinely-inspired institution (the bedrock of our society in GWB’s mind), it would make sense that the priority in support of marriage ought to be just such a prohibition. (see Mark 10.2-12, Matthew 5.31-32 and 19.3-11, Luke 16.18 and 1 Corinthians 7.10-11). Why do we not hear the President leading the charge to fortify the sanctity of marriage precisely by an Amendment to the Constitution which would, except in cases of fraud or some other criminal activity, essentially ban divorce!
Of course, my irony here is intended to underline the essential point that Bush’s action is, at least in part, not motivated merely by a desire to support marriage. Rather, he seems to be doing penance for his wildly anti-conservative adminstration in its embrace of reckless spending, threats to personal liberty, and all those other acts which the Christian Right has actually begun to grow restless about. So, he throws out the lives and liberties and personal happiness of gay men and women as a diversion.
Wil, thank you for your eloquence. It is refreshing.
In Canada we have a similar debate. However, our Supreme Court has already said that placing a ban on homosexual marriage would go AGAINST our Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
I consider myself a conservative, but am not religious. The only arguments that I hear against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. Since I’m not religious, I can’t see a reason NOT to allow it.
Don’t worry…The people who put you on their blacklists and ban lists probably wouldn’t be buying your books anyway.
You were on the mark with everything you said. You haven’t cared what people thought about you up to this point, why worry now. Those of us who will be putting dinner on your table agree with you. We always have, and we probably always will.
Get Child-emperor George who is just trying to do what Daddy couldn’t do, with Texas Oil money, out of office! Wil for president! 🙂 okay, not really, but at this point, I think the neighbor’s labridor could do a better job…….
I have very little time, so I’ll leave everything I could say to those who can get around to saying it. Most people already have, anyway. Mostly, I just wanted to add my “thank you” to the slew of them you’ve already gotten.
As the close friend of a great number of GLBT people, I salute you.
I haven’t read any of the other comments here, but I just wanted to say *I’ll* boycott you if you ever stop speaking your mind because you think it will help sell more books.
I mean, how many people “boycott” Michael Moore? Has that really hurt him?
Wil, you rule! I was against gay marriages at this time at first because, as a gay man, I felt there were more important issues. I also felt that legal civil unions would be fine with me, but then the neocons objected to that too, and then they started removing anti-discrimination language from the federal job descriptions.
Now I’m 100% supportive of gay marriages.
As for the right-wing conservative view that activist judges are ruining America…around 1800 the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall stated in 1803:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…Thus the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void…”
Thanks for posting this Wil. My guess is that your book and business will weather the storm just fine.
My marriage seems to be fine too. Does anyone know if metrosexual marriage is still legal?
GOOD WORK, SIR!
I probably wouldn’t have bought your book before I read this… when does it come out?
Ever notice how folks who call themselves “good Christians” define “sinners” by calling them ___-lovers? ie, n*gger-lovers, faggot-lovers, etc.” They define “evil” by love, and themselves by hate; I think if you want to find the anti-Christ you need look no further than the closest frothing Fundie.
“Defending” conventional marriage by forbidding gay marriage is like protecting a dog from rabies by refusing to vaccinate a cat.
Please keep the courage of your convictions!
I agree with most of this, except that Republicans aren’t the only ones to use the divide and conquer strategy. Democrats do it too, by telling racial minorities that Republicans and corporations are fully responsible for their lot in life — when in fact, it is each individual’s responsibility to take whatever they have and make something of it.
You’re one of the few to actually state that government should have no business in marriage. Ironically, the Puritans (yes, the actual Puritans) were the first group in America and in the Western World of the time, to say that marriage was a civil contract, and had little to do with religion. It’s an interesting topic to research.
Thanks for taking a stand on this issue. I don’t think it’s a poor marketing choice at all. It’s what makes you, you, and why you have so many people reading your blog every day — you’re not afraid to be you.
Wil, you have always wrokked, hopefully will always wrok. Keep up the good dialog.
I recently became a US Citizen after living apolitically and apathetically in the US for a long time. The policies of GWB have been key in pushing me towards my first voting experience.
Vote your conscience in November! Let’s lose the Bush.
Those that have watched the season-ender of Season 3 of US “Queer As Folk” know the significance of the attached URL to a sampler of New Order’s “True Faith” (not the mix).
Time to get those long lines to the voting booth going.
i don’t think it’s so much of “we hate Bush because he doesn’t support gay marriages” but it’s more of a question of what is he offering the gay community? He’s all fired up about protecting marriage as it relates to men and women, but he gives us nothing to look forward to in life. If i fall in love with another guy, i have nothing to look forward to except a “civil union”. As a citizen of America, it’s my right to love someone and to be able to live happily with that person, and the things that Bush puts out and proposes diminishes that love and makes it less just because it’s directed to another guy.
And to redefine the word marriage so that it’s different for gay people…what is that? Why should our love have to be redefined, isn’t it love just like anyone else’s? Sometimes i think those things are just frustrating, because it’s hard enough to actually FIND someone and fall in love with them, but with Bush’s ideas and proposals, that’s as far as i would be able to go with it. I could never build a family or be happy because it doesn’t go with what his religion tells him marriage is. I just think that he’s overstepping the law like crazy to push a religious agenda.
I think that’s why in Australia, we don’t vote for someone based on their religion, but on their ability to uphold the laws of our land. It seems like Bush is mixing his faith and using it to tear up the Constitution of this country. It seems like that anyway…good writing Wil, thank you for talking about this.
-Aaron-
Ok, let me try to clear up something for everyone… Anyone who says this is an issue about religion or hate or discrimination (yea, that includes people on both sides of the proverbial fence) has not looked at all the facts involved.
All I read on this weblog and in many other places is a series of emotional or religious rants that don’t discuss the ACTUAL points involved in this debate. Simply calling people bigots does not make gay marriage valid. Simply saying the bible says it’s wrong does not make it INvalid.
If folks in this discussion want to get into more of the real issues, I encourage you to read the following artcle (which by the way, was written by both a fundamentalist cristian heterosexual woman AND a non-religious homosexual man – both whom have a tremendous amount of FACTS and RESEARCH on their sides.
It’s 20 pages long, so most of the people in this forum will not read it because they don’t want to learn more about the foundation of the arguments, they just want to spout their “beliefs.” For those who wish to be more informed,
Here you go:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf
Wil, you rock. Sincerely.
God established marriage as something between a man and a woman.
No, that is not true. Please pick up a history book and read sometimes, will you? Marriage existed long before people started to believe in a single God, before the Bible was even written. And marriage exists in cultures today that have no belief in God, as Christians or Jews believe in. Marriage has changed throughout history as society changed.
Wil…right on!
You’re dead on here, Wil. The President’s position here directly contradicts his position during the 2000 election, when he claimed to believe gay marriage was an issue for the states, not the Federal government.
From a logical viewpoint, I can’t see a real argument for such a discriminatory law. If marriage is a religous concept, then the government has no more business “protecting” its sanctity than it has protecting the sanctity of Jewish dietary law or Islam’s prohibition of alcohol – sanctity is the business of the churches. If marriage is a legal concept, then any form of bias or discrimination, be it related to gender, race or sexual orientation, is contrary to the principles America holds dear and inconsistent with every legal decision that says, “discrimination is wrong”.
It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: separate but equal isn’t.
Wil, I’ve been reading for quite sometime and have never felt the need to comment until now. I love you. Thank you so much for being so awesome. Rock the hell on.
Hoodyfrickinhoo Wil! (and you get a geek point if you can name that reference!) I’ve read through some of the comments here and I’m glad to see the majority agree with you as I do. For the hypocrites that are trying to fall back on the Bible to justify this amendment feel free to see my page: http://journals.aol.com/amtfool/Dancingtomyownbeat/ I’m so tired of people using the Bible as the end all, be all of how we should all behave when they pick and choose which Bible verses THEY follow in their own lives! Have you ever heard of seperation of Church and Government? There’s VERY good reasons for it! Bush all too often just acts as a puppet for a minority radical christian portion of the populace. That should scare anyone enough to not vote for him regardless of anything else.
The next time I’m watching TNG reruns on Spike TV, I’m going to watch a kid who grew up to be a great and noble man. Thank you so much for having the courage to take a stand.
And to anyone who says that they support this marriage amendment not out of hatred, but out of their faith, I will just say that I am reminded of women being told that they should not be given the vote in order to protect them from the corrupting influence of politics. The things we do . . .
I love that you wrote without being divisive. Everything else I’ve read on this subject, rather than simply being a logical, reasoned defense has been an illogical attack – and I appreciate seeing someone argue for equality in a positive voice.
Nicely Said! And I’m glad you decided to post this because it needs to be said and it needs to be spread. Some of my friends are homosexual, I don’t see any differences between them and myself apart from that, yet they are being restricted to marry someone that they love because people in our government dont like it. It’s all bullshit.
Maybe we need one of the guys from Queer Eye to run for President?
I know I am late for the discussion, but I thought I should inform you on how the right thinks.
1) We are NOT racists!!! Every republican I know is not a racist (and that is a lot of people). If we thought for a second that our leaders were racists, we would leave the party in a heartbeat. Just in case I have not made my self clear, the KKK can kiss my ass!!!!!!!
2) There is no southern strategy (see #1). It is another myth from the left. They want to continue to portray the right as racists to sure up the votes of minorities. You should hear some of the commercials that the democrat party plays to make the right look bad. Some of them are just disgusting.
3) This is a constitutional problem. It is a violation between Church and State. The state can not define something that is a religious institution.
4) Religion has been taking a beating in the courts lately. The courts in Massachusetts, and the Mayor of San Francisco, have forced the issue. Even though there is a law in the California Constitution against gay marriage, the Mayor has decided to break that law. In Massachusetts, they want to create a Civil Unions law. But the Court won
As far as I’m concerned, the civil aspects of marriage should be treated as contract law — if two consenting adults want to sign a contract saying they’ll live together in a monogamous relationship, let ’em. People don’t even wouldn’t even have to include that “til death do us part” clause if they don’t want to — why shouldn’t someone be able to sign a five-year marriage contract with an automatic extension in the case of childrent?
People could sign whatever contract they want, and if they get a church to bless it, more power to them.
That being said — Wil, if you think Sullivan is ultra-conservative, you need to get out of California more often. He’s pretty moderate on everything but the war (and he seems to be losing faith on that), and regularly gets taken to task by Jonah Goldberg, a real, honest to Cthulhu ultra-conservative.
Though I know most posters will skip over any dissenting viewpoints, even when I say up front I am not against gay unions and being the gazillionth post makes it fairly unlikely this will be read by anyone, I have to voice my thoughts as well.
First point, I don’t believe government should have any role in marriage or committed relationships at all. I don’t believe in the current sodomy laws most states have enacted, even though the intent was to protect non-consenting adults such as victims of rape. Marriage was decreed as a religious union long before the concept of civil law as we know it was ever conceived. It should stay a religious union, whatever religion the participants practice. Every human should be responsible for his own future, not his husband/wife/wives/partners social security.
Second, one of my major political hot buttons is the interpretation of the intent of separation of church and state. The intent of the Founding Fathers was never to have no religious input into government at all. The intent was to prevent any religious body from having legislative control. The second intent was to prevent the government from having any religious control, i.e., the monarch being the head of the Church of England. It was never intended to totally segregate all aspects of religion from influencing government decisions.
Third, every American should examine their own prejudices. One that is commonly ignored is the lumping of political beliefs with personal integrity. Do I agree with President Bush on this issue? No. Do I agree with Wil Wheaton on this issue? No. Do I believe they both feel strongly that their beliefs should be the deciding factor in the long term well being of our country? Absolutely. Do they both have that right as human beings? Absolutely. Does anyone have the right to question their moral integrity for standing up for their own beliefs or denegrate them for believing as they do? Never.
While I consider myself a political conservative and a social liberal, I don’t believe either party does any better job forwarding my agenda. The government that seems to best serve my needs is the non-partisan local government where media, spinners and all the other truly divisive influences have very little say. If we could take the Terry McAuliffes and Karl Roves out of the system and leave the few men with strong enough convictions to truly fight for their own beliefs, we would see a country where everyone could prosper. Not a country where the strongest contributors have the largest pull, both for the Democratic and Republican parties.
The greatest advantage to our form of government is that all Americans have the right to influence that outcome. We have the responsibilty to go to the voting booth and pull whatever lever, mark whatever box or touch whatever part of the screen will denote who we best think will carry forward our personal beliefs.
This is the time for all of us who speak out to speak out on behalf of those who live in fear of this administration. Thank you for speaking out, Wil.
I am emotionally stunned by the Bush/Rove-head, and all the crazy, evil and uncompassionate idealogies
they are imposing on this great, grand country. I still can’t believe how they maneuvered themselves into office (but I can understand how they did it.)However, being stunned has not prevented me from getting up and moving, constantly,
towards their removal.
And, I agree with Wil…my marriage is just fine, too.. and the only ones who can harm it would be my husband and I.
Thank you for that, Wil.
It needs to be said for more often.
Wil, this is so beautifully put and well-written, I am forwarding it to everyone I know. I especially appreciate your point about how your own marriage is not threatened, nor can it be, by anyone else’s. Beautifully said. I’m newly engaged and think it grossly unfair that my marriage will be legal because it happens to be to a man, while my maid of honor, who married her wife over a year ago, does not have the same privilege. Marriage is apparently so sacred that britney Spears can do it on a whim for a weekend and we have shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire” on TV (not to mention the divorce rate), but same-sex couples who ahev been together for years can’t get married if they want to? Civil unions are separate and unequal. The same old tired arguments used against interracial marriages are being recycled now. It’s bigotry, pure and simple. Thank you for speaking out, and for your thoughtful articulation of what so many people are thinking and feeling right now.
WIL..YOU MADE ME PROUD!!
Thank you so much for having the courage of your
convictions..
WIL WHEATON FOR PRESIDENT!
I completely agree. I’ve recetnly taken up being an activist because I can’t stand letting so many deplorable actions take place in the country which I share with my (gay) friends and family. I’ve also felt more useless than ever, since no matter how hard I’ve worked, it’s seemed that ‘the other side’ has managed to speak louder. It’s great to know that there are others out there who can speak at the same level, and say the same thing.
All I’m going to say is this:
Anyone who can watch the footage of the marriage ceremonies in San Francisco, who can sit there and see the love, the joy, the rapture of two people dedicating their lives to each other, and still proclaim that marriage is only for heterosexuals is speaking completely and totally out of hate, contempt, and ignorance.
I personally cried Tuesday night when “The Daily Show” made it a point to make their credits twice as long to show an actual ceremony from San Francisco. I cried for two reasons: first of all, I always cry at weddings. Second of all, I’m watching centuries-old barriers fall away as social justice finally makes its way into our society.
I can’t add anything that anyone else hasn’t already said. I’m just ecstatic that I can be alive to watch this, to take part in it, and to remember, years and years and years from now, that I was there as history was made.
Frankly, it comforts me to see that President Bush wants to protect the institution of marriage.
Had gay marriage been legal before I got married to my wife in 2002, I would have seriously considered marrying my best man. Because it was prohibited, I chose to marry my wife.
It truly protected me and I am eternally grateful to all of republican officials who passionately supported and enforced this law.
My hard-earned tax dollars are working to protect me, and that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside every day that I am reminded of it.
I also feel that I am not the only one who has been protected by this regulation. If not for this law, many straight married couples would indeed be gay at this time.
Kidding. only kidding
eric b
wil,
you rock. for having the courage to post something that you knew to be highly controversial in your blog. you always stand up fr the things that you believe in. what a great example you are!
while i am not gay, i do live in a gay household. i believe that an amendment to the constitution prohibiting gay marriage would be wrong. simply because it would take away rights from a big portion of the population. and that is opposite of the whole point of the constitution.
Thank you. Maybe someday I’ll be able to get married to the woman I love, too.
Wil, I have never heard the issue stated & supported as well as you have written here.
Bill Maher was interviewing a Republican senator the other night, and when the senator made said that gay marriage would somehow taint the institution of marrige, Bill Maher responded: “I don’t get it, so if this happens, how exactly does the republic fall?”
Too much focus is always spent on defending the intangible “institutions” and too little on the actual people that are involved in them.
-Chris K.
Atlanta, GA
Wil, thank you for being brave enough to post this one. Thank you for saying so eloquently what really needs to be said. Thank you for being a voice for those of us who don’t feel comfortable making speaches, and for those of us who would prefer not to take a stand in public. Thank you for making me feel a little bit ashamed that I don’t always want to take a stand.
I’m glad someone agrees with sanity. I’m even more glad that when someone asks me how I feel, I can point him or her to your blog, and tell them “He said it all.”
I think I’m going to tell my mom, too.
speak the truth, brother.
For those who like to protest that there is a biblical injunction against homosexuality, lets take a look at the 6 sections of the bible that deal with homosexuality.
1 Genesis 19:1-29. The action described here is a homosexual gang rape. The bible should speak out against rape. I’m not sure what entitles Lot to be saved from destruction in this case though. While he protests his neighbors’ desire to rape his guests he offers instead his two virgin daughters to “do ye to them as is good in your eyes” (sorry about the painful convolutions, that is the KJV.)
2 Judges 19:1-30 This is a similar story, except this time it is a man’s concubine and his host’s daughter. The man shoves his concubine out the door and she is raped all night. Then he goes on to murder her and ship pieces of her body around the realm.
The next two are from Leviticus. Using Leviticus to defend anything seems kind of shakey to me. It is the ultimate in pick and choose scriptures, and if you don’t follow the whole thing, then you have no right to quote it against someone you disagree with.
3 Leviticus 8:22
and
4 Leviticus 20:13
These two are the strongest calls against homosexuality in the Bible, and they are both dealing only with men. Again, if you don’t follow all of Leviticus I don’t see where you lay claim to any part of it (well, okay, the offerings for sin are taken care of by Christ I suppose.)
This means:
Your mutton must be lean (Lev 7:22-27) forget the bacon and hare (Lev 11:6-7) ever eat a clam, shrimp, oyster, lobster, crayfish, or squid? That’s forbidden in Lev 11:9-12. Did your wife sacrifice a lamb 7 days after giving birth to your son or 14 days after a daughter? (I skipped the sin offering. I figure that the Christ Sin Credits will take care of that.) Anyone trim their beard (Lev 19:27) oh, tattoos are a no no too (Lev 19:28). Ooh, don’t forget to not ever discriminate against foriegners (Lev 19:33-34.) When is the last time that you stoned someone who took the Lord’s name in vain? (Lev 24:10-16)
Looks like crop rotation might be a bit risky, and those cotton/whatever blend shirts… that is verboten (Lev 19:19). (I shoud go tell that one to my neighbors. They grow pumpkins among their corn.) There are others.
The last two actually come from the new testiment.
5 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
KJV says “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
The key words are “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” The origional text (in greek) said “effeminant male prostitutes nor the adult males who have sex with them,” That is an injunction against male prostitution on both sides of the issue (the prostitute and his john)
and
6 Romans 1:18-29
This one refers to men who turned their backs on God and thus did many things unseemly to Him. Verse 27 says “and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” I don’t know about you, but most of the homosexual males I know don’t “burn with lust” for other guys. Yeah, they are attracted to guys, but in relationships they are just as gentle and compassionate as the hetero couples I know.
Thanks for the great post Wil!
I’ll just go ahead and add my little story to the mix of the well-thought out comments already posted.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I’m also a lesbian in a committed relationship. My partner has a child from a previous marriage, whom I love dearly. She receives little child support and struggles to make ends meet. I don’t have much in the way of extra money, but what I do have is hers when she needs it. However, I have a job with great medical and dental benefits, none of which my partner or her child could ever have access to because any marriage between us won’t count as a “real” marriage.
In this uncertain economic time it makes more sense than ever to allow gay and lesbian marriages. It takes at least two incomes to be able to live comfortabley in the Bay Area and I resent the fact that Bush wants to get in the way of my ability to help my loved ones.
Yes, I want to marry for love, and to me part of loving is caring for the needs of those you are in love with.
Thank you again Wil for providing this forum in which people can speak their minds.
First off: Right on. The entire push for a Constitutional Ammendment does nothing but piss me off on a daily basis. There’s no real need for me to opine upon it, since I won’t be saying anything more interesting than “Right on, Wil!”
However, I do have to point something out. “Southern Strategy” is a political tactic practiced on all sides, not just those of Republicans. (Bringing out the worst in people – let’s talk about how we should hate all Republicans, huh? Howard Dean the Angry Man made me want to tear my hair out.) Both major parties manage to consistently screw with our lives with utter abandon, it just depends upon the issue. (And sometimes it’s on the same issue. Consider that while Bush is doing his ammendment BS, Clinton was the original signer of the “Protection of Marriage Act.”) It’s something I get rather cranky and sensitive about, considering I’m a Republican myself, and I think both parties are pretty much equally full of it.
Damn Straight! Pun intended. I hope that Bush and all the Bushies find this issue the one that topples their winter palace of cards.
150 years ago, the Bible said that slaves couldn’t marry
50 years ago, the Bible said that black and white couldn’t marry
Now, it appears that the Bible says two men can’t marry.
I wish they’d get to the final release of this troublesome document, the one where God is love – found in the space between two.
I’m paraphrasing a televangelist named Selma Massey, in Detroit, who was with my wife, meeting with House reps trying to block a DOMA amendment in Michigan a few weeks ago. Televangelist, in this case, does not mean an old white man with big hair.
Dr. Massey never talked about release versions, I’m the geek here.
This is one place where Chaney is on record disagreeing with Bush. I wonder if he’ll come through. Doubt it.
If it helps at all, I’ll buy an extra several copies of JAG as Christmas presents.