From Island Breezes, this excellent insight:
Advocates of same-sex marriage need to step back and face themselves in the mirror. They will see someone willing to take away from someone else what they themselves can not have. Same sex marriage does not make two men or two women married. It makes marriage meaningless.
- Perspective: Same-Sex Marriage
The article in some ways falls into the trap of identity politics, but on balance is a good read.
Perhaps I am misreading, but Island Breezes seems to assert that there are no married people who advocate for same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteEither that or without explicitly saying so the author narrowed the field from all "advocates" to just those that felt they had the most interest in the debate -- those that want to enter into all-male or all-female relationships and having them called marriage.
ReplyDeleteI'll agree that it the author could have rendered that part more clearly, however the impact of the statement is valid.
There are a few examples of this in our comment section. When we point out how responsible procreation is at the core of the recognition of marriage by government, he replies that marriage has nothing to do with children. Just to highlight that excess, consider that he could have attempted a compromise (that some offer) that marriage is about children to some just not for him. But its offered as an absolute, nothing to do with children.
And that isn't the only example. When we point out how marriage equality is measured in the quality of participation of each gender in each marriage, its countered with a much different saga. That marriage equality can only be obtained when people can form all-male and all-female marriages. One is definitely at the expense of the other as far as the precedent of equality for the state.
The canard that nothing about marriage is lost by neutering it is shown false with only a little bit of spotlight.
I believe the civil rights movement has taught us a lot about the equality of integration over segregation.
The statement may not describe all advocates, but it describes the change in marriage and many who wish it for their own indulgence. And in that way, it nails the issue very well.
Hoh: Perhaps I am misreading, but Island Breezes seems to assert...
ReplyDeleteIf something one reads "seems to assert" something, one is relatively assured to be misreading.
If a statement seems to assert something other than what is most likely believed by the writer, one can be assured that the statement needs to be rewritten.
ReplyDeleteOp-ed, part of civil dialogue is to ask for clarification and to point out when something could be stated more clearly, which was my intent.
I suspected that Island Breezes did not mean precisely what she wrote, which is why I asked her for clarification on her blog.
Granted, my comment here contained a trace of snark. This isn't Sunday School, is it?
It would have been uncivil of me to jump on Island Breezes and insist that her writing confirmed that in her world view, there were no married heteros who supported same sex marriage.
Op-ed, take a look at this thread.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/04/hrc-challenged-by-nom-on-substance.html#comments
You took a statement of mine and made a ridiculous assertion about me in your 10:16 response.
If that's how you want to play the game, fine, but don't complain when someone plays a nicer version of the same game.
Hoh: You took a statement of mine and made a ridiculous assertion about me in your 10:16 response.
ReplyDeleteFalse. Go read it again.
And while you're at it, answer the questions at the bottom of that thread.