Daum starts the piece by describing her own wedding, then gets to the meat.
Marcotte's project is a political statement designed to call the bluff of the very group it's pretending to embrace: those seeking to protect marriage by limiting it to heterosexuals.This is a strawman. We voted to restore (it would have been keep if a court hadn't jumped the gun) state marriage licensing to uniting a bride+groom. The amendment doesn't discuss sexual identity or orientation in any terms.
The measure, of course, isn't meant to pass but rather to expose the hypocrisy of those who see gay marriage as a threat to their own unions.Most California Marriage Amendment supporters did not consider neutered marriage licensing so much as a threat to their own union – but rather a threat to the institution of marriage, and detrimental to society.
[Continued after the jump.]
Once again, the "h" word is being misused. If someone says they believe divorce should be illegal, but refuses to support this effort, then they are probably a hypocrite. Let me know how many of those you find."Prop. 8 only attacked the problem from the edges," Marcotte writes. "I'm going after the heart of the matter. . . . If you can't get divorced, you can't destroy traditional marriage."This is not true. There are all sorts of attacks on marriage, such as adultery.
He's fighting not just for the rights of gays and lesbians, who surely deserve to be feted as they parade down the street in post-wedding rapture, but also for the cause of irony itself, which -- in this often painfully literal society -- needs all the help it can get.
Especially in California, homosexual people have the same rights as anybody else. Nothing is stopping two men or two women or trios or groups of people of one or both genders from having a "wedding" and being feted by supporters. It happens already.
Some of the comments so far:
"Aviking" wrote 12/10/2009, 8:29 AM:
Hmm, it might be tougue and cheeck, but not a bad idea IMO. Only grant divorce in cases of infidelty, or abuse.
That's not what the text says, though.
"Swift2" wrote 12/10/2009, 9:29 AM:
What the Prop 8 people want will take us back to the dark ages.Really? The year 2003 and every year before that – Dark Ages? In California, this would mean any time before 2008 would be the Dark Ages.
Is marriage an unchanging human institution, that hasn't changed for 5,000 years?For all of history, it has united a bride and groom.
It changed just 50 years ago.
Not really. Some states prevented "interracial" marriage, which also prevented freedom of association (which isn't an issue anymore). That prevention was itself a change that ended up being reversed. It is absurd to compare that temporary, scattered restriction to the worldwide bride+groom requirement which has existed throughout history.
"shadowman72" wrote (12/10/2009, 9:59 AM ):
Homosexuality is not a choice.
He then goes to provide a lot of links and info. But this is irrelevant. Age is not a choice, either, but the state still treats people of different ages differently. The state isn't even treating individuals differently based on their identity or feelings – it is treating different kinds of voluntary associations differently. We choose our friends and lovers in this state – or whether or not to have friends or lovers. We choose whether or not to form associations, and what kinds of associations we'll form.
Again, click through, read the whole thing, and offer your own comments.
Marriage defenders could engage in this sort of satire, too – pushing for sibling marriage using the same arguments used by marriage neutering advocates. "There's no reason to ban sibling marriage, as love is love; marriage isn't about kids! Don't want sibling marriage? Don't have one! Marriage has always been changing."
Previously:
0 comments,:
Post a Comment