Why I've Given up on Marriage, I

| | Comments (6)

Marriage, as an institution in this country, has failed. At least, I wouldn’t call a 55% divorce rate a success, but that’s just my opinion. I never imagined that marriage would be part of my life. I mean, the very idea of even being able to be married never occurred to me because I never thought that I would have access to it.

I need to start thinking once again in those terms. Marriage really isn’t available to me, and will not be available to me in my lifetime. But what I have on a personal level is much more than a mere word. Kent and I have struggled like hell to get to where we are and it has been an uphill battle all the way.

Not once has our family condoned or blessed our relationship. Not once has society condoned or blessed our relationship. Society and family have done everything in their power to destroy the relationship we have. Society does this by maintaining bigotry as the status quo. The last election was a supreme example of this. And now, Matthew Coles, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lesbian and gay rights project has said that “it will be many years before there is any recognition of same-sex relationships.”

Gay bashers are now at least being taken seriously, and are, for the most part, being prosecuted with more than a slap on the wrist. But bigotry goes on. I believe the kind of bigotry being handed out in legislation is the worst kind of all because the state and the voters, are endorsing this bigotry. It’s the kind that is there but is never talked about. It’s the kind that allows people to tell derogatory gay jokes behind our backs just for the sake of a chuckle. And why not? The government has already said that we are less than equal citizens.

What will be missed by gay couples is public recognition of our relationships, in as far as benefits are concerned. But we should be used to that. Kent and I never had a blessing. We never had gifts given to us. We never had a party in honor of our relationship. We didn’t get squat. And if the President gets his way, as the 11 states have who resoundingly stated that gay couples really have no legal rights, then we will permanently have... nothing, in the form of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A lot of this is being fueled by “moral values” and public opinion and legislation has been effected by what the church dictates. But here’s the really ironic part of all of this. If the state wanted to put in place a law that infringed on the church’s right to express their religion in some form, I would be the first to stand up for them and say, “That’s not right. We have no business in government telling a religious institution what to do.” Well, the reverse should be true. There is nothing moral about what is being done to us. Time will bear that out and hopefully, in time, the churches will realize this as well.

When I’m old and on my death bed, my biggest fear is having my last words to Kent be, “Marriage would have been nice.”

Fearful that aggressive action could backfire and generate public hostility, gay rights groups are planning to limit the scope of their legal challenges to the constitutional amendments banning gay marriage that were passed by 11 states last week.

The groups are making a temporary retreat from their most fundamental goal, winning the right for same-sex marriages, and focusing instead on those measures that addressed civil unions in some way. The groups say that broader suits seeking the right to marry could add fuel to President Bush’s efforts to create a federal prohibition on gay marriage. [...]

So challenging the new state amendments by arguing that gays have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution is unlikely anytime soon. Instead, gay rights groups will move mostly on procedural matters in states whose measures appear to infringe on civil unions and benefits for same-sex couples. [...]

Matthew Coles, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lesbian and gay rights project said, “If you take out Ohio, Michigan and Oregon, these are deeply conservative places where everyone agrees it will be many years before there is any recognition of same-sex relationships.” (source)

Follow up on Why I've Given up on Marriage, II.

6 Comments

Beaty said:

It really made me sad to read your title - 'Why I have given up on marriage'.

You see my partner and I are now seariously considering marriage after a long relationship...

So what make us different? - We are hetrosexuals living in the UK.

You know, it really makes me angry that something as abstract as sexual orientation can make such a divide between you and us Bill.

And I don't really understand how it is that 'The Church' as an institution has journied so far away from the fundemental spirit of Christ's message...Don't get me wrong, I'm not some sort of regular church going Christian - but I really do admire Christ and the message he preached...

So how is it that The Church as an entity seems so at odds with a message that is supposed to be its founding principals?

I love God - but I really dislike the Church - for exactly the reasons we see expressed in your comments. It has simply made our societies LESS tollerant - completely contridicting Christ's intended message...IMHO.

Sorry to rant.

Scott said:

Yeah, right. That's why the U.S. has changed so much recently. Ten years ago, the Christian leadership decided not to piss anyone off for fear of losing ground.

Bill said:

Wow Steph. I didn't know that. It makes you look at things in a different way.

The benefits of getting married greatly out weigh not being able too, for most of us I would think. But sometimes, you do have to weigh what is best.

Steph said:

I firmly believe that if the church -- or any religious organization -- is going to dictate our government, they should lose their tax-exempt status. Meantime, I intend to stay and milk the government for all it's worth. For example, Nettl's kids, as children of a single mom, can receive their college educations (4-year) completely free of charge. If we could marry, they would not qualify. The kids also receive state medical insurance, which we will be keeping.

Screw 'em.

Bill said:

I know Darrell, and it sucks. It seems like our national gay leadership are scared to do much of anything for fear that we will cause another "backlash". Well, that's been done. More and more states are going to be coming up with state amendments. This is reality and playing nice isn't going to put us in a worse position than we are now. Our opponents want us to have NOTHING. They don't even want to compromise on civil unions.

I also read that Bush received as much of the "gay vote" this year as he did in year 2000. So apparently, it's ok with our community that he's trying to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. It's appalling.

So here I have been yelling and screaming on this website for the last year about why we need civil marriage, and apparently our own community doesn't seem to think so. So I ask myself, "Why do I care so much then?"

Maybe there are so many more single gay people out there than couples and they simply don't care about gay marriage equality because they are single? I don't know.

Darrell said:

So in other words,our advocacy groups are saying, "just sit in the back of the bus and shut up". Well, I don't think so. That's not why I support the ACLU.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Bill published on November 12, 2004 7:37 AM.

Idaho; What took them so long to ban gay marriage? was the previous entry in this blog.

Gay Americans explain why they voted for Bush is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Our Blogroll

Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en
Enhanced with Snapshots