Friday, April 10, 2015

Dear Supreme Court: please read this

I know you folks may be nearly ready to make marriage equality the law of our land, presumably with a 5-4 decision.

I sure hope there are at least five.

I am getting really annoyed by religious right-wingers who view marriage equality (i.e., same-sex marriage) as a threat to "traditional marriage" as sanctioned by the Bible.

I fail to see why a thousands-year-old, inconsistent, error-ridden document of dubious origin should set the standards for civil law in 21st-century America.

Sure, the Bible mentions monogamous heterosexual marriage, but it also says that:
  1. Rape victims should marry their rapists.
  2. A man can have multiple wives, and concubines.
  3. Male soldiers can capture female virgins and have sex with them.
  4. A slave owner can be a matchmaker for his slaves, and female slaves must have sex with their appointed mates.
In 2001, Holland became the first country to approve same-sex marriage. In the United States, although same-sex marriages do not have federal approval, same-sex couples can marry in a growing number of states plus the nation's capital, and approval is pending in other states. (So is disapproval.) Some states that do not allow same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Thousands of same-sex marriages have occurred, much to the horror of organizations such as the American Family Association and Republican politicians that seek to defend "traditional marriage."

I hereby challenge them to identify even one heterosexual marriage that was damaged by a gay marriage.

There are millions of married straights. Did any of them divorce because gay married people moved in next door, or live in the next state or 2,000 miles away.

Being married is no big deal
(except for people who are not allowed to marry).

The institution of marriage is not a particularly exclusive club. It's not like winning a Harvard scholarship or a Nobel prize or being admitted to Phi Beta Kappa or Mensa.

When I wanted to get a marriage license back in 1971, I had to pay a few bucks and prove that I was at least 18 years old and did not have syphilis or gonorrhea.
I've been married to a woman for over 40 years. I would not be any less married if Jane married Louise, if Pedro married Waldo, or if a chipmunk married a frog -- and a flashlight.


Why the hell should anyone care who else is married?

There is not a limited number of marriages available. If Ted and Sam get married, there will still be marriage licenses available for Cynthia and Ira. It's not as if Ted and Sam ordered the last extra-crispy wings at KFC, and there were none left when Cynthia and Ira walked in.

"Pro-family" organizations and politicians should be pro-ALL-families. Republicans and other conservatives who want to minimize government involvement in citizens' private lives should keep government out of our bedrooms.

In an ironically named 1967 case, "Loving v. Virginia," a unanimous Supreme Court Decision said, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." And men. And women.

(left-click to enlarge for easier reading)

(Chipmunk photo from  Powerful Intentions. Frog photo from National Geographic)

1 comment:

  1. The idea of the government granting permission (i.e. selling marriage licenses) for people to get married ought to bother everyone. Of course, they'd have to change a lot of the laws that treat married people different from singles, which can only be good for us, but a nightmare for politicians who would be forced to do their jobs, and heaven knows we might learn that about 95% are incompetent...