Sexuality Happens

Finally, my thoughts on marriage equality

Oh, ho. It’s time for a socio-political post/rant. Please note that if you don’t like my opinions, you are welcome to dissent.  However, you must do so politely.  Rude comments and trolls will be deleted.

Not so radical statement of the day; if you are against equality of marriage (people being allowed to get married regardless of sex, gender, or presentation), you are telling a portion of the population, myself included, that we are second-class citizens, that we’re not as good as you.

Go ahead, dissent, PLEASE. I actually really want you to. Why? Because I have yet to hear a proper arugement against marriage equality.

Let me put forth that I don’t, in general, support marriage being a governmental activity. I mean, I’m all for weddings (religious or non-religious, unless they’re just ridiculously expensive) and commitment ceremonies and handfastings. I just don’t think there should be rights tied to ANYONE’S marriage, regardless. However, since there ARE rights (over a thousand, at last count) tied to being married, then I think everyone should be allowed to enter into a governmental marriage. 

I know, I haven’t written a lot on it. Colorado turned down a referendum to offer civil unions in 2006, and there wasn’t anything marriage equality specific on the ballot last fall.  While prop 8 was a big deal, and I’m so proud of Iowa, NH and other places, it hasn’t directly affected me.

But I have marinated on it a lot. And at the end of August, when Q and I were in Phoenix, and for the first time in my life I actually felt BAD for being queer, I realized it was time I speak up.

Let’s look at some arguements. Not just ones I’ve heard about, but ones that have been said to my face.


“If teh gays marry, people will want to marry their dogs.”

Riiiiight. Ok. So I’m not sure if you’re telling me that as a gay/queer person, I’m on the same rights level as a dog…but if you are, you’re a douche hat.  Also, beastiality is illegal. Being queer in America isn’t. Done.


“Being gay is an abomination according to god/the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”

Last time I checked, America was supposed to have separation of church and state.  So really, while your bible/god may matter a hell of a lot to you, it doesn’t matter (or shouldn’t matter) to the government.  Also, I’m sorry your god is a hateful and/or venegful god.  I think god should be all about minding your own business.  I bet you’d be pretty pissed if I told you that you couldn’t drive on public roads to get to church, because my taxes went towards your roads, and I didn’t believe in you going to church.


“If gays get married, it’ll make my hetero marriage so much less valid/you’re fucking with the sanctity of marriage”


True. I mean, it’s not like people get drunk and marry strangers in Las Vegas, get married to friends to avoid mandatory student housing in college, get married to gain rights/citizenships, get married and get divorced 1 years/6 months/48 hours later.

OH WAIT. I know people who have sone ALL OF THOSE.  What sanctity of marriage?


“Well, I’m not homophobic/am pro-gay, I just am against gay marriage/marriage equality.”


That’s like saying “it’s not like I’m anti-cripple.  I just think that they don’t deserve to have elevators or ramps to get around.” Or “it’s not like I’m racist. I just don’t think black kids should go to school with white kids.” Or “I’m not sexist, I just don’t think women belong in office jobs.”

Ditto for people that think civil unions are the solution. Yes, it’s a step, but it is NOT the same thing. It’s saying “seperate but equal,” which as you may remember, was used to perpetuate racism.

How dare you (whoever you is) make me feel bad for being who I am, and how dare you tell me that I’m not as good as you because I am not just like you in my preference of lovers/partners.

If you against marriage equality, you are perpetuating homophobia, hate and biogtry.  You made not agree, but that’s what it boils down to.

Imagine not being able to see the person you’ve loved all your life in the ICU or OR as they are slipping away, and you can’t even say goodbye, or tell them how much you love them, because you don’t have the rights. Imagine not being able to pick your adopted child up from school, because you’re not a “legal” guardian because it’s illegal.  Imagine not being able to split up your assests through divorce preceedings because you were never really together, so it doesn’t matter if s/he leaves will all your stuff, and your kid(s). Imaging you have amazing health insurance and your partner REALLY needs it (for surgery, for cancer, for anything), and you can’t share it with them. Imagine not qualifying for a house/car/etc because the loan company wouldn’t combine your incomes because you’re not legally married. Now imagine over one thousand other situations like this.

Yeah. If you are against marriage equality (which can be either allowing everyone to get governmentally married, or not having governmental marriage period), you are subjegating an entire group of people.

I’m sure I’ll get a ton of hate mail on this. I’m ready. Because really, I don’t have much to lose, do I? It’s not like my partner and I are even close to being considered real citizens.  Shame on you in advance, and bring it on.

-Essin’ Em

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

9 Comments so far

  1. literalman September 12th, 2009 6:55 am

    I don’t think it’s an Equal Protection or “discrimination” thing. I think that the best argument comes from Griswold and its progeny. See for details.

  2. sxychikadee September 12th, 2009 7:37 am

    Anyone who doesn’t think that Em has a valid point here hasn’t really considered what it means to have the ABILITY to have personal freedoms.

    I was once legally married to a heterosexual biological man. You know what? It wasn’t illegal for him to become a cocaine addict and start abusing me and abandoning me while I was pregnant with and raising his two children. When we divorced, no judge declared that because he abused his RIGHT TO GET MARRIED he shouldn’t get that right again.

    Thing is: I’m not a heterosexual. I have loved lots of genders. While I don’t currently have plans to marry, I am dating a person who is legally considered to be female. Even though I did everything I could to “preserve the sanctity” of my previous marriage, I will now be denied the RIGHT TO GET MARRIED to the person of my choice. While my exhusband has the right to marry another woman and abuse her too.

    Yeah, that’s logical.

    Keith Olbermann has a good view on this found here:

    My favorite part is:
    “You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.”

  3. Nadia September 12th, 2009 10:07 am

    @sxychikadee Thanks for sharing the Olbermann video, it was fantastic.

    Essin’ Em – I agree with you wholeheartedly. While my leanings are more towards state-sanctioned marriage disappearing as a social institution entirely, while we have it certainly ALL human beings should have the same rights concerning it.

  4. Wilhelmina September 13th, 2009 1:34 am

    i back all of the above. *snaps* to you for writing about this.

  5. Liz September 14th, 2009 7:50 am

    I support marriage equality, but disagree with your argument against “Being gay is an abomination according to god/the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”

    Separation of church and state, while a valid legal argument against the statement, is problematic first because it requires the other party to actually understand how separation of church and state is meant to work, and a startlingly high percentage of people on both sides of any church and state related argument have it wrong.

    More importantly, the best way to argue with that “abomination” crap is to point out the fallacy of it biblically, because God doesn’t create abominations, and He created gays. God doesn’t advocate hate, but rather love. The Bible doesn’t define marriage as between one man and one woman. In fact, the traditional Christian wedding vows come in part from words spoken between two women. In one miracle described in the gospels, Jesus healed a Roman soldier’s gay lover while applauding the strength of the man’s faith, and dozens of other biblical references prove that so-called Christians who hate gays are just plain wrong.

    The majority of Christians really wish the loud hateful ones would stop trying to speak for us. They don’t. There are far more biblical references that support gay marriage than references against.

    In fact, the strongest biblical argument the anti-gay crowd can muster is to quote Leviticus, which is an outdated morality code imposed on a specific group of people for a specific time period. Yes, Leviticus commands that particular group of Jewish men to refrain from gay sex, and masturbation, but historical context is necessary to understand the passage, and any Christian who quotes that in an anti-gay context needs to be asked if they keep Kosher, because the same passage bans shellfish, vegetable gardens, the keeping of rabbits, mixing dairy with meat, wearing blended fabric, and dozens of other things that ceased to matter two thousand years ago.

    Many of the loudest and most holier-than-thou bible thumper types have clearly never actually read the bible, and if they have, they certainly didn’t absorb the right message.

  6. Ilse September 15th, 2009 12:21 pm

    There is no talking to opponents of marriage equality. They’re bigots, with small, ugly, hard little hearts – or they’re terrified of something, if only they knew what (hmm…). Their position makes no sense. They just cannot make it make sense.

    The fact is that if they were so invested in the “sanctity” of marriage – whatever the hell that means – then they would be fighting to make divorce impossible and adultery illegal. I mean, if anyone can get divorced and remarried as many times as they want, can cheat on their spouses and be forgiven and embraced, then what, exactly, do they mean by sanctity?

    But, of course, we have these assholes – like the C Street crew – talking a stand against The Buttsex Agenda, while they’re being outed left and right for their own proclivities, cheating on their wives, and having numerous divorces (think Gingrich). Seriously there is no talking to these people. No amount of reason will penetrate.

    My feeling is that this is nothing but a political platform for them, just like right-to-life is a platform. They have no more interest in “gay marriage” than they do in abortion (seriously, if abortion were outlawed for good and all, they would lose a righteous rallying cry, and they’d have to actually stand for something to solidify their base). Similarly, they don’t believe for an instant that their own marriages would be compromised by marriage equality. They just know that the idea of it freaks out the dimwits that make up their constituency, and that’s enough.

    And these people are dimwits, if they can compare homosexuality to bestiality or child molestation. The plain fact of the matter is that animals and children are legally not able to consent: they can’t sign contracts. There is no parallel whatsoever.

    Here are a couple of websites you might be interested in. On the serious side: outs the closeted “family values” (just want to say that I am not in favor of outing in general, but definitely in favor of outing government types who seek to legislate against equality, while trolling for blowjobs in the men’s room). And here’s a righteous, very funny website, calling their bluff: (“Previous generations had it right. It’s better to stay together in a soul-sucking sham of a marriage, filled with icy silence punctuated with passive-aggressive hostilities than to admit you might have made a mistake.”)
    Rock on, Essin’

  7. Ilse September 15th, 2009 12:24 pm

    Oh, also, if you’re getting hate-mail on this subject, you should do a follow up post and quote these people. That would be fun.


  8. havingmycake September 19th, 2009 8:17 am

    Im from the UK where there is marriage equality, but I think it makes a lot of people here uncomfortable because homosexuality is still not considered ‘normal’ in the eyes of the generation who are currently running the country. Personally, I have to call myself to account on occasion for noticing when I see two people of the same gender holding hands in the street because it should not be something that holds my attention for any reason other than that it is a lovely public display of affection. However, I come from the tail end of that generation for whom gay and queer are insults and the stigma still lingers on in a large part of my nation’s psyche. The more public exposure, the better as far as I am concerned. If such displays become more commonplace, then perhaps it will become less remarkable.

    To my teenager and her friends, there is nothing unusual about the different types of sexuality. They just are. In the same way that there are different colours of skin. It’s not something to be judged by or to be remarked upon. Hopefully this type of discrimination will begin to die out as the decades go on. Although, I suppose there will always be a hardline of idiots who want an issue against which to complain, an idea they can use as a reason to be violent.

    I guess it’s harder for you guys in the States to achieve marital equality because of the strict religious communities in certain states who seem to have such an effect upon your law making, hence the varied policy on abortion depending upon whereabouts in America you are.

    To compare a human being with a dog seems rather strange, whatever their sexual orientation but, if you remember, the Crusaders were called Infidel Dogs by their Muslem opponents back in the 13th/14th centuries so it does have a history in terms of anyone that disagrees with an espoused religious creed.

    As you say, when Church and State are supposed to be totally separate entities, these obvious crossovers in terms of decision and, indeed, law making do rather make a mockery of that idea.

    Excellent post.

  9. Buster January 9th, 2010 3:40 pm

    There is some problems with your argument, but let me first say that your focus is nice, but is tilted.

    Gays have all the rights any other citizen has, those governmental “rights” are not rights, they are privileges. Second, politicians are not exactly explaining this how it is.

    No one is telling them they cannot be married, however this new legislation is telling business/et cetera that they have to pay benefits to someone now that was not previously in the business/worker benefit contract.

    This is the same as government passing legislation saying that your employer has to now extend benefits to your roommate, sister, mother, neighbor, or someone else that the benefits did not previously cover. How is it right, that when a business hired someone to work they offered them a benefits package and the worker accepted it then government comes along as says now that the benefits package has to cover someone else that the business did not offer on signing to cover – ever.

Leave a reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree