![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shake your windows and rattle your walls
As you've probably heard by now, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that the state law restricting marriage to heterosexually-composed couples violates the state's constitution.
At the same time, opponents of California's Proposition 8 (which would rewrite the state constitution to rescind the equal marriage rights currently enjoyed California's citizens) are running out of money, which makes it difficult to advertise and lobby and so on. You can make a donation to the cause of defeating Prop 8 here.
I know there are some of you who must prefer that equal marriage rights not be available to same-sex couples.1 You'd probably phrase it differently; you'd probably point out that all you oppose is "changing the definition of 'marriage'" (with or without the word "traditional" in there somewhere). That is, most of you are not consciously opposed to equal rights for citizens unlike yourselves. (Many people are so opposed, of course, but I don't think that's true of my friends.) But in case any of you can be convinced, let me set up a thought problem.
Suppose you adopt a child. That child is yours, right, it's your child, and you are its parent, and it is your child, and it would be deeply, deeply wrong for people to
Maybe your religion is more specific about such things than the secular world is. That's fine. I don't think hardly anybody is saying the priests and pastors and rabbis and imams and whoever-all else performs marriages should be required to marry any old couple that approaches them. My own parents couldn't find a rabbi to marry them, for example, because they were not both Jewish. But any judge or other empowered government official (I don't know who all can do weddings; my brother was married by a mayor) who refused to marry a mixed couple would have been outside the scope of his or her authority, right? So what each religion sets as its standards is up to each religion's governor(s). But married people don't have to be married by a clergyman; and people who aren't married by a clergyman are just as married, in the eyes of the law (if not the eyes of your/their/any god or God), as people who are. So people who wish to be married in the eyes of the law, and who aren't interested in the eyes of any deity, should be allowed to marry.
If they've got a gripe with their religion, that's a separate question. Like I said, the religions' standards are their own business. But the law should treat all citizens equally. Legally adoptive parents are parents, and legally adopted children are children, and legally married people are spouses, and that is -- or ought to be -- that.
Thanks for your time.
1 In case you're interested: Why I don't talk about "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage", and if you're in favor of equal marriage rights, why I don't think you should either.
2 (OED: "A person who is one of the progenitors of a child; a father or mother"; Merriam-Webster: "One that begets or brings forth offspring"; both dictionaries also note those who assume parent-like responsibilities, such as stepparents or adoptive parents, and list those right under "parent", but both dictionaries also acknowledge the extended use of "marriage" to apply to couples of the same sex, so let's not get into that just now, shall we?)
At the same time, opponents of California's Proposition 8 (which would rewrite the state constitution to rescind the equal marriage rights currently enjoyed California's citizens) are running out of money, which makes it difficult to advertise and lobby and so on. You can make a donation to the cause of defeating Prop 8 here.
I know there are some of you who must prefer that equal marriage rights not be available to same-sex couples.1 You'd probably phrase it differently; you'd probably point out that all you oppose is "changing the definition of 'marriage'" (with or without the word "traditional" in there somewhere). That is, most of you are not consciously opposed to equal rights for citizens unlike yourselves. (Many people are so opposed, of course, but I don't think that's true of my friends.) But in case any of you can be convinced, let me set up a thought problem.
Suppose you adopt a child. That child is yours, right, it's your child, and you are its parent, and it is your child, and it would be deeply, deeply wrong for people to
- (a) withhold certain parental rights from you (or filial rights from your child) on the grounds that you don't meet the traditional definition of "parent"2 or
- (b) use scare-quotes to describe you as the child's "mother" or the child as your "son".
Maybe your religion is more specific about such things than the secular world is. That's fine. I don't think hardly anybody is saying the priests and pastors and rabbis and imams and whoever-all else performs marriages should be required to marry any old couple that approaches them. My own parents couldn't find a rabbi to marry them, for example, because they were not both Jewish. But any judge or other empowered government official (I don't know who all can do weddings; my brother was married by a mayor) who refused to marry a mixed couple would have been outside the scope of his or her authority, right? So what each religion sets as its standards is up to each religion's governor(s). But married people don't have to be married by a clergyman; and people who aren't married by a clergyman are just as married, in the eyes of the law (if not the eyes of your/their/any god or God), as people who are. So people who wish to be married in the eyes of the law, and who aren't interested in the eyes of any deity, should be allowed to marry.
If they've got a gripe with their religion, that's a separate question. Like I said, the religions' standards are their own business. But the law should treat all citizens equally. Legally adoptive parents are parents, and legally adopted children are children, and legally married people are spouses, and that is -- or ought to be -- that.
Thanks for your time.
1 In case you're interested: Why I don't talk about "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage", and if you're in favor of equal marriage rights, why I don't think you should either.
2 (OED: "A person who is one of the progenitors of a child; a father or mother"; Merriam-Webster: "One that begets or brings forth offspring"; both dictionaries also note those who assume parent-like responsibilities, such as stepparents or adoptive parents, and list those right under "parent", but both dictionaries also acknowledge the extended use of "marriage" to apply to couples of the same sex, so let's not get into that just now, shall we?)