Journal

two days before last quarter
march 11, 2004 ~ 2:00 p.m.

"[T]he consequence is very clear. Marriage loses its significance. People will stop getting married. Homosexuals will not get married; heterosexuals will stop getting married. And that to me is the real threat to the American family and to the culture generally." -Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), on the 700 Club, Feb. 25, 2004

Umm...what? Now, I applaud Santorum for finally actually saying what exactly the threat is that he's so concerned about. Okay, so the way that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriages is by causing straight people to not get married anymore. But...why, exactly? What about having gay people married legally will stop straight people from doing? That hasn't happened in Holland, or Canada, that I'm aware of.

And what does he mean, "Homosexuals will not get married"? Is he suggesting that being allowed to get married will make us no longer want to?

It sounds to me like what he's trying to say is that allowing same-sex marriage will cheapen marriage in general, and cause people to lose respect for it. Okay, I get that, I see where he's coming from--but hasn't the same thing been said about divorce? Vegas weddings? Interracial marriage? They've all been said to cheapen the sanctity of marriage, and yet, low and behold, marriage is still here, still happening, all the time.

The most interesting thing to me, though, is the lack of understanding of the distinction between civil and religious marriage. They're two separate things. Only religious marriage is relevant to God; civil marriage is a mere legal arrangement. I know this because my parents had a religious wedding, Quaker-style, with vows and everything, and then had their civil marriage taken care of in court a few months later. Separate things.

And you can't stop gay people from religious marriage. So the "sanctity" of marriage, as the homophobes define it, is violated every time a gay couple has a wedding or commitment ceremony, regardless of whether there's a civil aspect to it. And gay people get married every day. There's nothing they can do about that.

But maybe that's the point: they know they can't stop gay marriage as a religious institution, because regardless of how God views it, there will still be churches willing to wed same-sex couples. So they're desperately grasping at whatever they can to stick it to gays, and their solution is to attack the side of the equation that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, but rather with a legal agreement between two people. Because that's the only thing they have a chance of stopping.

But if the history of queer rights has taught me anything, it's that the public view of homosexuality (and bisexuality) has only improved over time, and that it will continue to do so. There are little bumps in the road, of course, like the Bowers vs. Hardwick decision in '87, or this year's negative reaction to its being overturned. But things have improved over time. Even in the last five years, acceptance of gays has increased tremendously.

So I think that gay marriage is inevitable. I think it will happen in my lifetime, even if the FMA is passed -- because it won't take long for the legislatures of the required 38 states to recognize that prohibiting same-sex marriage is completely unfair. If the FMA passes, it will be repealed eventually.

And at this point, it looks like it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing anyway.

~~~

An interesting article I just read about abstinence-only education in Lubbock, Texas: Texas Teaches Abstinence, With Mixed Grades

And another: New study raises questions about abstinence pledges

You know what the problem is with abstinence-only? Besides the fact that it doesn't work? It focuses too much on vaginal sex. In keeping with its fear of exposing teens to the possibilities out there (and its insistence that procreative sex is the only kind that counts), it never mentions the dangers of oral sex, or anal sex. But leaving out oral sex is the worst thing you can do--because there are so many people out there who think that oral sex isn't sex, and who don't understand that you can get STD's from it. And aparently, a whole lot of the kids who have pledged to be celibate until marriage are having oral sex.

How is that any better? I mean, sure, you can't get pregnant from it, but STD's are still a huge problem, and abstinence-only programs don't teach kids that, and don't teach them how to make it safe. Not to mention the fact that they ignore queer sexuality. Oh yeah, and, they don't work.

I understand the impulse to stick to principles no matter what, but in this case it's just impractical. We can't just close our eyes and pretend the world isn't the way it is. We need to be realistic about this, and the fact is, kids will have sex no matter what. Instead of futilely telling them not to, we have to teach them how to be safe if they choose to have sex.

I think my sex-ed (from the DC public school system) was a really good program. They told us about the risks of pregnancy and STD's, and that absintence is the only way to be really safe. Then they taught us how to be safe if we do have sex. That's really how it ought to be done, because it gives kids the most options. Abstinence only makes it no sex or unsafe sex. That just doesn't work.

~~~

I thought I'd make my official endorsement for the Democratic presidential candidate: Dennis Kucinich. No chance in hell of winning, to be sure, but he's out there saying the right things, supporting gay marriage and universal health care and abortion rights and medical marijuana, and opposing the war and the Patriot Act and the death penalty. This is a guy I agree with on pretty much everything. I voted for him in the DC Primary, although to be fair that was a bullshit election since we had caucuses in February.

I have to admit that I'm feeling the tug of the "Anybody But Bush" camp, and I may actually vote for Kerry in November. Not sure yet; I'm uneasy about Nader's run, but it is my policy to vote for who I agree with and not who I think other people will vote for. Of course, sometimes other things are more important. But then again, the DC electoral votes will all go to the Democrat anyway, so I might as well use my vote to make a point.

Like I said, I'm not sure yet. But I'm definitely looking forward to election day; it's really starting to look like we have a chance.

previous ~ next

Diaryland