I don’t usually get political on this blog, but the recent Marriage Equality discussions have been pushing my buttons. I am strongly pro-gay marriage and am often dumbfounded by the arguments cited by opponents.
One morning last week, I heard someone on the radio saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that the constitution supported equality for like situations, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage could never be equal because of the inability for gay couples to reproduce.
This pushes two of my buttons:
1) As part of a straight couple who cannot reproduce, I take extreme exception to this suggestion that a marriage is only acceptable when it produces children.
2) I know several gay couples who have reproduced via sperm donor, surrogate, or adoption. Is this person then suggesting that any marriage—gay or straight—that doesn’t produce children “naturally” falls into the category of unacceptable? Surely not.
It’s Whiny Wednesday. I’m on fire this week. What’s pushing your buttons?
I am with you, Lisa. I didn’t see the hearings yesterday, but I read this Salon article last night & I was incensed at Justice Scalia’s attempt at “humour” (and heartened by Justice Kagan’s words). Nobody had better tell me that my marriage is any less valid or valued than theirs just because I am in my 50s & don’t have children. :p
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/prop_8_defenders_have_gender_anxiety/
Gay marriage has been a reality in Canada for several years now. The roof hasn’t caved in yet either. ; ) Just saying.
Loribeth, I found this article too – it actually says the “no kids” argument is going to sink the opponents of gay marriage. An interesting way to look at things. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/03/homosexuality_as_infertility_how_to_end_the_gay_marriage_debate.html
I’m very much in favor of gay marriage, but I have to say, some of the comments in that Slate article made me crazy. The argument in the article is that homosexual couples are infertile (which, technically, they are because as a couple, they can’t reproduce), but several of the commenters said things like, “homosexuals haven’t lost their desire to have children just because they’re gay” and “I hate this argument not because I’m a liberal but because I am a gay guy who does not think of himself as a heterosexual male with an unfortunate disability.” OK, well, I’m infertile and haven’t lost my desire to have children, nor do I think of myself as having an “unfortunate disability.” Just what do people think infertility IS?
I am also Canadian and haven’t seen us fall apart now that gay marriage exists. I am offended by people suggesting marriage is only for the fertile since I assume then my marriage will be annulled.
I also listened to an offensive debate on IVF where the suggestion was “adopt.” No recognition of the difference of raising a biological child vs. adoptive child or personal wishes. There was a ten second debate about discussing when to stop IVF but it wasn’t followed up.
Also have a sick husband at home. Enough said.
My favourite professor from university is a Lesbian in a long-committed relationship. She is against gay marriage. She doesn’t think it is necessary, especially given her view of the history of marriage as a contract state where the wife was a lesser being. From my view, there’s no requirement for gays to marry, but I’d like to see that it’s at least possible for anyone who wants it.
I am frustrated by all of the coverage. Eliminate the discrimation and legalize it.
On the news the other night, they talked about the fact that some see the term marriage being what it is because of the ability to reproduce which started the anger to elevate. They then made the suggestion then that people over the age of 50 shouldn’t be able to marry… Well, it wasn’t exactly the response I was looking for…but I was happy it was said!
I have a friend and colleague who, like me, is in a 20 year (plus) relationship. The difference is that he and his partner are caring for a teenage niece, after her parents couldn’t cope with her, and they regularly babysit and care for many other nieces and nephews. They would be fabulous parents. So would we, of course, but we don’t have the chance, despite our state-sanctioned marriage. They do. I hope soon.
Here in NZ, we have a bill going through our House of Representatives to support gay marriage. It will be a “conscience vote” – meaning that members aren’t held to party voting lines and can vote whichever way they choose. As far as I can see, it will be passed easily – last night it passed the committee stage by 77 to 33 – but I’m going to write my MP anyway.
I’ve been following the US debate mainly through the postings of US/Canadian friends on Facebook. The comments about “marriage is to procreate” don’t bother me any more. I’m not sure why – perhaps my tolerance for intolerance is about zero these days.
I support the idea of gay marriage and just roll my eyes at the statement that marriage is for procreation. It is interesting to me that many of us seem to have similar views. I would bet that some of my acquaintances/friends/family members who have children have a very different viewpoint on this subject. I think the views go hand-in-hand…if someone would judge me for not having children, those same people would probably view gay marriage in a negative way also.