This is what the LORD has commanded…saying, “Let them marry whom they wish.”
Numbers 36:6-6
Though I voted Green in December’s mayoral election in San Francisco, I’m proud to see Mayor Gavin Newsom taking the national spotlight as the proponent of gay marriage this week as the battle heats up.
Adding to the fire, Bush had the nerve yesterday to call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Seen partly as a political move to divert the nation’s attention from real issues like Iraq, jobs, education, and the fact that Bush is slipping in polls as the general election approaches, this proposal is preposterous. Marriage should be between two people who love each other, regardless of sex. Why should my marriage entitle me to any more legal rights or societal recognition just because I happen to be straight?
What right does the government have to interfere with people’s relationships? The Constitution is about equal protection, not divisiveness. Only the Bible says anything about marriage being between a man and a woman. Ever heard of separation of Church and State? Contrary to what some people think, there’s nothing in the Constitution about marriage, nor should there be.
FEISTY MAYOR: Newsom calls Bush reaction shameful:
- “I believe in equal protection under the law. I believe in nondiscrimination,” Newsom said. “The Constitution of the United States sets forth those rights and privileges and freedoms, and it’s been used not to advance discrimination. It’s been used to end discrimination.”
The worst argument against gay marriage is when people say things like “We need to protect the sanctity of marriage.” My question: How does a gay couple’s marriage threaten any heterosexual marriage on this planet?
I urge the Log Cabin Republicans to do more than criticize Bush’s announcement yesterday. While that’s a good start, Bush will only respond to your votes. Have your members throw their one million votes elsewhere and maybe Bush will listen.
I’m proud to have been a San Franciscan for the past five years (and always at heart). I’m there in spirit with every same-sex couple getting married this week, including John and Chris. A big congrats to you both!
6 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Reed // Feb 25, 2004 at 1:24 pm
Assuming I heard it correctly, NBC (Sacramento’s Channel 3) said that Bush’s support in California has slipped to a 43% approval rating. Hopefully, that’ll be a good sign come election day.
2 gabe // Feb 25, 2004 at 2:15 pm
The other thing that cracks me up is that Schwarzenegger said this week that he could give Bush California in the general election. Ha!
3 Jordan // Feb 25, 2004 at 2:43 pm
Of course, the president isn’t part of a constitutional ammendment process. So this issue should in no way affect a bid for presidency. Of couse, it will.
This is the first issue I know of where a decent amount of American’s hold a contrary view to mine and I cannot rationalize any way for their argument to be right. The only argument I can come up with is a religious-based one, and even when I pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian I figure God will just send these people to hell in the end, so it’s no skin off my back if they’re allowed to sin a little on Earth, right?
The support for gay marriage is ridiculously high in people under 25. So when we young people take over the majority of the country in 20 years, we’re gonna be really annoyed if we have to be the second set of people to undo an ammendment.
4 JL // Feb 25, 2004 at 4:31 pm
This has been a particularly difficult issue for me as I prepare to go to City Hall Friday to see a lifelong friend get married to her partner. However, I am wrestling with myself trying to rationalize the need for gay marriage when equal rights and protections are assured through the existence of civil unions.
My main issue has always been, as illustrated through your point: “Marriage should be between two people who love each other, regardless of sex”, If we go by the “love” argument then who is to limit the number of people to only two, or from incestuous relationships? Unlike homosexual marriage polygamy has had historic precedent in many cultures for centuries and is even practiced openly in some cultures today. Are we ready to discriminate other Americans whose culture believes in polygamy? Who are we to decide that polygamy is wrong? What if they all love each other or if according to their religion that is something they need to do? If we as a society are ready to embrace gay marriage then we need to do it with the full knowledge that other types of “unions” we might not completely agree with, will need to be embraced as well.
I am a firm believer of living and letting live, yet my main concern is that marriage is becoming an undefined entity whose definition changes according to what suits a particular group. I get the feeling that people are going for what “feels right” as opposed to really thinking through the issue partly for the fear of being labeled bigots.
5 jultennant // Feb 26, 2004 at 3:45 am
to jl: And why not go according to what “feels right” and change with the times? why be biggots?
6 Mere Sketches // Feb 27, 2004 at 3:57 pm
Is Poughkeepsie Next?
The mayor of New Paltz has started marrying gay couples. If you’re keeping track, that means two places I used to live-very-close-to (San Francisco / Oakland and New Paltz / Poughkeepsie) are doing the right thing. Who will be next?…