Why gay people are always trying to get married is beyond me. If a church and/or religion say they do not accept you, you should just take it in stride and move on. But no, some queers are just too pushy and need to be accepted by everyone and their mother. They need to be loved by everyone! Why?! If they do not accept you for who you are, do not waste your time trying to make them love you. If they do not understand that you are the same person regardless of your sexual orientation, they are either ignorant, dumb, or both and there is no hope for them.
The U.S. government should not get off the hook, though. No, I do not want to be married under a church that does not accept me, but it is total bull that heterosexual couples are getting lots of extra rights that are being denied to gay couples. You want examples? I’m so glad you asked!
Heterosexuals are granted the right to visit their partner if for some reason he or she is brought to the hospital. Perhaps wife Betty Sue was hit by a bus and she flew into oncoming traffic and was hit by an SUV. She laid there on the ground, bleeding from the fresh wound on her head and a crowd rushed around her to get her back on the sidewalk, waiting for the ambulance to come. Or maybe husband John was shot at the convenience store he was working at in the wee hours of the night in order to bring more revenue into the house to afford college for his children. He’s rushed to the hospital and he’s probably not going to make it, but his wife Betty Sue is allowed to see him one last time. She is given a chance to say goodbye. The same thing goes for John if he wants to visit Betty Sue after being hit by the bus. What if it was John who was shot at the convenience store but it was his partner Scott who wanted to see John in the hospital in those last remaining hours that he was alive? Nope. Access denied, bitch! There’s not a chance that he’ll be allowed in to see his lover because he legally isn’t considered family. The hospital doesn’t care that they’ve been together for 15 years and they have been raising their adopted daughter Ling-Ling (who they had to adopt from China, by the way, since the U.S. apparently thinks American orphans shouldn’t be burdened with gay parents) together since she was a baby. Nope nope nope, that doesn’t matter at all. There is no certificate saying they have a civil union, and therefore they are denied these visitation rights. The same goes for visitation rights in prisons, too.
What happens if Unfortunate John actually does die from the bullet wound? Well, it’s quite possible that his house, his car, his money, and everything else will not be going to recently widowed Scott. For example, Scott will definitely be denied the exemption from property tax that is normally given to heterosexual couples in the same situation. But let’s pretend that somehow he does get to have all of this fun stuff. He’ll probably have to sell it anyhow to cover all the hospital bills and the funeral arrangements. It turns out that very few companies are willing to recognize lesbian and gay unions and thereby allow both partners to be covered by company insurance. (Which reminds me, Starbucks is one of the few companies that does grant these “special” rights to lesbian and gay employees, so kudos to you, Starbucks and Starbucks merchants.)
Oops! Wait a gosh darn second! Did you say John just died? Well it looks like Cute Little Ling-Ling is being sent back to China because only one parent was allowed to adopt her, and unfortunately that parent wasn’t Scott, the only family she really has in the world. Oh well! Must suck to be Ling-Ling! She should write her local congressman about joint adoption, I guess.
Want more rights granted to heterosexual couples but not homosexual? Here are a few random ones given in a report to the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office: access to military stores, bereavement leave, immigration, insurance breaks, social security survivor benefits, tax breaks, veteran’s discounts (they fought for our country yet it doesn’t matter because they’re gay!?), burial determination, domestic violence protection (!!!), and immunity from testifying against spouse. The list continues, my friends, but I’m not going to go on ranting about each specific issue because I am sure you are all well aware of how to use Google. According to this report, there are 1,138 benefits provided to married couples that gays and lesbians do not have access to.* Look some of the other issues up yourself. What I want to do now is propose to you my plan. It’s a plan that no one will actually listen to and will probably never occur in the United States, but I’m going to tell you regardless because I have a big head and believe that somewhere, out there, someone actually cares.
It’s really quite simple, if you want your union to be recognized under God, get married in a church (or wherever, dependent upon your religion of choice). If your religion does not accept you for who you are, well, all I can say is balls, it sucks to be you, too. Now, if you want your union to be recognized by the government, get a civil union. That goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals my friends. If you want to be able to visit your partner in the hospital while she’s bleeding from her head, lying there unconscious before you with mere hours before death, make sure you make a stop at city hall. If you want to be recognized under the eyes of God AND the government, go for the package deal, the combo meal of unions, if you will.
What it all boils down to is that I want you to keep church separate from state! We already have problems with the damn Pledge of Allegiance, but that’s just lame poppycock compared to what actually matters, you know, the whole “life and death” thing. That’s right, I said it; it’s pure poppycock. Lesbians and gays are not asking for special rights by asking to have unions; they’re asking for equal rights. Don’t you remember learning about how taboo it was to have someone who was white want to marry someone who was black? And now it’s completely normal. It turns out that blacks and whites can actually raise a family together and not cause the world and/or entire suburb to collapse. Who knew?
I feel before I leave I should ask a question regarding the sanctity of marriage, even though it should be clear that it isn’t marriage I am fighting for. Now, please, explain to me how gays and lesbians are damaging this so-called precious sacrament when the divorce rate in the United States is as high as it is. According to divorceform.org, 43% of marriages have been predicted to end in divorce, but that number was actually increased in 2002 to a whopping 50%! How many of you out there have divorced parents? Hate to tell ya this, but according to Christian doctrine it looks like your parents are going to Hell.** But this, of course, is legal, because, as we all know, not all marriages work out and life in a troubled marriage is more of a hell than life after a divorce. And of course, there are all the celebrities getting married and re-married and then re-married once again. Brad Pitt, I’m looking at you, you sly devil you.
But whatever, right? No one really seems to cares if heterosexuals are breaking the God-given rules, but lord forbid should a loving lesbian couple want to get married and be accepted by society. That sort of love, of course, would simply be madness. We simply can’t have any more love in the world. Much too dangerous.
*Source: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm
**Source: The Bible Matthew 5:32
Liam Reed: 1987 model, runs fairly well, few dents, starts in cold weather, no baggage, loves flea markets and canned soup. Send all hate mail, love mail, and sexual advances to withtongue@gmail.com
Comments
Mary Z. (Mary Z.) says:
(Posted April 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm)
Poor Ling Ling.
Carl Newman (Carl Newman) says:
(Posted April 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm)
I believe it was Peter Pumpkinhead in an XTC song who said, “Any kind of love is alright.”
Welcome to the blogosphere.
Kevin McLoughlin (Kevin McLoughlin) says:
(Posted April 28th, 2008 at 9:48 pm)
Marriage as it stands now is little more than an exploitative economic institution ensuring the masculine privatization of what amounts to feminine chattel’s uterine issue. Comprehensive legal and conceptual reform of both de jure and de facto implications of this societal canker is really the only way short of abolition that the inherent bias of this system can be subverted.
That being said, if the myelin sheath around my nerves is eaten away by rogue antibodies (again), I want my boi-toi-4-lifez to be able to visit my paralyzed self in the emergency room.
And I want the state to call it the same damn thing they call the union between a man and a woman, whatever it may be.
Jaymes Grabowski (Jaymes Grabowski) says:
(Posted April 29th, 2008 at 1:35 am)
I do not believe that this is about homosexuals needing to be loved by everyone as it is about being respected and granted the same rights as heterosexual couples; however, I am of the opinion that this is not a fight for marriage. This struggle is about receiving the same rights as heterosexual couples receive from the government in redards to their union. Marriage and a civil union should not be synonymous: like you said, church and state ARE to be seperate. That would mean we agree..?
RJ (RJ) says:
(Posted April 29th, 2008 at 8:39 am)
I don’t have much to say. I agree completely. There are two other things I read earlier today that I will share with you that really made me think.
1) Gays are going to get the raw end of the deal until there is a better scapegoat. Unfortunately, there is nobody with significant power in the world that’s going to say quit hating the gays, so we might be fucked for a while. I don’t know how you feel about a lot of things, but personally, until there is vengeance from our community toward the religious community, we aren’t going to magically receive the rights we deserve. That’s what -I- feel, anyway.
2) Whenever something doesn’t work in society, we throw more of what’s not working at the problem.
2 school counsellors not enough? get 4. Nine billion dollars for war on drugs not working? make it Ten. 20 years in prison not keeping violent defenders away? make it 40. Not exactly on topic, but this really made me think about how we misallocate resources towards problems. And it happens everywhere, all over the fucking place.
Amy Ziolkowski (Amy Ziolkowski) says:
(Posted April 29th, 2008 at 9:42 am)
“If you want to be recognized under the eyes of God AND the government, go for the package deal, the combo meal of unions, if you will.”
…And I will.
Superbly written, as always. I can’t believe it took me 8 years to find out that we have the same opinion about gay marriage rights…and through a blog to boot.
I can see it now…big letters, on the marquee:
Mr. Reed Goes to Washington
Aaron Gecko (Aaron Gecko) says:
(Posted April 29th, 2008 at 11:30 pm)
Very well said, err typed. I agree!!!
Matt (Matt) says:
(Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:44 pm)
Well said.
AND I would just like to compliment the217 on their excellent demographic-based advertising… Right now there is an ad to the right “Fitness for gay men”!!
elle (elle) says:
(Posted April 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm)
haha that’s google ads. but thanks anyway!
Suleman Hussain (Suleman Hussain) says:
(Posted May 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm)
okay, in regards to the first article: you’re Wrong.
I know it is tempting to accept the inadequacies of our human nature as inherent and therefore unfixable. This same crap about “cohesion” is the same argument that was used to fight the integration of blacks in the military. In 1949 President Truman could not even get an anti-lynching bill passed in congress. Racism was so bad that a white man killing a black man was treated more like a misdemeanor. Doing what he could for civil rights, he integrated the military. Don’t think for a moment that a black man was in any better place than an openly gay man today. And yes, cohesion was not as effective for a time, and yes, it would have been so Easy just to simply to keep segregated platoons, so that the blacks could serve, but not with whites. But it wasn’t right; it wasn’t what this country and basic human rights stand for.
If we as a nation ever want equality we have to demand it in all areas of our lives. Saying that gays need to hide their sexuality to fit in is breeding Hate, it’s breeding Inequality, and it perpetuates the idea that it’s a necessity to conform whenever possible. The entire its counterintuitive to “help gays” by in effect saying to the gay population: “You won’t ever be able to be accepted, so shut up and play straight”. The bottom line is you’re condoning prejudice, which is never okay under any circumstances.
Chris Fairfield (Chris Fairfield) says:
(Posted April 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm)
It’s always infuriated me that politicians use words like ’sacred’ and ‘holy’ to justify their backwards and discriminatory positions on Gay Marriage. I agree with you, if Marriage is a religious act, then the Government has no right nor business to regulate it. Since it does, however, it becomes merely a legal act; on in which a large number of contributing, tax-paying Americans are being denied the rights they should have.