Rainbow-themed post and meme

[altivo]

This little story has been on the back burner since Saturday while other larger things got posted. Partner was playing at the farmer's market in Woodstock on Saturday, and I went to join him and our friend with whom he performs for lunch. As I entered the square, I thought I saw two guys crossing the street half a block away that I knew. "Couldn't be," I told myself. We hadn't seen them for at least seven or eight years and they live in Chicago. Went and sat while Gary and Rob finished their set and between songs Gary looked up at me and said, "Steve and Terry are here."

I turned around, and sure enough, they were standing behind me. Steve is an ex-colleague of Gary's, and I have known the two of them since about 20 years ago, when we all were members of GATES (Gay Alliance of Technicians, Engineers, and Scientists.) Gary has known them even longer. Anyway, they joined us for lunch and we had a fine time catching up on things. The highlight of the news for me was their announcement that last year, on their 25th anniversary, they "ran away" to Toronto and got married (since the stupid Bible-thumping U.S. won't let two men marry each other) and then went to Niagara Falls for their "honeymoon". They said Niagara Falls was too crowded, too expensive, and way overrated, BTW.

Now here is the question for all you straight-laced, hard-headed, intolerant people who keep insisting that allowing same sex marriage will somehow destroy the institution of matrimony: These two guys love each other and have been together for 25 years. That way exceeds the average lasting time of a heterosexual marriage in the sanctimonious and stupid USA. How can you say that recognizing their relationship will "destroy marriage"? My partner and I have been together for 23 years. Another couple we count as close friends, both scientists with doctorates, have been together for at least 24 years. And we all did this in spite of the intolerance, hatred, raised eyebrows, and insults hurled at us by American society in general. You heterosexuals who get married and make two or three offspring, then get tired of each other and divorce with much loud squabbling over money and child custody and visitation, who gets to keep the house and the overpriced vehicle, who gets to pay alimony... YOU are the ones who are destroying traditional marriage. We pose no danger to it at all.

Now here, because it's a rainbow and because I like ekigyuu's art (check it out if you haven't already):

California Cow is Love

Comments

[fandt4.livejournal.com]

Very valid points indeed. I'm pretty sure that the quote that "gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage" isn't the main reason for all of the negativity being launched. People feel alienated by it, they are afraid of what is different, or what they cannot understand. I used to be this way not too long ago, but I do my best to try to understand at least... Perhaps it is the 'bible-thumpers' that are the majority that say gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage, but even if this were the case, I'd bet that the aforementioned reasons of negativity remain as well, possibly using the "OMGZORs it's going to destroy marriage!11" bit as a shield.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yet Canada managed to recognize it. Are they so different from us?

Some European countries have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that "traditional marriage" has been damaged any more than it already was.

I am especially irritated by the idea that we should enshrine this religion-based concept into the Constitution, which has been backed by George Bush and a lot of leading politicians.

Personally, I'd prefer to take away all civil recognition of marriage as an institution and substitute something else. Let the religions squabble over what marriage is and let the state keep out of it. But we need a concept to substitute instead that allows for inheritance, power of attorney and other issues in which straight couples have been given "special privilege" for the last two centuries of US law. It is time to take those "special privileges" that the conservatives fuss about so much and use them against the status quo to force equal treatment for everyone.

[cats-haven.livejournal.com]

What you all have is what is truly called commitment. I honestly think that is two consenting adults care that much for each other, then they should be allowed to get married regardless if they are the same sex or not.

The Fundies, Baptists, and Catholics need to shut up and quit putting their values in our faces. It's their attempts to keep marriage 'pure' and the nation on the 'right' path that is destroying everything that can make us stronger as a whole.

23 years for you... I tip my proverbial hat to you. That far exceeds my twelve years with the idiot ex. I hope I can say I have a lasting relationship with my current love one day.

The artwork is cute and very colorful. =^.^=

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

All you stable couples are giving marriage a good name. Stop it!

But seriously... yeah, you're spot-on there. It's pretty ridiculous to see the mockery Britney Spears made of marriage with her 58-hour event while realizing there are committed couples who aren't allowed to consider themselves married because that would ruin the sanctity of marriage.

Let churches do what they want, but the government should not deny some people rights it grants to others. To me, the right to inherit or the right to be there for your partner when he or she is in a hospital is a pretty basic human right, whether the fundies like it or not.

[corelog.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Homosexuals could get married, then get tired of each other and divorce with much loud squabbling over money, who gets to keep the house and the overpriced vehicle, who gets to pay alimony. :-(

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course they could. But if they did, it wouldn't be anything new, would it? The arguments I have heard from so-called "experts" on the conservative side have suggested that there is no such thing as a stable gay relationship, and therefore society should never recognize gay relationships.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

By all means be an example of a stable gay relationship. But don't say that unstable hetero relationships damage the institution of marriage, because there are plenty of unstable gay relationships too. And even if they are unstable, do they not also deserve the choice to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage until they break up? Does a relationship have to last a lifetime to be valid?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Good heavens, all I was doing was reflecting the conservatives' arguments back at them. You of all people should know that I don't quite believe any of this stuff on either side, since we discussed it at some length nearly a year ago. My intention here was to point out the hypocrisy of their arguments.

Actually I would much prefer to completely separate the religious notion of "marriage" from the civil notion of domestic or family partnership. Let the churches decide who they want to marry and who they accept as married, but if people want legal recognition of their relationship that should be determined completely independent from religious values. So if a couple wants to get married in the church and the church will do it, fine. But if they want their relationship to have legal implications they have to go register it separately. And anyone who wants to register without the religious part can also do it. In other words, clergy have no legal ability to solemnize a legal partnership any more. And therefore it doesn't matter if they refuse to do so.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

I see your point, but I just think its a risky way to put it across, because it could potentially backfire. Basically, the argument hits both heterosexuals and homosexuals who have had breakups/divorces, so it is fairly damaging to both sides. There, I should have said that to begin with - no need to be vague and use pouty-faces! :-)

To lighten the tone, how about this: As for solemnizing a legal partnership - what happened to the days when having sex meant that in the eyes of God, you'd HAVE to get married? Gays should be able to sodomize a legal partnership, no need to solemnize it! ;-)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Well, it could be damaging to both sides, I guess.

But in fact, there's only one side making accusations, and I just disproved those assertions. So I think I have a victory to declare. ;D

One of the traditional criticisms of gay relationships is that they are "shallow, short lived, and selfish." To which I say, "Poo." Of course our worst critics (like Dear Abby and David Reuben) claim that there is no such thing as a gay relationship and that all we have is completely impersonal and uncommitted sex. Heh.

[doc-moreau.livejournal.com]

It's not just you guys... the ratio of successful long-lasting gay relationships to that of heterosexual ones (married or not) is pretty off-balance.
I'm not really sure why it is. ...maybe because the pressures of societal taboos help insure that gay partners will make sure they are right for each other before becoming that serious and letting the world know? ...i don't think that's it. ...i don't really know that much about it, honestly.
But really, it's pretty rediculous to think that love should be in part defined by gender. Love is love. And since marriage today is seen as a commitment to express one's love by the majority of society (rather than as a religious binding complete with a strict set of rules.) ...gender should not matter.
It seems that in traditional, outdated marraige practices, the set of rules saying "man and woman only" is the hardest for people to give up.

It is true that a lot of what generations before us held as traditional is being shed. ...but that's called evolution of society. We progress, and we outgrow certain things. ...The people who can't seem to accept gay marraige are the equivalent of 10 year old children stuck behind one of those baby gates. ...they could obviously climb over it, as it was designed to prevent them escaping only when they are smaller. But they don't.

Anyhow, from me, More power to you in the face of the scorn certain elements of society throw your way. I personally think love is a great thing.

[pioneer11.livejournal.com]

Niagara Falls is overcrowded and overhyped and too expensive.

And worth it all.

But I think the rest of your missive is kind of sweet. No not because
gayness is involved *facepaws* but because of the time factor.

^.^

[kaysho.livejournal.com]

And of course, the whole idea of "gay marriage" only exists or makes any sense because the idea of marriage itself has changed so radically in the last 200 years. Two centuries ago marriages were pretty much legal contracts to have children. Childlessness was grounds for divorce. Arranged marriages were the norm, because children were contractually valuable and should not be left to chance meetings of random people.

Under those circumstances, "gay marriage" would make no sense.

And then the 19th Century saw the rise of the idea of romantic love .. that marriage was first about finding your soulmate rather than having children ... that arranged marriage was absolutely wrong (and in fact, "contracts to marry" are generally illegal now). Nowadays we all fully accept the idea in Western society that each person must be left free to find his/her soulmate for him/herself; and when that happy pairing is found, that they should be able to marry.

But what if that soulmate turns out to be of the same sex, making the original contractual purpose of marriage impossible?

That's where we are now, where the old idea of marriage and the new idea of marriage collide head on.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

And it still wouldn't be an issue if society hadn't allowed various civil privileges to be connected with the marriage contract and no other. If the conservatives give up those "special privileges" (and they should, after all, they are always so opposed to "special privileges" for gays or blacks or women) then we wouldn't have to fight them over this issue at all. ;)

(BTW, for the record folks, the notion that you save money on your taxes by being married is a fallacy. You have to be married, with only one income, and preferably with dependent children. Then it makes a difference. Married with two incomes and no children can result in you actually paying more tax jointly than you would have paid singly.)

[kaysho.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole "joint return" thing with separate rate schedules for married couples and single people was only created in 1948 to stop married couples from "income splitting" (a man giving half his income to his wife so that they could both be in lower tax brackets, this at a time when the top tax rate was 91% and such an accounting gimmick could potentially offer a huge benefit). The so-called "marriage penalty" was created intentionally in 1971 because having a tax table where the married brackets were set at precisely twice the income of the single brackets made singles pay so much more that it was encouraging "tax marriages".

The U.S. should just do what most other countries do and have every person file his own taxes on his own income. That would solve all of it.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

91%?? Jeez, I thought the highest it had ever been was 67% or thereabouts. And they're bitching now that they have to pay too much tax? Good grief.

[kaysho.livejournal.com]

World War II led to all the tax rates being put way up, both because the war had to be paid for and because this soaked up money that otherwise would have fed ruinous inflation. In typical fashion, after the war the rates didn't come back down nearly as much as they had gone up. :)

The 91% bracket applied on income over $400,000 a year if you were married, the equivalent of about $3,300,000 a year today. So it's not as though Average Joe paid anything like this.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Well, yes and no. It's amazing how many people in the US have incomes in seven figures now. At least, amazing to me.