Why was that a big deal?
Categories: Love & sex, 2Moms2Dads, In the news
I very much want my kids to be able to marry whoever they want when they grow up, subject only to my approval, not the state's. I care about things like whether or not they smoke (duh, it causes cancer, it will kill you, that's a no-no), how much metal (or other objects) they have stuck in their body (ideally, none), and whether or not they have an acceptable career plan in place. What they have -- or don't have -- betwixt their legs doesn't really factor into it at all. I seriously hope my kids don't get married for sex.To some, however, not only is marriage all about the sex, they want the state to make certain that everyone else is focused on it too, when they get married. In California, the state Supreme Court has been hearing oral arguments on the matter recently. People trying to explain why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman have taken turns with those who say they just want to get married.
One writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, however, has listened with amusement. He knows that gay marriage is coming, whether anyone likes it or not. His son came out when he was in high school and has faced very little trouble over it. Massachusetts has not turned into a seething portal to hell after legalizing gay marriage.
"It is the normal interaction in everyday life," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "It is the guy at the water cooler at work, seeing them with their kids - that's what drives it home for people." Herrera is handling the lawsuit before the court on behalf of the City. The fact of the matter is, as time goes by, homosexuality will become, has become as normal as anything else.
Once upon a time, seeing a woman wear pants was a rarity -- I'm sure people would stop and stare. They did the same in the eighties when kids colored their hair purple or put it up in spikes or mohawks. None of that is seen as especially unusual these days and homosexuality is becoming more and more pedestrian everyday.
As C.W. Nevius notes, the older generation is going on and on about how marriage must be reserved for a man and a woman, but the younger generations aren't listening. They simply don't care. Someday, hopefully soon, gay couples will be no more noteworthy than interracial couples or a couple -- like my parents -- where one is Catholic and the other Jewish. All that will matter is that they are happy together.
Recent Posts
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
- Abigail Breslin Makes $13 a Week (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
the goddess anna 3-06-2008 @ 3:17PM
Of course gay marriage didn't make Massachusetts a seething portal to hell - it was already one thanks to the Kennedys (Mary Jo Kopechne is unavailable for comment).
We live in a Republic. If the majority of voters in a state do not want gays to marry, and the leaders that have been elected by these voters agree (and draft legislation to that point), than that is their right. If you don't like it, either vote new people into office, or move to another state. And for chort's sake, keep it out of the courts.
Roger, I usually don't say much to you about your posts, and I actually try very hard to not get agitated by them, but you're so heavy-handed when it comes to this subject. We all know you live in San Fran, that you're fairly typical of the city's liberal residents, and you like to flog the poor gay-rights horse to death and back again. Is it really necessary to bring this up again and again? You're not a bad writer, and there is a myriad of other things to blog about.
I feel better now that that's off my chest.
Reply
roger.sinasohn 3-07-2008 @ 12:37AM
Since I started writing for ParentDish (nee BloggingBaby), I've written more than 1200 posts. Of those, less than 35 have been about (or even mention) homosexuality. That's a pretty small number -- less than 3% -- especially when you consider that it includes stories about pro-lifers adopting, California banning smoking in cars with kids, and so on.
And for SKL, I've done 6 stories about vaccines. (I couldn't think of a way to search for "early sex", so I didn't bother.)
As for the gay rights stories, until such time as everyone has the same rights, I will continue flogging that poor horse. When it relates to kids and parenting, I will do so here. If you don't like that, the simple answer is to fight for gay rights and then I'll shut up. 8^)
The point of this post (that C. W. Nevius made) is that it doesn't really matter what we think. Our children will soon be putting us in nursing homes and wondering what all the fuss was about.
SKL 3-07-2008 @ 1:30AM
Well, Roger, if you take out your posts about your personal life, and re-do the math, it's clear that you do harp on a few subjects ad nauseum. And the vaccine posts must have been largely concentrated in recent months, because I haven't been reading ParentDIsh all that long.
I hope you are just thrilled with the post your fellow blogger posted today about autism and vaccines. I hope you will now shut up about that topic.
SKL 3-06-2008 @ 3:32PM
I agree with the Goddess. Roger, keep in mind that you have always lived in a city that is anything but mainstream US. You are guilty of the same intolerance you accuse others of - intolerance to people different from YOUR neighbors. I've heard nothing to convince me that the people in San Francisco are objectively superior to anyone else.
And I also agree that it would be terrific if you could come up with an engaging topic other than gays, early sex, or vaccinations.
Reply
roger.sinasohn 3-07-2008 @ 12:41AM
"You are guilty of the same intolerance you accuse others of - intolerance to people different from YOUR neighbors."
That's right, because I am working so hard to keep straight people from getting married. I also forbid my kids from hanging out with children of straight parents and I demand that any books which even mention the existence of straight couples be removed from my kids' schools. Yeah, I'm totally intolerant.
Mel 3-06-2008 @ 4:01PM
Very good points, SKL and Goddess. What is particularly bothersome about this post (and others that have come before) is that it is entirely unrelated to parenting. Sure, the writer adds some gratuitous sentence about kids, but the parenting connection is tangential at best and nonexistent at worst. If one wants to whine incessantly for homosexuality, fine. Really, I don't care. What I do care about is when that whining is masqueraded as a legitimate parenting topic.
Reply
Pissed Off 3-06-2008 @ 4:30PM
This post is about parenting--it is about the values we're teaching our children; our children's rights to love and marry whomever they choose; and about children whose parents have to jump through expensive, ridiculous legal hoops to make certain their families are protected in the event of the death of the "bio" parent.
Anna says in her comment "If the majority of voters in a state do not want gays to marry..." Well, what if the majority of voters did not want Christians, or African Americans, or mixed race couples, or people born on February 29 to marry? You've have essentially said "if the majority of voters wish to deny an entire segment of our population a right/privilege, then it's okay."
Kudos, Roger. Shame on the rest of you.
Reply
Nyx 3-07-2008 @ 9:58PM
Thank you for making this comment. Do people not remember that as recently as fifty years ago, the "majority" of people were opposed to letting those uppity negroes use the same bathroom as good white folks? Do you need to be reminded of Germany's majority in the 1940's? The majority that results in genocide in Africa, or ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? What other "majorities" do you want to align yourself with? Go ahead - I'll wait, while you tell me that SOMEHOW, being homophobic is totally different than Nazi Germany, or pre-1960 US, or the Balkans at any point in the last thirty years. Because it's the Bible? There were plenty of good, religious people who thought the Bible was pretty clear on blacks, too.
I am absolutely terrified at this idiotic mindset, because it shows that people learn nothing from RECENT history - history your parents may have been participants in, history that YOU may have been alive for - and that they will continue to make the same hateful, dangerous, vicious mistakes regarding other human beings, ad nauseam.
And, of course, if you want to keep this relevant... history repeats itself because parents aren't educating their children. Pure and simple. Stop abrogating your responsibility as a parent and start teaching your child about the ENTIRE world... not just bits and pieces.
Because, believe me, the real world has no trouble teaching them the lessons you left out - and it's not nearly as nice about it as you would be.
Wireful 3-06-2008 @ 4:35PM
I think Representative Seaborn Roddenbery said it best about banning marriage when he said in 1912, "It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of...government. It is subversive of social peace... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."
Except, wait, he was talking about interracial marriage, not gay marriage.
It is fascinating how the same religious and "defend the institution of marriage" arguments were used back then for not wanting whites and non-whites to marry as are used today for gay marriage. Rep. Roddenbery's amendment to have interracial marriage banned at a national level never passed, but it spurred around half the country to enact their own laws banning it, kinda like all those "Defense of Marriage" Acts we see popping up around the country today. It took until 1948 for states to start repealing those bans and a Supreme Court decision in 1967 (only 41 years ago) to force the remaining 16 states to drop the law banning interracial marriage.
Gosh darn it "the goddess anna," why can't the Supreme Court get it through its thick skull that we live in a Republic and if those states want to prevent a black man marrying a white woman, it is up to them to determine right and wrong.
Sure thing "SKL," those city-folk are always pushing their stupid "tolerance" on the rest of the country. I agree they are the ones being intolerant that a state can't decide that a white woman and a Native American should not marry.
Try this little activity when you get a chance. Find an old person, somebody in their 70s or older, as they'd need to have been an adult while interracial marriage was still banned in a large chuck of the country. Ask them exactly what was wrong with people who had different skin colors falling in love with each other and marrying, maybe even raising a family together. I have no idea what they will say, but memorize it. It is not necessary for you to agree with it, racism is abhorrent and trying to understand the logic will give you a headache.
Now, when you are old, possibly in a nursing home, if you are lucky, maybe your grandchild will ask why it was soooooooo wrong for gay people to be married or even, gasp, raise a family way back in 2008. They will ask why you even cared what other people did with their lives and exactly how that had anything to do with your marriage. All you have to do is recall what that old person you spoke to said and just repeat it. Except, you know, replace the word "colored" with "gay."
Reply
the goddess anna 3-06-2008 @ 6:59PM
I do believe personally that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a republic. But that's another topic for a completely unrelated thread.
I do agree with another poster about marriage being a religious thing, and separating that from a civil union. I also believe in separating the issue of racial marriage from homosexual marriage. I personally believe that gays and lesbians choose their lifestyle - as the only thing that really distinguishes them from straight people is who they have sex with. Even my mom agrees with me on this. If they feel that the only way that their lives will be complete is to marry their same-gender lover, then they have three choices: move somewhere where this is acceptable, work to change the laws (legislatively) where they currently live, or forgo the legal aspect and get married in a spiritual way (this is what my mom did, btw, it was a very nice ceremony).
And for the record, there are still plenty of people against whites marrying blacks, different ages, genders, races, and from all walks of life. I agree that racism is disgusting, but there is no precedent for comparing it to sexual choice in the bedroom.
ninainindia 3-06-2008 @ 9:38PM
anna, you are forgetting that it is not a choice to be gay.
Ethel 3-06-2008 @ 4:46PM
I am no so sure that is the older generation that's most worried about same sex folks getting married. Around me it seems to be those who are about my age, and I am a long way from being called old. Of course the massive size of the baby boomer generation is what is interfering with that.... Anyway, it just seem to matter to most of the folks I know who are over 50.
I think the best thing coming from this discussion (barring the first 3 commenters) is really what we value about marriage, what marriage is really. Is it monogamy? Pooling of resources? Having children and raising them together? Because I know a lot of heterosexual couples who are married, are not monogamous, do not really pool resources, and don't have kids. Is marriage important to society or is it a religious institution, perhaps it's based in biology? It's been a conversation me and my 70+ year parents have been having. We don't know. But we have been thinking about it. Sometimes it feels as if marriage is merely an institution used to harness males to a biologically spawned reproduction strategy (one that I think is the most successful in terms of progeny success), in which case sometimes it would seem to me that gay couples wouldn't want it anymore. Well, nor would many males....
Reply
Greta 3-06-2008 @ 6:01PM
Personally I think that "marriage" should be purely a religious matter and that the government should only concern itself with civil unions. Grant civil unions and rights to both same-sex and man/woman partnerships, and then if they want to further solidify it with their church or synagogue etc. then those religious institutions can decide for themselves who can "marry" within their rules.
I think this discussion belongs within the parenting realm as it often leads into a discussion about gay parenting rights. We know several lesbian families within our daughter's school and in our neighborhood, and I cannot see a single reason why both mothers cannot have the same civil rights as married parents.
Reply
Timmarilyn 3-06-2008 @ 7:18PM
ok people we all know that there is a financial agenda in all of this. it is all about taxes and keeping a particular population of people from receiving a marrige tax break. they stamp "morals" on the top of it and of course the christian right has to stick their big fat noses in it. but if it was really about creating a moral household for our youth then all married couples that receive domestic abuse charges should have to be denied the right to marrige, forced into divorce, and never be allowed to marry again.
Reply
Annie 3-06-2008 @ 8:20PM
The last time I checked America was a democracy, not a republic. You're lucky you were born here, or you'd never pass the citizenship test.
Reply
the goddess anna 3-06-2008 @ 8:30PM
Ancient Greece was a Democracy; we are a Republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
The first sentence: "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district."
Need more proof? http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
And I even went to public schools.
Mel 3-07-2008 @ 11:10AM
"The main this I don't understand is is why people care about what others do with their (sex)lives."
Great point! But that means we have to do away with ALL marriage laws. Including bigamy. Which I don't think the liberals can get down with, because it "exploits women" or some such drivel. There are so many marriage laws! For example, in my state there is a 24-hour mandatory waiting period between obtaining a marriage license and being able to get married. That infringes on a couple's rights and privacy, but the liberals insisted on the requirement to "protect" people. Similarly, is consanguinity illegal? Nina, you must agree that people should be able to marry ANYONE THEY CHOOSE, including an uncle or a grandma.
I could go on and on about the senseless marriage laws that exist. Bottom line is that they are ALL an infringment on some right - but the gay marriage one is the only one anyone seems concerned about. Let's address the actual problem: government interference into our lives. ALL our lives. Not just the gay ones.
roger.sinasohn 3-08-2008 @ 10:24AM
"Great point! But that means we have to do away with ALL marriage laws." ... "I could go on and on about the senseless marriage laws that exist."
The thing is, they are not all senseless. There are specific reasons why close relations are not permitted to marry, because of the possible problems with offspring. As for bigamy, if it's all consentual, what's the problem there? And a waiting period does not prevent people from getting married, it only serves to let people sober up before they get hitched (something, perhaps, that would serve Hollywood well, I think.)
So, unless you can come up with a valid reason to deny a group rights, you shouldn't. Period.
And tell me again why you care who someone else marries?
Mel 3-08-2008 @ 10:58AM
Thank you - I knew someone would bring up the consanguinity/birth defect issue. The thing is, many people who are opposed to gay marriage believe that two-same sex parents are unhealthy for raising kids. See the similarity? Consanguinity = illegal because it's bad for the kids; gay marriage = illegal because it's bad for the kids.
And I have said repeatedly that I don't care who anyone marries. The government has absolutely no business nor any constitutional right in regulating marriage. But if we're going to let them in one some issues, they're going to demand involvement in all others. Such is the way the government works. That is why people who WANT gay marriage (as do I) should also demand almost zero government intrustion into our lives. Usually, this intrusion is forced upon the rest of us by liberals who seek to "protect." Well, part of that is to protect us from gay marriage.
As I originally said, this topic - and the way it is presented - is so blatantly unrelated to parenting. Such was my sole objection to the post.
roger.sinasohn 3-08-2008 @ 2:46PM
"many people who are opposed to gay marriage believe that two-same sex parents are unhealthy for raising kids." ... "Consanguinity = illegal because it's bad for the kids; gay marriage = illegal because it's bad for the kids."
Many people believe that raising children in a religious household is unhealthy -- should we outlaw that? And, for that matter, some people think raising kids in a non-religious home is unhealthy. Let's just stop having kids all together.
What you missed is the big, gigantic difference. Genetics is a science; the risks of inbreeding is well known, heavily documented, and easily proven. Public opinion is not a factor; even if people didn't think it was icky to marry your sister, the risks would remain.
Gay marriage has no such proven risks. Instead, some people "believe" it is unhealthy. In fact, there are studies that show the opposite -- that lgbt parents are, in some respects, better parents. (http://www.alliant.edu/wps/wcm/connect/website/Home/Research+and+Public+Services/Research+Institutes/Rockway+Institute/For+the+Media/Commentaries/What+Straights+Can+Learn+1-08) So until there is scientific proof, public opinion should not be the basis for denying a group their rights. Period.