There is a bill going through the Maine legislature right now that will allow homosexual couples in Maine to be allowed to marry, and be given full marriage benefits. The bill passed through the Senate with a vote of 21-14, and then moved to the House. The Maine state House then voted to pass the bill, with an amendment, with a vote of 89-57. Because an amendment was added, the bill must go back to the Senate, and if passed there, then to Governor Baldacci’s desk.
Up until recently, Governor Baldacci was an opponent of gay marriage. However, after a hearing, both proponents and opponents of the bill left messages with Governor Baldacci’s office. Governor Baldacci the apparently took all of these notes, and called each one back, individually. According to one blogger who received such a call, the conclusion that seemed to be reached, without Governor Baldacci actually explicitly saying this, was that if the bill were to reach his desk, it would be signed into law. Today, the bill went back to the Maine state Senate, was put to a vote and passed with 21-13, with one person not present. Governor Baldacci has signed the bill into law, making Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage!
There are a number of different arguments against gay marriage, ranging from: “The bible says it’s a sin, so it is therefore wrong” to “There’s no reason for homosexuality to be natural, as it doesn’t produce offspring” to “It’s just weird” to “Allowing gay marriage to occur will send the wrong message to our children about what marriage and love means”. I don’t want to refute all of these arguments, it’s been done before, and that’s not what I want to say.
Gay marriage is, at it’s core, a matter of equality. Equal rights, equal protection by the state, and even equal ability to profess one’s love to another in a socially accepted way. There are gay and lesbian couples all over this country who have professed their love to one another, and who have made the commitment to each other in a “non-official” way (I say non-official here to mean not state-recognized, not to diminish the reality of their commitment). With respect to each other, these couples are “married”, they just can’t become recognized, or get the same tax, visitation, and adoption benefits as straight couples.
I’m sure similar things were said about the women’s suffrage movement: “The bible says it’s the job of the man to care for his wife, why would a woman need to vote?” or “It’s weird seeing women trying to go against the societal norm”. In case you hadn’t noticed, women are now allowed to vote (it’s still true that women don’t make as much as men in equivalent jobs, and there are some other things that need to happen for “true” equality with respect to women’s rights).
We’re all humans on this planet, and everyone has an equally valuable life. People all do equally valuable things, and all have equally valuable opinions. Furthermore, everyone is deserving of equal rights, be it property rights, marriage rights, ability to work, ability to adopt children, or even ability to say what one wants to say. We don’t censor people’s speech because “it’s weird”, and shellfish are sold for food almost everywhere, despite the bible explicitly forbidding it.
Everyone deserves an equal shot at their unalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. Everyone deserves an equal ability to purchase a home. Everyone deserves an equal ability to be with, commit to, and marry whoever it is they choose. I commend Maine on their very progressive stance on the issue, and I urge Minnesota to follow the lead of Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Equality isn’t about religion, isn’t about tradition, and isn’t about making people comfortable with everything that is happening around them. Equality is about making things fair, just, and, as redundant as this sounds, equal. As a nation we need to look towards a day when everyone, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, men, women, homosexuals, transgendered people, anarchists, socialists, and name-your group-that-I’ve-left-out-here get treated as human beings and with the same level of respect, dignity, and political status as every other group.
NOTE: I had written this post without the knowledge that Maine had passed the bill. I then saw that the bill had been signed into law, and modified the post. If there are inconsistencies, please let me know! Go Maine!
Tags: change, gay_marriage, lgbt, maine, politics, progressive
“[...] those that live and attempt to spread a life that I do not agree with” How many gay/lesbian couples do you know actively trying to convert others to become gay or lesbian? It doesn’t happen. Primarily because you can’t convert one to or away from homosexuality, because homosexuality is a part of who you are. It’s not a matter of making a choice, or living a lifestyle, it’s as natural as blue eyes, or blond hair, or skin tone.
“Like it or not, America was founded upon Christian principles” How do you figure? A significant portion of the “founding fathers” were what Dawkins would now call Deists, in that they believed in a higher power, but didn’t necessarily profess to be christian. Yes, the pilgrims were escaping religious persecution. Yes, a majority of the people at the time were christians, but I don’t know that one can say that our country was founded on christian ideals.
I will acknowledge a majority of the population of the United States consider themselves christians, and that the christian political machine has a lot of power in our country right now. That said, it doesn’t make our country a christian nation. Frankly, the idea of a christian nation scares me, just as the ideas of a muslim nation, or a jewish nation, or a pagan nation each scare me.
As for libertarianism and “leveling the playing field”, while I don’t disagree that the government shouldn’t necessarily control every aspect of it’s citizens lives, who else is going to level the playing field? If it hadn’t been for government “leveling the playing field” it’s conceivable slavery would still be rampant. If it hadn’t been for the government “leveling the playing field” women may still not have the right to vote. If it weren’t for government “leveling the playing field”, consumers would have one option from which to get their phone service, Microsoft would still be able to bundle all of it’s extra software in with Windows, and stop the installation of competing products.
It seems as though the crux of your argument centers around the idea that our society is incapable of change. That is, even if I accept that the United States of America were founded on christian ideals, and that marriage is a sacred religious bond between a man and a woman (and not primarily a social construct), your stance seems to suggest that the christian ideals that the United States were allegedly founded on are infallible. What, may I ask, makes marriage sacred? The idea that some entity in the sky deemed it so? Isn’t said christian entity supposed to be loving towards everyone? Or does it get to be picky about who it actually likes? If it’s not going to be picky, why do men who love men and women who love women get different treatment when it comes to showing one’s love for another?
I don’t mean to come off as venomous, nor do I mean to insinuate that my readers are ignorant. However, I do think you’re wrong. I’ve had a large number of conversations with a large number of people from all walks of life. I’ve heard a lot of the arguments as to why homosexuality is wrong, or why gay marriage is wrong, or really even why “marriage” is a religious institution. Your argument falls into the same category as the others that I’ve heard, and I’ve drawn a different conclusion. I am, however, glad that my writing is sparking discussion, because that seems to be at least part of the point.
I completely agree with this post.
I am not a gay man, nor am I religious, nor do I speak for a group of people.
Why should the vote of a select few of the population dictate the legality of something that is inherently impossible to define.
Love is not definable, it is an evolutionary concoction of chemicals, a give and take of personal needs and wants that is subjective. It is completely dependent upon an individual. To love is to experience something so personal that no writ of law can ordain it not to be true.
So why can’t two people of the same sex be in love and be married? It is only when subject to scrutiny under the ‘deadly sins’ of the bible or suchlike that the argument against it can be discounted.
How could this affect any other person that adheres to the so called ’social norms’? Will it condemn us? No it cannot.
So let people be who they want to be, let those who find true love be happy and accepted by the state and its laws.
We as a race need to evolve our values and opinions on this topic just as we uncontrollably evolve ourselves.
We as a race, depend on it.