Gay/Lesbian

11/20/2009

Politician's Unfair Tactics

Bil Browning speculates whether the news that several states (Texas, Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky) are re-examining marriage Good News or Bad Ideas? When I began to read the op-ed I felt confused of why the article had shown up on The  Huffington Post, a more liberal point of view. However, Browning makes a valid point in asking whether the re-examination should be something that should make us happy or angry.

Browning explains how the four states that have chosen to re-examine their state’s respective marriage laws are not known for advocating Gay-Lesbian rights. Interestingly, Browning furthers his investigation and finds out that in three of these states, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan, it seems that the bill will never pass. The Columbus Dispatch explained that every democrat could vote for repealing outlawing gay marriages, yet they still would not have enough votes. The Columbus Dispatch said the chance for Ohio to actually change the law was “minuscule”. The situation for Kentucky and Michigan are not exactly the same as Ohio but also show that the chances of actually passing the law are slim.

Browning then asks, “So what’s the point?” if they know they will not end up passing the bills. Browning believes that the answer to this question is politics. Politicians are aware that today gays and lesbians are beginning to take a stand for their rights. If politicians say they support gay marriages, they will be getting the gay and lesbian community to support them. Evidently saying that they support gay marriages does not mean much since these politicians are not actually changing anything. Browning says that a Texan candidate does not give a “flying f--k about our rights as citizens, but more out of scoring political points against her Republican opponent”. The tone in his writing emphasizes the confusion and anger of how unfair the system has become.

Browning makes another strong argument about the four states actual intentions if all four of the states still have discrimination against gender identity or sexual orientation. Browning finds this to be remarkably ridiculous that if they were going to grant gays and lesbians marriage rights, how could they not have already granted them human equality rights? Browning is tired of politicians saying that they will change things but always have excuses when it comes down to doing it.

Posted by at 05:18 AM in Gay/Lesbian | | Comments (0)

11/19/2009

'I Can?' Is The New 'I Do'

In November of 2008, Mark Malok married his friend and partner of 35 years, William Whitaker III. They had their ceremony in Stratford, Conn but when they went back to their home in Atlanta, GA, they were still considered strangers.[1] The reason for this is that Georgia not only bans same-sex marriages, but also passed a constitutional amendment against it. In fact, Georgia is one of thirty states that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and passed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.[2]

 

Hundreds of couples share the same anniversary as Mark and William because they too live in a state, or even country, that does not recognize gay marriage. And we all read about the same thing happening in California and Massachusetts, but California repealed the right and if you live anywhere else, you might not be recognized as a legally married couple. In their hearts, and the hearts of their friends, these couples, and hundreds of others, have a real marriage. But in the eyes of the law, their marriages are less real than a marriage on Facebook.

 

The reason a lot of people resort to, when they say that gay marriage should be against the law, is that it would redefine marriage. The Family Research Council argues that "Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of 'love' and 'mutual commitment'"[3]. Shouldn’t the criterion for a marriage already be love and commitment? The basis for any marriage, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual, should always be love, commitment, respect, and two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. George Carlin said, “Gay people should be allowed to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us”.

 

The only difference between and gay marriage and a ‘traditional’ marriage is who’s in it. I hope to one day live in a country where my all of my friends can get married and live where they choose, not just the straight ones. It breaks my heart to know that should my uncle fall in love, he can’t get married where he wants. We are the next voting generation. When it comes time for us to decide, how will you vote?

Posted by at 02:11 PM in Gay/Lesbian | | Comments (5)