Home > Guest Contributor, Magenta, Prop 8, Same-Sex Marriage > Why Marriage Matters

Why Marriage Matters

Why Marriage Matters

By Magenta

I used to think gay marriage wasn’t really an issue – definitely the right to civil unions was important, the ability to contract with one another as straight couples do, and reap the appropriate benefits – but not marriage per se. After all, God’s approval and blessing doesn’t depend on man’s designation anyway – covenant is covenant, and the government’s recognition of that covenant is secondary at best.

I was wrong.

I realize now the subtle but soul-destroying message denying queer people the right to marry sends.  I see how the refusal to allow even “official” societal validation and acceptance to a group of people – consenting adults who pay taxes and live legal and moral lives otherwise – relegates us to a sub-standard half-life in so many ways; always on the fringe of society, destined to be perceived as deviant and centrally flawed. It sullies our family lives, work lives, social lives, and most of all our self-perception as individuals and couples. This is what defines Prop 8 as a critical battleground in the fight for our rights and freedom.

As much as we hate to admit it at times, we are at our core communal creatures. We are not made to function as solo entities, but must be fundamentally connected to others around us in order to experience any quality of life. It’s not just a matter of loneliness – it’s a matter of life and death. Countless studies have shown the effects of rejection and isolation on the psyche, and it is even recognized in our legal punishment system as the ultimate deterrent.

It was a painfully short time ago that my previous marriage to a white man would have been illegal: I was four years old when that law was overturned; 1967 – less than a year before the death of Dr. King. The Lovings, the aptly named couple who fought the Virginia state law and won, didn’t fall in love to start a movement – but realized there was a bigger issue at stake. Would that Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon (the first same-sex married couple who had been together 50 years when they got married) could follow that relatively short path to victory, but this will, unfortunately, likely be a longer, harder battle. Not to be crude, but if it’s something a straight white male can’t see himself doing, it’s a harder sell to the powers that be – reality check.

Someday the queer community will have its Loving Day (June 12th, in honor of the decision), and be able to look back on three decades of legal victory (though the battle in hearts and minds will continue, as it does for interracial couples today). Until that day comes, we have to press on, against the tide of opinion, even under threat at times; because, as i’ve come to see of late: those who choose safety and comfort over justice can never know true freedom, as they live in a prison of their own making, locked from the inside.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Magenta could be described as a semi-anarchist queermergent Christ-follower who aspires to love and live with insane abandon, hopefully as a long-term member of Charlotte Abbey (charlotteabbey.wordpress.com).

  1. Misty
    March 3, 2009 at 1:52 AM | #1

    Thanks, Magenta for posting. I also believe not allowing same sex couples to marry is a violation of our civil rights. A marriage is essentially a contract and any two consentual adults should be able to make a contractual relationship(regardless of race or sexual orientation) that the government will uphold. Thats just my two cents.

  2. March 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM | #2

    Misty,

    i so agree with you that preventing two consenting adults from marrying is a violation of our civil rights!

    Magenta,

    Thanks for your insightful words! You RAWK!

    Adele

  3. March 7, 2009 at 6:12 AM | #3

    Amen. Thanks for your testimony,
    Peter

  4. Andy
    March 8, 2009 at 1:58 AM | #4

    I appreciate the honesty of the column above, but I wouldn’t agree that everyone who opposes ‘queer’ marriages is choosing safety and comfort over justice. Personally, I don’t see making queer marriages legal as having anything to do with the oppression of a cultural group. If anything, it has to do with extending the societal definition of marriage.

    This legal issue is not a spiritual one. We live in a democracy, and majority rules. Majority says ‘No’ right now to Prop 8–OK, then. If and when the tide changes among the majority, then the definition of marriage will be extended to include queer marriages–OK, then.

    People who are not in favor of queer marriages are not necessarily close-minded individuals living in the implied self-imposed prison that is hate mongering. Agreeing to disagree on this issue is to be civilly righteous in this case.

  5. March 8, 2009 at 7:13 PM | #5

    Andy,

    If we were to follow your logic that the majority ruled against queer marriage with the passage of Prop 8, thenthe majority would have voted against interracial marriages, women the right to vote, etc? Denying queers the right to marry does indeed oppress a minority group. We do not live in a democracy where majority rules so to speak! We live in a Republic instead of a democracy and people tend to forget this. It is not right for a majority to vote and keep a minority from receiving rights. So, check this out to see that a Republic differs from a Democracy: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

    Also, not everyone who is against queer marriage are civilly righteous! i do not know what planet you are living on, but maybe you should educate yourself before commenting on this subject!

    Warm Regards,

    Adele

  6. Andy
    March 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM | #6

    Adele,

    I would agree that not everyone against queer marriage is civilly righteous. Never did I argue that. I simply argued that not ALL who oppose it are hate mongers. Bricks through windows, hateful parading, and verbal berating are not civilly righteous, and these are the actions of some opposed to queer marriage. This would not qualify as agreeing to disagree, and I would condemn such actions. These are not the actions of all opposed to queer marriage though.

    You are correct that we live in a republic, not a pure democracy. For this I am thankful, as the majority does not always know what is best. That being said, majority votes do carry a lot of weight–except when civil rights are violated.

    I do not see queer marriage as a civil right until the societal definition (an agreed upon meaning) of marriage is extended. At this point it has not been extended. And I would be hesitant to compare one’s sexual orientation to race or gender, the other cultural minorities that were mentioned. Queers are not being refused the right to vote or subjugated to life on an isolated island or prevented from riding a bus or drinking from a particular water fountain, etc. They are not even prevented from pursuing their relationships.

    Preventing queers from participating in the Boy Scouts is a problem worth fighting for. There I see a civil rights violation.

    In my opinion, if people for queer marriage want to deconstruct the current societal definition of marriage and rebuild it to include queer marriages, then by all means go for it. But that must be done first in order for a civil rights violation to be taking place. I think a better place to start would be fighting for the right to a civil union in all states. That might begin turning the tide on how people think of marriage.

    Regardless of this, those fighting for the cause ought to stop implying that all those who disagree are haters. It is entirely possible for two people to disagree, and for the reason not to be personal. Our culture has become increasingly polemical, leading to unfair categorizations of people.

    My original point from the beginning was simply that we shouldn’t assume that all who oppose queer marriage are hateful people who live in self-imposed prisons. That is as ignorant as Christians assuming all who ‘don’t know Christ’ are miserable and unhappy in life.

    Hopefully my comments were more carefully stated this time around.

    Andy

  7. March 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM | #7

    Andy,

    Thank you for clarifying for me. i still disagree and see queer marriage as a civil right. ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS should be able to marry if we are ALL created equal under the law. We are a minority that face discrimination through lack of benefits, job insecurity, hate crimes, etc.

    i agree with you that not all who oppose queer marriage are hateful people. But discrimination is pretty powerful! African Americans cannot help that they are born with black skin anymore than other people discriminated against, such as women who are born women and queers born queer!

    We will just have to agree to disagree.

    Thank you for the conversation. G-D Bless!

    Warm Regards,

    Adele

  8. Andy
    March 9, 2009 at 5:56 PM | #8

    I appreciate the conversation.

    Andy

  9. March 17, 2009 at 4:36 AM | #9

    Great post Magenta, and great comments. I appreciate seeing this conversation move forward.

  1. No trackbacks yet.