Support BuzzFlash Get a copy of click image BuzzFlash Content Interviews P.M. Carpenter Maureen Farrell World Media Watch Barbara's Daily Buzz Eric Harrison Thomas Burns Steven C. Day The Angry Liberal Southern Style Editorials Contributors Mailbag Perspectives Analysis News Alerts Link Archives Search About FAQ

Gay Marriage

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by David Schlomer

"The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 'is deeply troubling,' Mr. Bush said. 'Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,' he said. 'If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.'"

As usual, Rove and Bush are missing the point. By using words like "sacred institution" and "sanctity" they are trying to frame this issue in religious and moral terms. They seem to be overlooking the obvious -- that marriage is a legal contract between two people. That this contract is often executed within a religious context is beside the point. Thousands of couples are married every year in settings other than churches or synagogues -- City Halls, Las Vegas chapels -- you name it.

I have predicted all along that the right wing will try to use "gay marriage" as a wedge issue this year. I also sense that, by and large, most rational Americans couldn't care less one way or the other. Most people these days know gay couples. They also know that those couples are just like everyone else they know. They share the same problems, the same beliefs and the same issues. It's always amused me to hear some of the right-wingers talk about the "gay agenda." Now, I obviously cannot speak for all gay couples, but my partner's and my agenda is to get up every morning, go to work, do our jobs, pay our taxes. We are even active in our local parish and attend church regularly! How is
that different from anyone else?

So, why shouldn't we have the same benefits as straight couples in terms of tax breaks, inheritance laws, and the like? We've been together 13 years. I don't know how that stacks up against the average longevity of straight marriages, but I'll bet it's pretty good, considering the current divorce rate in this country. It's also amusing to hear statements such as "it will threaten the institution of marriage." How is that going to happen? Would your marriage be in jeopardy if the two women down the street were able to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as you do? I don't think we are a "threat" to anyone. In fact, I think we are a good example of what a committed couple can be.

So what's the problem with that?

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY