A Case for Marriage – a human right?

I wonder how many individuals would be given permission to be authentic who are heavily entrenched in Religion to ‘come out’ – which could possibly be the reason for the xenophobia and blatant discrimination.

The Fire

The Big Fat Lie
By Trisha Murakawa   Click here for the original source of this article
Saturday, April 25, 2009

It’s a big fat lie. If someone tells you they are against same-sex marriage because they are defending marriage between a man and a woman, that’s nothing but a big fat lie.Marriage between a man and a woman is not under assault; therefore, there is no need to defend it.

In the mind of some, if same sex marriage becomes legal, gayness would be encouraged. Let me follow the argument through and clarify – that would mean that if same sex marriage is legal, that would make straights become gay—more people will be­come gay.

Give me a break.

Skydiving is legal but I am not encouraged to jump out of a plane any time soon. Let me clarify—I am not going to become a skydiver because it is legal.

Ask a young child if he or she cares if a man marries another man or if a woman marries another woman. Then ask the same kid if she wants to jump out of a plane.

Her answer—no.

I guess if I follow this argument through all the way, this means that since gays and lesbians are legally pro­hibited from marrying, more people are becoming straight and that straightness is encouraged. I wonder if this means that gays and lesbians feel forced into living straight (and inauthentic) lives.

Marriage does not need to be de­fended. There is no offense/defense in marriage. Marriage is not turf or property or a battleground. There is no war raging against male/female marriage. No one is trying to prevent men from marrying women. Male/ female marriages are not changed or affected in any way if male/male and female/female marriages are legal in California.

I don’t understand why a certain conservative public policy research organization that claims to believe in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, etc. believes male/ female marriage is weakened if a man can marry another man.

My marriage is not threatened, chal­lenged, affected or changed in any way if my next door neighbors are a married couple of the same or different genders. There is no bearing on my marriage if other people are married or are legally allowed to get married. I fail to see how allowing same sex marriage weakens my marriage or if the implication is true, how prohibiting same sex mar­riage strengthens it.

When my then husband-to-be and I went to the county registrar’s office to get our marriage license, we both signed some paperwork. On our wed­ding day, we signed our license with our minister and our witness friends. I don’t recall ever being told by any gays, lesbians or straights that they are threatened by my marriage. I can’t imagine ever feeling threatened because of anyone else’s marriage either.

The argument that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and thus should be justification for why same sex couples should be prohibited to marry also makes no sense.

If the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, then a prerequisite for marriage should be a fertility test and a legally binding contract that couples must bear or adopt at least one child. Furthermore, women beyond child-bearing age should be prohibited from marrying unless they and their husbands-to-be agree to child adop­tion.

To argue that the legal purpose of marriage is procreation is discrimi­natory to infertile women and those beyond child-bearing age.

The purpose of marriage is to act upon a permanent financial and emo­tional commitment to another person by entering into a legally binding contract. To people of faith, of course marriage is much more, but since there is no religion in California law, the government views marriage as a legal agreement between spouses. It is indeed nothing more than a financial and emotional commitment to another person and a legal arrangement.

If same sex marriage is banned in California, then all marriage should be banned in California.

If some people can marry but others cannot, there would be no justice in our equal and civilized society. That would be like removing constitutional rights and forcibly relocating some people to internment camps while allowing others to remain free.

Couples should, at most, be allowed to enter into domestic partnerships. The legislature and governor should wipe out marriage and force formerly mar­ried couples and all future ones to pay for domestic partnership licenses that would need annual renewal and fees. Then family law attorneys wouldn’t have to deal with divorces any longer and the judicial system could eliminate divorce court and save the state tons of money.

I should float this idea to my state legislator but that would be ridiculous of course… about as ridiculous as giving some people more rights than others.

Dr. King wrote in his famous let­ter from a Birmingham jail that April day in 1963, “Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”

Let us hope that the deep fog of misunderstanding, xenophobia and homophobia will be lifted one day, one day indeed.
===
Trisha Murakawa is a strategic communications and public af­fairs consultant based in Redondo Beach. Opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Rafu Shimpo.