Here's the thing.
If you're reading here, you probably know me already. If you don't...well, hello, it's nice to meet you. The point is, I'm a white girl from the whitest town you can imagine (in terms of population and rhythm) and my husband isn't (in terms of skin color and rhythm-- the man has got some MOVES). Up until 1967, my own marriage would have been illegal in 16 states. It was only through the Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia that laws barring interracial marriage were struck down. If it had been left to a state-by-state popular vote, who knows how long it would have taken for my marriage be legal in all 50 states, as "disapproval" of interracial relationships is still shockingly common -- I'm looking at you, former Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell, who in 2009 refused to sign an interracial couple's marriage license because he disapproves of interracial relationships. (You know what I disapprove of? Bigots like that getting to have rights, BUT THAT IS WHY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO A POPULAR VOTE).
I cannot imagine how painful that would be-- to have people look at my marriage and say "Nope. Not allowed," and then VOTE ON IT. But that is exactly what people are trying to do in Minnesota, by putting an amendment to "preserve marriage" on the ballot this fall. It's a horrifying thought, this idea that the love between two consenting adults is somehow threatening to all marriages everywhere. It's unimaginably unfair to our LGBT citizens that we're even considering this amendment. (As for civil unions, they aren't the solution either since I think we can all agree that "separate but equal" was a shitty idea the first time around).
How incredibly, incredibly arrogant to think we deserve the right to vote on another person's relationship. Do we really want to be putting the validity of people's marriages to a vote? Because I'm a bitch on wheels, and I really don't think those people would want me voting on their relationships. I don't think they'd like the outcome. (Oh, you're a bigot? DIVORCES ALL AROUND!) Besides, gay marriage is *already illegal* in the state of Minnesota. This amendment is just to make extra-super-sure that if, say, a judge looks at the current law and says "Yeah, that's discriminatory" they wouldn't be able to overturn it. Let me repeat: gay marriage is illegal in Minnesota, but some people are so worried that gay people might, at some point in the future, be able to get married and have legally recognized families, that they want to CHANGE THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION. This is a drastic step, and quite frankly, it's disgusting. I simply cannot understand why allowing two adults to get married is such a threat that we need to make it doubly illegal.
EDITED TO ADD: According to my husband's research, Alabama was the last state to reverse their ban on interracial marriages, which had been added to the state's constitution (much like Minnesota is trying to do with gay marriage). They finally undid the ban in 2000. The point is not to trash Alabama (this law was likely unenforced since federal supersedes state law), but to point out that once you enshrine discrimination in the state's constitution, it takes a VERY long time to undo that damage. Let's not make our children ashamed of us, okay Minnesotans?
On a lighter note, who on *earth* could be against more weddings? WEDDINGS ARE SUPER FUN. Booze, dinner with your friends, and then dancing for the rest of the night while everyone is in fancy clothes. It's like prom, but with alcohol and lifelong commitment. Several of our LGBT friends attended our wedding, and I cannot wait to return the favor and get drunk and dance to 90s pop at theirs. Who could possibly be against that?
As a married person, I can confidently say that no one else's marriage or divorce has had any direct impact on my own. Also, churches don't have to perform *any* wedding they disagree with, so there can be no complaining that marriage equality would discriminate against religions. My lapsed-Catholic self and Buddhist husband couldn't have walked into a Baptist church or a mosque and demanded that they marry us no matter what. In fact, a church could refuse to marry us simply for being an interracial couple, and that would be their right (they'd be bigots, but it'd be legal). In short, there is no religious component involved in a legal document. Your church doesn't believe in gay marriage? Fine. They don't have to perform them. Plus, the bible says an awful lot of things we don't believe in any more--such as slavery being A-OK. Either the bible is right 100% of the time, or it isn't. So what will it be, folks: bringing back slavery, or gay marriage? Personally, I'd chose "consenting adults marrying the person of their choice" over "people getting to own other people," but that's just me.
Finally, as I said before, I can't imagine how painful it would be to have the "morality" of my relationship be put to a popular vote. I can't imagine a world where I couldn't marry my husband, or I could, but it only counted in some states, or it's called something else entirely so as to preserve the "sanctity" of a government contract that isn't religious in any way. (At least my marriage license has exactly zero mentions of God, Jesus, or the Church; I don't know about yours.) It would break my heart for that to happen to me, so I can't stay silent as it happens to someone else.
There's enough pain and suffering in this world. Don't add to it.
Vote no.
No comments:
Post a Comment