There’s no denying that we’ve made considerable progress in allowing same-sex unions in some parts of the U.S. But even allowing same-sex couples identical rights, benefits and responsibilities of married heterosexuals, while refusing to call their unions/contracts “marriage”, has never sat right with me.
In an interview with John McCain, Ellen DeGeneres explains in a very touching way what it says to her and how it makes her feel:
I literally choked up when Ellen talked about being able to sit there, just not there.
You can sit on the bus, just not in the front. You can drink from the fountain, just not from that fountain.
Mike and I talked about how we might feel if we were told that we could have all the benefits of marriage, but that our union wasn’t quite good enough to be called a marriage. I think it would feel demeaning and, as Ellen said, isolating. I think it would feel like we were being devalued as individuals and as a family. Sure, we could live in society with the rest of you, we just couldn’t be part of it. Not completely.
I can’t think of a justification for this apart from religious beliefs. You know, the whole Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve bumper sticker mentality. It’s not as if there’s a finite number of marriages to go around. Letting gay people be married and call it that doesn’t affect anyone else’s marriage in any way. It doesn’t affect anyone else at all, with the obvious exception of pissing certain people off. And if that’s the only requirement for legislating something, there are a lot more things that need to be legislated out of existence. Where do I send my list?
Without falling back on religious doctrine or Bible verses, can someone give me a legitimate reason for allowing gays the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage and then denying them the title?
Posted by Lottie — Copyright © 2008 Rambling On