If you're a U.S. citizen, it's time to contact your
Congresscritter.
Apparently, according to National Public Radio,
there are plans afoot by a coalition of religious and political conservatives to
push a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one
women. Further, the Amendment's text says that neither this constitution nor any
state constitution may contain special protections for unions of two or more
people not meeting this description." (quoted from memory)
Why, you
ask, should I, a happily married heterosexual, care? Well, there's my basic sense
of fairness, coupled with my basic sense of this is none of the government's
fucking business!
You, over there with the I (heart) Reagan T-
Shirt, speak up! "Won't that contribute to the degradation of society?" Well, how?
If we take a step to make it easier for gay couples to live in stable unions,
wouldn't that contribute to the fabric of society? I thought you were the one who
kept saying gay men were all promiscuous pedophiles who would rot in hell. (I
never did figure out why some people seem to think all gay men are pederasts,
anyway. Where's the logic in that?)
Yes, Congressman? What did you
say? "This will change all marriages! Oh, yeah? If I had a sister who married a
woman tomorrow, I can't imagine that would change my life a bit -- except that I
might be very happy that my sister had found someone to love her. Ask your Vice
President how he'd feel if he knew his daughter had someone to take care of her
when she was sick or old or tired (actually, I think she does). Congressman, if I
don't let interfering old fossils like you dictate how my marriage (*my* marriage,
mine and Rudder's) should function, then no one else's example will affect it
either. Many unhappy marriages are alike, but each happy family is happy in its
own way.
And in the corner, the economic conservative speaks up. Yes,
Ma'am? You approve of gay unions but you're afraid an actual marriage would send
up the cost of your health insurance? Because those people have AIDS and stuff?
Well, you're probably right. Some gay people do have AIDS, as do many others. (In
fact, I think the incidence of AIDS among lesbian women is very low). And
providing spousal benefits for those with AIDS would likely send up premiums.
However, a lot of that will be the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies,
who make huge profits way out of line with other industries, raising fees because
they can, whether or not their costs justify it. Maybe they're the root cause of
that problem, not couples who just want a few basic rights.
And
finally, you, the liberal, you say you don't know any gay people but you can't see
why they'd want to get married, and enter an institution with so many connotations
of property and imbalance of power? Well, first of all, you probably do know some
gay men or lesbians. Many just don't talk about their private lives much, because
they want to live their lives, not waste them arguing with the sort of
pusillanimous peabrains who are pushing this amendment. Second? Well, imagine not
being able to visit the love of your life, whom you've lived with for thirty
years, when he's in the hospital for major surgery, because his sister disapproves
of you. Imagine breaking up after more than a decade together, like Melissa
Etheridge and Julie Cypher, and having a huge mess disentangling for finances,
instead of the simple untaxed split amicably divorcing couples get. Imagine huge
arguments every time you tried to get a family discount at a Costco, or with AAA,
or at an amusement park, for you, your partner and your children. Yes, unmarried
hetero couples sometimes have those problems too, but at least they can choose
whether enter a marriage, balancing among its benefits and burdens.
I
will never understand why some conservatives (and it's only some) decry liberal
governments' reaching into their citizen's wallets....and then turn around and try
to reach into their bedrooms. Why is privacy such a difficult concept? And
why should I feel my values are compromised just because someone else's might be
different?