Wednesday, February 25, 2004

I thought I'd write a bit here about the gay marriage/civil union debate, as my personal views on the issue have changed quite dramatically over the past few weeks. For a very long time, I was opposed to extending state-sanctioned marriage to gay and lesbian people (of which I am one, by the way).  Not because I question the morality of extending it in this manner, but because I question the morality of continuing to limit it at all.  Why should the relationship of a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, have some intrinsic validity over the relationship between a grandmother who cares for her orphaned grandchildren, a single parent with kids, or people who live together in some other sort of mutually beneficial arrangement?  Take the state out of it completely, was my attitude.  If you require the formalization of your relationship for legal means (benefits, disposition of property, etc.), you should go to a lawyer, or a legal aid society.  If you require the formalization of the emotional/spiritual aspect of your relationship, that should lie completely and absolutely in the realm of private expression.  The legal process whereby familial relationships are formalized should be relatively simple, and the government should only involve themselves to the extent that minors are protected and cared for.  Of course, this scheme makes about a thousand assumptions regarding some sort of perfect society that just doesn't exist, and would involve reforms to health care, insurance, social security, and a bunch of other things that I'm sure I haven't thought of.  But, I do very strongly believe in the absolute privacy of romantic,emotional, and spiritual expression, again barring that which negatively impacts minors.  The state has no business here, and extending the right to a certain small group of people never made sense to me.  I certainly never wanted it for myself, although I am in a relationship that is tightly bound in all sorts of emotional, romantic, spirtual, legal and financial aspects.  We've made it up as we've gone along - that's worked out just fine, and I don't feel as though some aspect of love has been denied us. Anyway.  Then I started watching and reading the news stories about the marriages taking place in San Francisco, and I was incredibly moved at times.  Clearly, this means a tremendous amount to a significant number of people.  Certainly it seems, without question, that granting these people this right is the moral thing to do (and I'll add here that I honestly do not understand how ANY married person could not view the essential nature of their own vows to be somehow lessened and made smaller after seeing this right so senselessly denied to others).   But still, I clung to my view that it was not the right path, in some larger sense.  And honestly, I didn't want to see the Republicans bring this into play as a wedge issue in the 2004 elections.  Seeing George W. Bush removed from office trumps any of these considerations for me.  But, I like the civil disobedience aspect of it.  I like it a lot, and am excited to see such a movement happen in my lifetime.  It is fun to see people bring such joy to the political process, just as it is fun to see other people get apoplectic and enraged over a cultural sea change which they can do absolutely nothing to prevent, in some larger sense.  That delights me, frankly.  I support the mayor in his decision, and I am celebrating from afar with all those folks who have been married in SF over the past few weeks. Then, of course, along comes the Bush administration's show of support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Pragmatically, I see this as nothing more than a stupid, no-fun, zero-sum, baby/bathwater gripe meltdown of monumental proportions, as it relates to the 2004 elections.   I am fully aware that this was the administration's intent, and anyone who believes they give a damn about straight people who do not reside in the top income bracket needs to have their head examined, post haste.   But, as far as I am concerned, the gloves are off.  I will support any attempt to quash this idiocy with my money, my time, and my vote.  This is not the use to which the constitution should be put, period.  It makes me so profoundly sad that I am made to feel like a wild-eyed utopian for believing that the Constitution should be amended to extend rights, rather than restrict or deny them.  I cannot believe it has come to this, and I despair for our country.    I also believe the media are framing the debate in a manner that belies the essential nature of the issue, and are already rolling out their hyper-divisive machinery in full force.  More on this later, this entry is making me depressed.  A very small part of me does, however, believe that reason will prevail.  It will definitely be an interesting year.  I am also hopeful that this issue will cause gay people to make good music that does not lie along the Erasure-Indigo Girls axis of yuck, bad taste, and sentimentality, but that may be hoping for too much!  5:38:09 PM