It’s not black and white
CommentsMore evidence that the gay-marriage debate is not entirely black and white. Ari, one-half of a matched set of “hitched” female “queer vegan artists and activists,” liked my piece in the New York Daily News:
So, I kind of can’t believe this, but I agree with an article in the New York Daily News. And it’s called In Vermont gay marriage law, a hidden victory for religious freedom. At first I saw that headline and thought, oh damn, there’s some loophole that will make it legal for the Pope to eat gay newlyweds. Or something else similarly creepy and oppressive. But it’s actually really sensible: Author David Benkof is happy that the new legislation in Vermont specifically provides an out to any religious groups that have issues with same-sex marriage: They don’t have to provide gay couples who are getting married with goods and services.
I’m totally okay with that. This is not a pharmacist denying the morning-after pill to an unintentionally pregnant teen. This is not life-threatening, and it’s not violating some “first do no harm” mandate. This is just reason to choose a different florist, one who doesn’t believe you’re going to hell.
Why force people to do things they feel are wrong? I care deeply about peace, justice and sustainability - so I don’t take design work that promotes zoos, “happy meat,” sweatshop labor, and other things I find objectionable. People make decisions like this all the time, don’t they? So why, as the author of this article points out, was eHarmony forced to create a queer dating site, if they found queerness so odious that they wouldn’t allow same-sex searches on their primary, heteronormative dating site? And why would any gay folks actually use the new site by eHarmony? Why not go to any one of the many, many sites out there run by and for queer people who love queer people? If we force everyone to provide services to everyone, aren’t we losing the usefulness of the niche audience - the self-selecting community? Personally, I like patronizing those I can stand behind ethically. And not everyone has my ethics.
When Shira and I got hitched, we paid our favorite vegan restaurant to cater it. We rented space from a progressive, arty Brooklyn hangout. We’re not into organized, hierarchical religion, so instead of hiring an officiant to approve of our union, we asked everyone in the room to marry us with a toast to fun and love. And so on. In short, we made it our own. We made it something we could believe in, something we loved.
I just can’t imagine how much it would have sucked if we’d hired people who think our love is an abomination - and how much worse it would have been to then pay lawyers to sue them, if they didn’t do what we wanted. Aren’t weddings supposed to be about love? I think Vermont has figured this one out, and I bet their efforts will make this legislation very hard to challenge: Everyone wins.
This post clearly shows that once ” gay ” marriage is passed ( or any other thing that is not one man-one woman ) marriage ceases to have importance and purity and becomes ” modernized ” and it’s all about the ” love ” … marriage is about society … not love … and in society men and women need one another … a union that strengthens the relationship between the sexes and the family ( the ” bedrock of humanity ” ) … words cannot descrive how much I dislike Ari the hippie lesbian
Well at least this man is good http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/McKellarJ%20HOPE02.htm
Understand what marriage is about thankfully
Everybody does not win … only you win Ari the hippie lesbian … society loses … gays should have civil unions … not marriage … marriage is sacred … and don’t go around saying that the divorce rate is this and that whichever … instead of putting a bad heterosexual union vs good homosexual union ( and vice versa ) do the best versus the best of each … the best of one man-one woman union vs the best of anything that is not one man-one woman … I guarantee you that the best one man-one woman is the best model for society as a whole
The eHarmony example is a good one — and it makes one wonder whether or not Vermont’s “religious exceptions” will be allowed to stand in court. Surely they will be challenged by those who insist on forcing their views down the throats of their neighbors.
Lima, thanks for making your views so clear.
“words cannot descrive how much I dislike Ari the hippie lesbian”
And why is that? Because she cares deeply about peace, justice, and sustainability? Are your “family values” opposed to those values or something? In any event, we should at least give you credit for being upfront about your dislike of hippie lesbians. Others who oppose marriage equality try very hard to disguise such animus.
Moving on, I know many gays and lesbians who share Ari’s view that we shouldn’t patronize anti-gay businesses or “force” them to provide services to us. I certainly don’t spend my money at businesses where I know that the business-owner is anti-gay.
No church has ever been forced to perform a gay marriage, nor will they ever be. The “fears” of the religious right are unfounded and, in many cases, utterly insincere. As for florists, photographers, jutices of the peace, etc. If you feel that they should be allowed to refuse service to gays, fine. But be consistent. They should also be able to refuse service to Jews, Muslims, Christians, couples who have had children out of wedlock, interracial couples, couples who have previously married, or anyone else they personally deem “immoral”. And yet, they can’t do any of those things in this society. So why can they refuse gays?
Ryan- Talk about insincere! I never *said* churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, and none of the (intelligent) people in my side of the debate ever said that either. The Constitution of the United States, through its First Amendment, would prohibit that “free exercise” of religion.
I have two responses to your florists point:
1) I oppose government discrimination on the basis of race, religion, etc., but I think private businesses should be able to do what they like. Today, if a business put up a “no blacks” sign, it would lose a lot of white business as well as black.
2) The issue is not refusing gays; it’s refusing same-sex marriages, which they believe to be counterfeit. I plan to marry someday, but my marriage will be opposite-sex, and that doesn’t make me any less gay.
If Ari chooses to be magnanimous towards people who hate her then I’m not going to be quick to give her a hard time, but I prefer to be magnanimous from a position of strength. Indeed, it’s not magnanimity _unless_ one is doing it from a position of strength, and Ari is probably not mindful of the fact that if, as it seems, she’s in a big city, then she’s in the position of strength that she _can_ take her business elsewhere. I’m less forgiving because I try to keep in mind gay people in small towns where there might not be more than one caterer, or florist, or wedding-cake decorator, or whatever.