Thursday, June 01, 2006

in case your still not sick of talking about SSM

i don't understand why the brethren are so hung up on the whole SSM issue. growing up in the church it was quite obvious that a temple marriage was the only kind of marriage that mattered in jesus' eyes, so i can't understand why it is so important that we try to clarify the definition of a civil marriage. whether or not gays are allowed to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage really has no bearing on what kinds of marriages the church can choose to perform and sanctify within the walls of the temples. just watch the expression on a mormon's face the next time someone talks about a young mormon couple having a civil ceremony and you'll see just how high of a regard the average member has for non-temple, civil marriages.

to me it's largely a legal issue. is there any good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to file taxes jointly, be assigned social security death benefits if their spouse dies, or be denied any of the other privileges given to married hetero couples? to me that's all it really boils down to.

i don't buy the argument that by legally recognizing SSM will somehow undermine "traditional" marriages. it's like kinky friedman says, "i support gay marriage. i believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."


Equality said...

Thanks for quoting the next governor of the great state of Texas. I have two bumper stickers on my car. One says "Kinky for Governor: Why the Hell Not" The other says "He Ain't Kinky, He's my Governor."

Kinky is Awesome said...

Kinky supports gay marriage, but he's not over the top. For example, he didn't vote against the amendment to the Texas Constitution when it was on the ballot. Here's a good news story confirming that Kinky didn't go overboard on this issue: link

Kinky WILL be the next governor! He has very good views on religion:

"The Ten Commandments being taken out of the public schools. I want them back," says Friedman.


"I want them back, they belong there," says Friedman. "Maybe I'll have to change their name to the Ten Suggestions, you know. But they were taken out, not by separation of church and state, but by political correctness gone awry. One atheist stands up and says, 'I don't like the Ten Commandments,' and suddenly out they go. And, of course, we all know what happens to an atheist when he dies. His tombstone usually reads, 'All dressed up and no place to go.' "

Friedman has at times spoken irreverently about Jesus. Does he worry that religious voters in the very religious state of Texas might be offended?

"Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we traveled around the countryside irritating people," says Friedman. "Now, if that's comparing myself to Jesus, I don't really think it is. But, the Jesus in my heart is a Jesus with a sense of humor. And, personally, I think he's enjoyin' my campaign as much as anybody right now. I think he is."

The issues Kinky Friedman will have to address may include headline issues such as gay marriage and prayer in schools.

"I'll tell you right now. I'm for prayer in school," he says.

another link

Standing up against political correctness is a big issue with Kinky. Here's an awesome video where he really has some olitically correct news guy on the ropes:

one more link (it's hilarious!)


Beijing said...

"i don't buy the argument that by legally recognizing SSM will somehow undermine "traditional" marriages.

Me neither, in general.

But someone in one of those really long T&S comment threads made a good point along those lines.

If a huge cohort of married homosexual couples could prove that nationwide, statistically, two men or two women can do a great job of raising happy, healthy, balanced children, then what happens to the supposedly inherent/eternal "traditional" roles of daddy-provider and mommy-nurturer? Those who are heavily invested in the traditional roles aren't eager to find out.

Steve EM said...

I think I figured out what the GAs really fear on this issue. It isn’t gay marriage. Gays/lesbians will always be a minuscule portion of the national population and couldn’t possibly warrant all this attention. I believe they are thinking very long term and fear a slow, but formidable, multi-generational loss of church members to polygamy, especially in the intermountain west, if the stigma and illegality of alternative marriage practices disappears. Different types of multi-adult communal marriages may appeal to many over time for reproductive, economic and other advantages. The phenomenon would be accelerated in the Mormon belt because of our history with the practice.

Matt Elggren said...

Hah, Beijing -- nothing like fear of the NedFlanders types showing up all those dysfunctional Simpson families.

Could be the best thing that ever happened to the family -- wouldn't that ne the irony.

Jolard said...

I agree that I don't understand the GA's interest in this issue. They so rarely break the politics/religion barrier, and I don't understand why this is the issue they choose to do that, since it is unlikely to make any real difference in our society, and is really just a divisive issue that the Republicans keep returning to to drive votes. It has little chance of being enacted, and even if it is, do we really think it will make all those homosexuals stop living together? Do we really think that it will somehow harm our existing heterosexual marriages?

Personally if the church was going to break the normal silence over political issues, it should have been for a lot of far more important things.

Mike Kessler said...

I've been married to Buckley for nearly two years now. I'm sure everyone has noticed how the entire institution of marriage has suffered. Hint: No one has noticed because our same-sex marriage (and the thousands of other same-sex marriages that have been performed in Massachusetts, as well as Canada, Spain and other countries) hasn't made one bit of difference to any individual marriage or to the institution of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a political ploy to get the far right scared so they'll vote en masse like they did in 2004, but two years have passed, the world hasn't ended, and I think the political ploy will backfire. Check out this great New Yorker magazine cartoon from two years ago.