Should We Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage?

Jamie Ann · Post by **Jamie Ann** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:24 pm

Should We Concern Ourselves About Same-Sex Marriage? The answer is yes, but let me explain. On Thursday, February 26, 2004 the Georgia House of Representatives narrowly defeated Senate Resolution 595, a Republican bill for a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Georgia. The vote was 117-50 in favor of the gay marriage ban  with 13 members not voting for one reason or another  but as a constitutional amendment, it needed a two-thirds majority, or 120 votes, to pass. It had already been adopted by the Republican-controlled Senate 40-14, a bare two-thirds majority. Although it has now been defeated in the House, the battle is far from over. The Republicans will now ask for a resolution to reconsider the bill, to take place this coming Monday. Sadie Fields, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, said churches all across the state will be busing people to the Capitol on Monday.

So what does this have to do with crossdressers? After all, I personally am a heterosexual for whom gay marriage is not a serious option, and even those CDs who are gay would not be denied their right to wear feminine clothing by this amendment. The answer is that SR 595 writes religious beliefs not shared by many citizens, including many Christians, into the Georgia Constitution. This is a dangerous precedent. It is not about family values in any ordinary sense  it is not about love, commitment, or taking responsibility for others. If Bob and Alice have a happy marriage, and Arnold and Jerry formalize their commitment to each other and to their children, how are Bob and Alice being harmed? Are they going to get divorced because Arnold and Jerry now have Social Security rights, pension rights, etc., plus various new legal responsibilities? Of course not. A Constitutional Amendment simply writes a religious definition into the constitution, something the founders of the U.S. Constitution opposed because of its potential to abridge the freedoms of those who do not accept the most popular religious interpretations. In this particular case, the religious principle is a narrow conception of gender, which could easily spill over into areas directly affecting gender presentation or crossdressing.

My friend, Beulah, reminded me of some wisdom spoken by Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984), a Christian theologian who lived under Hitler in Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

While our political leaders are not coming for us in quite the same sense that the Nazis came for the Jews, they certainly are heading down the road of narrow gender definitions and restrictions on those who fall outside the statistical norm. This cannot be good for crossdressers.

CJ · Post by CJ » Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:39 pm

Hi all,

Well-put, Jamie Ann, very well-put! The question is always the same, though: what can we do, as a social/sexual minority that "presents" much more visibly than gays and lesbians, that won't bring harm either to ourselves or to our loved ones?

Love,
CJ

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:59 am

Seems to me that because we are a minority, we may always be in danger of the majority when it comes to votes for changing laws. When we are successful in getting laws passed, we often put up walls and make enemies. I have had people comment to me that the minority (referring to the gays & lesbians) are getting laws changed.
Forcing the recognition by everyone of gay unions as a "marriage" is as wrong as denying the right of a gay union.
I believe that is what society is currently reacting to, they feel this has been forced on them, and are responding in accordance with that belief.

Respespecfully.
Darlene.

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:36 am

Darlene wrote:Forcing the recognition by everyone of gay unions as a "marriage" is as wrong as denying the right of a gay union.

Sorry Darlene, while I respect your voicing your opinion, I have to say I don't agree with that at all!

IMO, We're fighting for equality. We do not have to "ask" to be recognized as equals -- it should be given to us automatically because it has been WRONG all along that we have been treated as 2nd class citizens. Like slavery abolished in the South, women's eventual right to vote, and the civil rights gains for minorities and disabled in recent years -- these things were done because it was the right thing to do -- concern for people being forced to recognize these newly obtained rights does not figure into the equation! Or to put it bluntly, "too bad." This is what JFK said to George Wallace.

IMO I do not want anti-gay marriage folks thinking they are doing us a favor -- they're not. They need to correct a wrong -- they can choose to do it or not to do it, but to ask we behave a certain way??? No.

What say you all?

Post by **Celia** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:01 am

It's become an election-year tradition for the Shi'ite Christians who've long since taken over the Republican party to propose one or more bum-wipe amendments to the constitution. Assuming--God willing--that the proposed amendment ends up in the septic tank of history as usual, we'll all look back at this embarrassing little political episode, laugh nervously, and change the subject.

-Celia

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:41 am

Celia wrote: Assuming--God willing--that the proposed amendment ends up in the septic tank of history as usual, we'll all look back at this embarrassing little political episode, laugh nervously, and change the subject.

-Celia

Actually, for GW Bush, it'll be more than that . . . in the history books 100 years from now he'll be labelled the dreaded "man of his times". No doubt there will be Bush offspring trying to restore his "good name".

Jamie Ann · Post by **Jamie Ann** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:45 am

Darlene wrote:Forcing the recognition by everyone of gay unions as a "marriage" is as wrong as denying the right of a gay union.
I believe that is what society is currently reacting to, they feel this has been forced on them, and are responding in accordance with that belief.

Respespecfully.
Darlene.

Darlene, I dont think the issue is what a domestic arrangement is called so much as it is the rights and responsibilities (in the beginning and in the future) that go with a label. If the rights and responsibilities of a “marriage” and a “civil union” were identical, with this pair of labels signifying nothing except the genders of those involved, much of the objection would be gone; however, there still are two points worth recognizing: (1) nothing could prevent future politicians from legislating rights — e.g., tax breaks — to one category but not to the other, and this would be tempting for those seeking re-election and wanting some cheap support; and (2) the “separate-but-equal” concept has always been suspect. Separate invariably degenerates into unequal, as Martin Luther King, Jr., and others so eloquently argued.

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:36 am

We do not have to "ask" to be recognized as equals -- it should be given to us automatically

Nice thought dear, but don't hold your breath. It's not reality.

concern for people being forced to recognize these newly obtained rights does not figure into the equation! Or to put it bluntly, "too bad."

I take it then that by your own terms should they become successful at establishing laws against us, that you will understand, if they put it bluntly and say to you "too bad"

All I am trying to do, is draw attention to the reality that when you force something upon people you are making enemies. If you choose to do that with this understanding, then be prepared for what ever might happen as a result of those actions.

Respectfully.
Darlene.

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:33 am

Oh my... The temperature in here is a wee bit above normal.

Please be careful.

The Doctor can see patients now.

Beauty

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:18 pm

Darlene wrote: I take it then that by your own terms should they become successful at establishing laws against us, that you will understand, if they put it bluntly and say to you "too bad"

All I am trying to do, is draw attention to the reality that when you force something upon people you are making enemies. If you choose to do that with this understanding, then be prepared for what ever might happen as a result of those actions.

*tip toeing*

*no beauty in sight*

(nothing personal Darlene!)

IMO they are ALREADY saying "too bad" to us! They are ALREADY our enemies. They've ALREADY said we are 2nd class citizens -- in much hasher terms than would ever be allowed in this forum.

I understand your argument for being nice (and yes, we SHOULD be nice when actually confronting people in person wanting to put us in our place) but I will not beg or use emotional arguments to win gains -- the very thing they are using against us. See?

Again, IMO we are not "forcing" anything on anybody, THEY are standing on our feet -- they KNOW what they are doing. If eventual legislative actions or judical rulings go our way, I won't be one bit concerned for them at all, ever!

All my kindness for those still attempting to oppress us is long gone. This may be what motivates me as an advocate -- making enemies along the way is not my intent but it happens and doesn't bother me at all.

(again, nothing personal!)

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:00 am

Hi Beauty.

I do not aspire to change anyone's mind, and will never respond to a post when my temperature is high, (which seldom is the case) I am stable enough that what other people think and say dose not hurt me. I will seldom post more than twice in situations like this. I will only attempt to make my point, and trust that others who read this are intelligent enough to draw there own conclusions.

Respectfully.
Darlene.

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:22 am

Good morning Darlene!!

I really wasn't only commenting on your post sweets.

I promise.

I read the entire thread and felt like things were a little warm. Unfortunately, I let you down because I forgot to put in wording that said, "Darlene I don't mean this about your post exclusively." Sorry for my poor communication.

You were fine.

Thank you for your classy response!!

Beauty

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:06 am

Thank you Beauty.

You have no idea how that makes me feel. The woman from whom I chose my name was what I considered to be a classy woman. Given the same circumstances I would expect her response to be similar.

You have made my day.

*Hugs*
Darlene.

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:38 am

THIS JUST IN . . .

Starting today in Multnomah county, Oregon (Portland), they will be issuing gay marriage license in defiance of Bush's proposal to a consitutional amendment that would prohibit such activity.

Civil disobedience? Lawless anger among the masses? Nope, just an in-kind response to goverment-sponsored hate.

IMO by opening the door back to the dark ages for selfish purposes, Bush has unleashed a fury within many of us.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ST7030.DTL

Nancy · Post by **Nancy** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:50 pm

OK, I wasn't going to get in on this becuase it's that

of an issue with me. To me, and this is my opinion, what Mr. Bush has done is slap every man and woman who has paid the price for freedom, in the face. It's not even the fact that he has chosen the gay's to make a Constitutional Amendmet againts but that the (so called leader) of the free world would even consider making any kind of amendment or law that would discriminate against any one or group! It is totally anti American and is so totally not worth having any thing further to do with him.

Everything else I was going to say about Mr. Bush would have been deleted anyway

Crossdressers-Haven.com