Tag Archives: doma

Why I don’t support same-sex marriage…

Standard

I don’t support same-sex marriage…  I also don’t support interracial marriage…  And shit, don’t even get me going about those damn heterosexual marriages… 

Seriously, I am pro-marriage. I support the notion that people should be able to fall in love, date, maybe get married (and statistically speaking possibly get divorced), find their connection, connect to their soul mate, have a kid… or two… or a tribe… and live their lives. I support the notion that anyone who decides to enter into a marriage should experience the daily grind and the less “sexy” part of the whole institution of marriage.

There is no reason why government should get in the way of that. The issue of marriage in any capacity is a matter of human rights. As human beings, we deserve the right to love and if desired, marry another human being. We deserve to share a life with someone we love legally in every sense of the word; which means being afforded the same protections as heterosexuals. This issue, of same-sex marriage is as ridiculous and inane as suggesting we revisit the legality of interracial marriage or a women’s right to vote in the United States. The reality is we should not be debating the issue.  The reality is, the issue of equal rights is a matter of human rights… You don’t have to agree, nor should you stand in the way.

So this week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will convene on two related issues. The first, today, California’s prop 8 (the argument recap by Lyle Denniston can be found here) and the Defense of Marriage Act. It’s important to put this in perspective…

In 1967, the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in the United States. The Court determined that to deny a couple the right to marry regardless of race was anti-miscegenation and unconstitutional. Prior to this decision, many states had already decided to legalize interracial marriage; ergo, individual states were allowing interracial couples to marry while the federal government was not legally recognizing the marriage (sound familiar). In 1967, the Supreme Court determined the fate of marriage among the races in this country. Based on their own arguments, if the court held this to be the case in 1967, why should this argument not be applicable in 2013? Clarence Thomas might want to consider these facts when he looks at his white wife… It was only 46 years ago that the Court upon which he serves as judge legalized and formalized interracial marriage. He has an obligation to consider the weight of this argument.

If we really want to respect and protect the notion of marriage and family, then we have an obligation to legalize and recognize marriage among two consenting adults… We have an obligation to be pro-love and pro-marriage.