Go together like a horse and carriage

I was reading an article in this Sundays PARADE about Richard Gere and Diane Lane, they were giving their views on love and marriage. I don’t like to clump together a group of people but I don’t think anyone in Hollywood should be able to talk/give advice on the subjects. Their new movie Nights in Rodanthe is about the courage to move on when your marriage is over and you need to be open to loving again…OK, they can talk about that. Hollywood does have more then enough experience with moving on after a divorce!

Marriage is a word that means different things to different people. I am an adult who chooses not to get married just yet and for now live with my manfriend, because of my decision my mother will not speak to me. My son who is gay can finally get married if he chooses to in California but not all gay’s have this opportunity and have to fight for this right. Brittany Spears got married to a childhood friend in Vegas wearing jeans and a baseball cap and the ended it a few days later, Mickey Rooney chose to get married 8 times in his life. Some people get married because of pregnancy, money, insurance, loneliness.

My view on marriage is this: Everyone should have the right to marry, no one should ever be forced to marry, parents should not influence their children either way on marriage, don’t ever rush into marriage, don’t rush out of marriage and don’t stay in an abusive one. One thing I think should be changed in the vows…”till death do us part”. Do they still say this, it’s gotta go, no one can promise that.


4 Responses

  1. Agreed. Marriage is a right everyone should have. It is cultural ceremony that has evolved throughout the years to a point where it seems we hold on to it solely for tradition sakes, but in order to validate the tradition, governments still ties rights and privleges to it.

    Saying “til death do us part” is one of those outdated lines that could do with removal or changing to something like, “til we agree on otherwise.”

  2. Please show me any American document or law that states marriage is a “right”.

    There never has been a “right” to marry. Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

    The issue and the stakes are about the institution of marriage and not changing its definition just because it suits somebody’s needs at the moment. If we allow marriage to be defined by current social “sensitivities,” there will be no right to deny marriage to other non-traditional groups. Once we start down that road, there’s no telling what we as a society will be forced to recognize as “marriage.”

    There are prohibitions against marrying direct family members. Fathers cannot marry daughters, mothers their sons, brothers and sisters cannot wed, even first cousins are barred from marriage. If we change the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples to marry, would we have the right to deny familial weddings?

    What about multiple spouses? If same sex couples are allowed to wed, how can we prevent people from marrying multiple partners? And I speak not just of a man marrying more than one woman. Women would have to be allowed to marry more than one man. Come to think of it, men would be allowed to marry more than one man, and women would be allowed to have multiple wives also. Why not? Marriage is whatever we define it as, right? But let’s not stop there.

    All current laws governing statutory rape and pedophilia would eventually have to be thrown out. Why, you ask? Because sex with children would have to be legalized. Adults would be allowed to marry children no matter what their age. And everybody knows that sex before marriage is expected so any adult/child relationships would have to be condoned.

    NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, has for years been advocating for the legalization of not only adult/child sex but man/boy sex, specifically. They are practicing pedophiles and are proud of it. Their Web site sings the praises of men “loving” boys. These “relationships” would eventually have to be condoned.

    Are you beginning to see the problem?

    I can almost hear the outraged cries as you read this that “this would never happen!” Really? One of the arguments for recognizing same sex marriage is that “other countries are enlightened enough to recognize/allow it.” Well, guess what? Every situation that I have described is practiced in at least one other country on this planet, as NAMBLA and several polygamy Web sites are quick to point out. Still don’t think it can happen?

    The most divisive issue of our time, morally, ethically and socially, is abortion. It started as being allowed only if the mother’s life was in immediate danger and there was absolutely no alternative. Abortion has now progressed to where a baby can be killed by sticking a needle in its skull at the moment of birth. Incidentally, this procedure has been used by the Communist Chinese as a forced population control measure for years. Makes you wonder where the abortion rights people got the idea – but that’s for another article.

    I believe that any attempt to change the Constitution should never be taken lightly. But if there was ever a reason to do so, this is it. The sanctity of the institution of marriage must be protected.

  3. The first line of the essay written by “Michaeleen” immediately displays a lack in working knowledge of both common law and Constitutional law. All of the rights and privileges Americans enjoy due to the Constitution are not explicitly written within its pages, but this does not mean an American does not have them. With the common law principle of judicial precedence, Americans rights are constantly evolving and growing.

    Freedom of speech, which is explicitly written in the Constitution, does not define what speech is within American society. However, through judicial precedence, Americans have the right to burn an American flag because the right to use symbolic speech has been protected under numerous rulings and is considered protected under the 1st Amendment.

    “Michaleen” asks to show a point in the Constitution that depicts marriage as a right. Yes, there is no explicit marriage right in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, however, provides language that does, in fact, nullify anti-gay marriage laws, because these laws deprive a group of people in committed relationships their right to equal protection under the law. Equal protection under the law is a right granted by the Constitution.

    The marital communications privilege is one protection marriage law provides (though many states include this protection in civil unions). This privilege allows communications between a married couple to be kept confidential by both members. Therefore, my communication with my partner does not necessarily receive the same protection as my heterosexual and married counterparts.

    The idea that civil unions or domestic partnership laws may include this right does not nullify the idea that the 14th amendment applies. It only brings further argument that separate, but equal is never equal. Brown v Board successfully removed separate, but equal as a solution to segregation. A main argument of this case was the 14th amendment.

    Fortunately, when the first line in an essay, such as that made by “Michaleen,”is easily discredited, it essentially discredits all arguments and ideas thereafter, by setting the tone and knowledge base of its author. If one is trying to argue a topic and the first line cannot be believed, how are readers to believe that gay marriage will lead to the right of adults to molest children under the NAMBLA doctrine. How can we believe that by providing marriage “privileges” to homosexuals, the door to removing statutory rape laws is opened? No European or South American country that has legalized gay marriage has witnessed a run to the courts to gain rights for NAMBLA or to remove statutory rape laws. “Michaleen,” if you have a specific case, please provide it. Massachusetts certainly has not seen this.

    To conclude, the opening line of “Michaleen’s” comment was to find a place in the Constitution that provides a right to marriage. It is not explicit, but it is clearly written within the 14th amendment. An unwarranted fear that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of American society cannot undermine the core of American values that all people are born equal, with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Michelle Obama eloquently told Americans, 2008 should be the, “time we listened to our hopes, instead of our fears. This time, we decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming.” I’m choosing to believe and dream in an America that understands that gay marriage rights have nothing to do with polygamists or molesters’ rights.

  4. Michaleen, your comment brings up a lot of interesting arguments yet I am sorry to say they are a bit misguided.

    First, there has been a right to marry since 1967 in American law and that comes from the US Supreme Court decision Loving v Virgina. This court case of course overturned a Virginia law that banned interracial marriages. Citing the 14th Amendment the ruling the courts decision said “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes…” The US Supreme Court re-affirmed this view on marriage as a basic civil right in 1978 with Zablocki v Redhail where the judges used strict scrutiny to analyze the case and affirm that marriage is a fundamental right.

    I think I proved that marriage has been clearly been labeled as a right under American law, now on to the rest of your argument.

    You argue that if we allow gay marriage we consequently would need to allow polyamorous marriage; you bring up an interesting point but what I don’t see in your argument is why this is a negative. I am not suggesting that it should be legalized but I just want you to entertain the idea of allowing maybe three or four people who all love each other from marrying each other. Marriage is such a hegemonic institution that it is hard to imagine it as anything more than between one man and one woman, but what harm comes to you or I if more than two adults willing and enthusiastically engage in a polyamorous relationship? I have a feeling your answer would be the children, which leads to a nice transition into my next point.

    A lot of your argument about the consequence of gay marriage is that it could lead to the legalization of illegal and horrible acts against youths (via your mentioning of a parent marrying a child, or NAMBLA, and statutory rape). No offense but these are incredibly weak arguments. American law has ALWAYS and ALWAYS WILL treat children differently under the law to protect children. Not just laws regulating sex, pornography, and marriage, but also we see children being treated different in regards to health care (courts have forced children to receive medical attention, forced vaccinations, etc), labor laws, alcohol, tobacco, and so on. To suggest that allowing two gay people, who love each other, marry will lead to a total change in how law treats children then you have very little faith in American law and democracy.

    Lastly, you talk about China’s population control practices. Again, your argument is misguided. By stringing an argument that begins with abortion being legalized in the US and ending with China killing newborn babies, you are essentially turning coal into diamonds, you just can’t do it, regardless of how much you may want to. And again, it shows little faith in our great democracy.

    If you don’t believe in gay marriage that is your own right but I urge you to to look at our future as a positive. By suggesting that gay marriage may turn us into a barbaric society you assume that we are moving down a path of self-destruction, but can it not be even more likely that we are simply moving forward to an almost Utopian society? Maybe gay marriage wont be the beginning of the end but the beginning of a renaissances of sorts. That is what I am going to choose to believe and I hope you begin to believe the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: