LTTE: What is this need to defend marriage?

[RC]

Gina M. Powers letter: What is this need to defend marriage?

Published Sunday, March 19, 2006
The national conversation about our need to “defend” marriage is tricky talk. What I don’t understand is why. Why is it that citizens in Minnesota or any other state need to “defend” marriage? What does that mean? This vague political talk is pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes.

At one time we knew for a fact that black Americans were less than human, women were too emotional to vote or work outside of the home, and wives could be legally beaten by their husbands. We have lost our history, folks, and the current political frame is depending on that.

Our national security is threatened; our nation is embroiled in war; our children have no health care; we are still dealing with the aftermath of last hurricane season and expecting more like it; we have pedophiles luring our children over the Internet; we have a homeless crisis; our government is spying on us, and the list goes on. I cannot see how gay people having access to marriage could be on our radar screen.

Future generations will be sitting in classrooms reading about this time in history. I think they will be as confused and ashamed as I was when I learned that freedom and equality were nice ideas that didn’t really apply to everyone.

Gina M. Powers

Fargo

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=121041§ion=Opinion

* * * * * * *
Yeah, what is this need? I have never understood this "NEED" to defend "Marriage" either.
Marriage is a legal contract, with the contents determined by the individual states. Usually with some kind religious wrapper, yes, but that is all it is, a wrapper, a non required wrapper. An atheist judge can perform a legal marriage & nobody bats an eye. And as a legal contract, most of the contents can be granted to any two people... as long as they don't commit same sex together.
Divorce of the marriage participants is a totally legal procedure. Other than offering some counseling, religion has nothing to do with divorce.
We as a nation have more important things to attend to.... All things bu$h.

[Arkansas Granny]

1. Like you, I have never understood how same sex marriage

is a threat to heterosexual marriage. By extending this right to same sex couples, it in no way diminishes the rights of heterosexual couples. The only talking points I hear from those who oppose this are that it isn't traditional or that it defies biblical teachings. It sounds like the same arguments that used to be made by people who were opposed to interracial marriages. Maybe it just all comes down to fear and misunderstanding. Maybe, out or ignorance or fear, they think that by allowing same sex marriage it will encourage more people to "choose" to be gay or lesbian or that they will try to turn straight people gay. Other than that, I just don't know. With the divorce rate in our country being what it is, I would think that there are a lot more serious "threats" to traditional marriage than same sex marriage will ever be.

[Dunvegan]

2. I think it's got something to do with defending...

...Christmas. Or something. :sarcasm:

[Kindigger]

3. I think it has something to do with

being "special". Those who make it a major issue are the ones who have a life goal of having their picture in the local paper. "Mr. and Mrs. Geezer and Geezerette celebrate their 95th wedding anniversary." :sarcasm:

[ClassWarrior]

4. There's no "need." It's framing, using Orwellian language.

Read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff for details.

NGU.

[Vickers]

5. Gays and abortion are the WMDs against marriage!!!! I'm series!!!!!!!

:spank:

Seriously, a marriage is simply a legal agreement, no matter what people think, or how they want to pretty it up and romanticize it.

My marriage, which was conducted at a justice of the peace (in another country, no less!) is as binding as some church shindig, and furthermore my marriage contract is in about 8 languages so it can be understood by about 95% of the population of the Earth.

What next, gays can't incorporate? Sign a car loan? Serve on a jury?

I'm sure that's how some homophobes would like it, but it's that fucking stupid.

[unblock]

6. and how exactly is gays wanting to get married an "attack"??

[beam me up scottie]

7. but but but...

our gay "agenda" is causing us to lose elections!

How many times have we seen that on DU?:mad:

[no_hypocrisy]

8. I see this campaign of "defending marriage" more as an issue of compelled

conformity more than an attack on gays (but the latter remaining a secondary issue).

I believe that goal is to return this country to the social mores and restrictions of the 1950s with the conventional model being the husband/father going to work, the mother staying home and cleaning and taking care of the kids, the father being "head of the family" and the mother subverting her identity and autonomy to that of her husband, etc.

Conversely, gay marriage is far more democratic a model of marriage as there is no exact power division with dominant and servient. The roles of each partner is equivalent and flux. The powers that be in the fundamentalist christian tradition (and hence in DC) are scared to death of having this model of marriage and family as a prototype for heterosexual "straight" marriages.

A bonus advantage of a 1950s model means better control of the citizenry. The father is "head of the house". He represents ALL inhabitants under his roof. That means less people to manipulate and control for those in charge. Sort of like a gautleiter in every home, making the job of tyranny and dictatorship a little bit easier and streamlined. This model worked fine during the Third Reich.

That's why the integral change in society starts with a "defense of marriage" and continues until every one loses liberty and autonomy.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Gawd, Guns, Gays!

The GOP's unholy trinity which is the only weapon they have left in their arsenal to get the fundies to vote in locked step for Republican candidates.