Friday, November 14, 2008

In Defense of Gay Marriage

Yesterday, I read this article about Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater who resigned when it was discovered that he had donated $1,000 in support of Prop 8. It distressed me that someone so closely connected with theater--musical theater at that--would be so prejudice. It also shocked me that anyone in theater had $1,000 to give away.

I wondered about who else gave money to promote Prop 8 and I discovered a family, a Christian family had donated $30,000. Really? This is a Christan act? In these difficult economic times it is more important to prevent gay marriage than it is to help destitute families. A child may die of starvation but hey, at least Jim and Jack can't get married. I'm sure God has reserved a special place in heaven for this Christian family.

What irks me most is when someone, like Scott Eckern, insists he or she is not prejudice. Hmmm, denying a section of the population a right that everyone else has--what else would you call it? These people go on to say things like, "One of my best friends is gay," or "I've been to a gay club." As if this excuses their prejudice.

A friend of mine posted a video on Facebook of Keith Olbermann commenting on the passage of Prop 8. He so eloquently speaks to what I am so clumsily trying say, which is why do you care? Seriously, how does the marriage of two people going to affect your life? But he delves into it much deeper; I highly recommend it.

Bopping around the web, I found this blogpost by Amanda Marcotte about the reason that Christians are against gay marriage. The argument is based on a study reported in the New York Times Health blog that found that homosexual relationships are more egalitarian than heterosexual ones; they argue better and the chores are divided up more evenly. This equality could encourage heterosexual couples to become more egalitarian. Amanda Marcotte goes on to write that men in traditionally Christian relationships do not want their marriage to become more equal because "...the men...would suddenly be living a world where the dishes don't just do themselves and diapers aren't changed by magic."

I'm not sure I completely agree with her but it's a great read and as good an argument as any. I mean, if the "sanctity" of marriage has not been destroyed by the spouse abusers, or child abusers, or philanderers, or gold-diggers, I can't see how it will be ruined if Mary and Sue want to join together in wedlock.

Or, as one of my brothers put it (and with apologies to Brian), "Let 'em get married. Then they can be as miserable as the rest of us."

1 comment:

  1. My favorite part is that the citizens of California also passed legislation to ease the stress of farm animals and give them greater freedoms before becoming our next meal. A chicken (raised for slaughter) deserves more rights than a human? That seems a little backwards to me.