The following is my reply to:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=710705 from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
I don't want to come off in the wrong light. I'm trying to be courteous. If you can give me a comment or two I'd appreciate it.
Dear Ms. Gladney,
I read with great interest your article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. There are several issues, though, that I think need to be brought up.
First off, your statement, "defining marriage is not discrimination" is just a wee bit of the mark. You see, Ms. Gladney, they didn't just define marriage. They removed even a chance at protections for gay and lesbian couples by saying that even civil unions would not be legitimate. You know, in this case, we don't even have the options of separate but equal. We're second class citizens. We pay the same taxes as you, but we don't get the benefits of marriage that you have.
Secondly, you say, "There is no parallel between black equality and same-sex marriage. Confusing the issue with the civil rights movement trivializes the need for the1964 Civil Rights Act, designed to end racism. No other human being in the United States has ever been denied the right to vote, the right to ride at the front of the bus, the right to attend the same schools as everyone else or any of the other civil rights that were unjustly denied to blacks for generations. " Please, Ms. Gladney, tell that to gay children who get beaten at school because they are gay. Tell that to Matthew Shepard. Tell that to Maika Rich and Jocelyn O'Neal, both 14, who were ejected from a bus for kissing. (
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/06/12/6) It's true that being black is a lot easier to spot than being gay, but homosexuality carries its own stigma, so please don't think that blacks are the only ones who suffer. Civil rights for one should be civil rights for all. Dr. King said, " "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
You speak of "traditional marriage". Which tradition are we talking about? The following is taken from "Marriage Traditions in Various Times and Cultures".
Through the centuries, the concept of marriage has radically changed. In Biblical times, having more than one wife was common. During the nineteenth century, polygamy also was practiced by Mormons in the United States. Some Mormon sects continue to do so to this day. It is also practiced in some Islamic cultures. Polygamy has been observed in the Eskimos, the peoples of the Kalahari Desert, the Kaggirs, the Ashanti, the New Guineans, and the Australian aborigines.
Polyandry — more than one husband — was practiced in Central Asia, especially in Tibet, Sri Lanka, and southern India.
Although polygamous marriages are not encouraged or recognized in most modern societies, polygamous behaviour remains common. It survives through the use of mistresses and concubines, who are openly or secretly supported by wealthy males. In some cases the male may have a second family (or families with an unofficial wife (or wives), supporting her (or them) and his children. In some places the wife not only is aware of the husband’s mistress, but helps him to select one that is “suitable” to his station.
Monogamy is practised most often among those those social structures that are based on the Greco-Roman tradition and Christian religion. Many cultures, for social and economic reasons, usually limited marriage to one wife. Among those who practice monogyny are the pygmies of the Congo basin and those of Asia, the Adamanese islanders, the Aeta of the Philippines, the Kubu of Sumatra, the Semang of Malaya, and the Tuareg nomads of the Sahara Desert.
During second-century Rome, marriage contracts between two men of the same age were permitted.
The Catholic Church did not get involved in marriage ceremonies until the Middle Ages.
The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590.
England passed the Marriage Act, in 1753, which wrested control of marriage from individuals and the church, and created a legal entity. English marriages that did not not take place in the Church of England, or in a synagogue, were rendered invalid. A subsequent marriage act, in 1836, allowed marriage to be a civil action, entered into by mutual consent, which did not require a religious ceremony.
The American colonies provided a mixture of civil and religious marriage ceremonies. Common law marriages were allowed. In the nineteenth century, members of the Oneida Community, in New York, practiced “complex marriage.” Adult members of the community were married to all other adult members of the community, with the group regulating sexual contact.
Interracial marriages in the United States were prohibited in 12 states until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” For many years, prevailing attitudes of racism in the United States prompted many states to adopt laws that explicitly denied "Negroes" the right to marry whites. By 1940, a majority (31 out of 48) of states had banned interracial marriage (or "miscegenation") in some form.
***
So which "tradition" are we talking, Ms. Gladney? Or are we just going to pick one that we find convenient at the time? And, while it is true that the interracial question still revolves around a man and a woman, it was the same arguments. "This history, opponents of gay marriage say, shows that the Perez court usurped the democratic process, imposing a decision that most of the country, however unfairly, was not ready to embrace." Which means without the intervention of the courts we might still have marriage inequality for blacks and whites. So, you see, traditions aren't always what they're cracked up to be.
And, finally, let's talk about the rest of it. You got married in Jamaica, you said. Good for you. I hope that your marriage is a long and happy one. But what benefits do you get from your marriage that my partner and I will never know? He'll never get anything from my Social Security, which I will have paid in for over 40 years. That money becomes the governments. If he were from another country our love would not be enough to allow us to be together. There are dozens of benefits to being married that we will likely never know. Fair? Hardly.
Your closing, "
Same-sex marriage is not marriage at all. I'm sure many won't agree with my position. However, I stand behind the personal values that drive my opinion.
As lawsuits challenging whether or not the amendment is constitutional continue to surface, and multimillion-dollar campaigns are launched to dispute the issues, this debate is not over. Therefore, it is important to examine the issue carefully and remove emotions and fear of bigotry to make a decision based on personal values and morals.
I certainly have.
For that reason, I will be attending the event this summer to celebrate a distinctive union that does not violate the sanctity of traditional marriage."
A nice claim, Ms. Gladney. Sadly I believe you're still seeing the issue from the blinders of a straight person who can never know what it's like to be told that you cannot be with the one you love. Must be a nice perch you're sitting on, passing judgment on the rest of us. I just hope that you never have to explain to one of your children or family members why you think, at least in this case, that you're not voting on a persons civil rights, you're just protecting something you enjoy against the gays who want to enjoy it, too.
Really, Ms. Gladney, how do you think the civil rights movement would have been changed if people had just said it wasn't an issue of civil rights. It was just important that white people protect their traditions?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
