While we're on the subject of "family" ...

Our topic for this month is family, and I just found out that today is "Write to Marry Day," where bloggers have been asked to come out in support of marriage equality and against California's Proposition 8. I'm compelled to do my part. Please join me, girls, if you feel similarly.

I have been blessed to know many families who just happen to be headed up by same-sex couples. They have the same hopes, dreams and aspirations for their families as I have for mine. They love their partners/spouses as I love mine, and find themselves going through the same sorts of joys, trials, tribulations and negotiations (where should we live/will one of us stay home with the children/how can we afford to ...) that my husband and I go through every day.

But there is a difference ... in the eyes of the state, my family is supported, and theirs is not. What's the big deal? Imagine if you wanted to stay home with your children, but that would mean loss of important health coverage for you and your biological children because your spouse's coverage could not legally be extended to you? Or that if you got sick, your spouse could be denied access to you in the hospital because the rules say only "family" is permitted into the ICU? Or what if you had to worry that if you died, you family who didn't approve of your choice of partner, could take your children away from your surviving spouse? Or that if your spouse died you could be denied much needed social security benefits for you and your children?

It's always the "Pro Family" groups that come out in droves against gay marriage, but I'm not sure how they see the results of their policies as anything close.

This is my belief: Marriage is and should be a RELIGIOUS union. As far as I'm concerned we should ALL have "civil unions" in the eyes of the State/Government -- and gay or straight we should all be guaranteed the same rights and granted the same benefits -- and it should be up to the individual religions as to whether or not they want to marry any couple.

And while I understand completely why social conservatives believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I DO NOT understand why they think corporate and public policy should have any say in a religious matter. Because it IS a religious matter. Many religions believes gay marriage is wrong. Mine does not. And if I am free to practice my religion in this country, then I should be free to _fully_ practice my religion, up to and including marrying a same sex partner and raising children, no?

While I, in general, have great respect for social conservatives, I have never-ever understood the push to ban same-sex marriage. And, believe me, I've asked. But for some reason, they have been unable or unwilling to engage me on the issue. Except for my Dad. And I was able to change his mind. (I wonder if he remembers).

Comments

[Ashley]

Amen, sister. I think you have expressed this perfectly. I am - and so, I am pleased to say, is my choice for president - in full agreement with the concept of civil unions for all and therefore equal rights for all. Simple case of separation of church and state in my mind. If a couple wants their union recognized by their own faith group, fine.

As a point of interest, when driving the several hundred miles to said father's house recently, I scanned the radio stations for good reception. I stumbled across a call-in show where this was the topic of conversation. Or the topic of vitriol actually. I forced myself to listen to try to gain some understanding into how "the other side" viewed this issue and was startled to hear the host describe that her concern was that "they" wouldn't stop with marriage but would want to change the Bible! Really. I finally did change the station when I realized that I was getting too hot to make safe driving decisions.

[Angela Wolff]

I'll only add that it would _have_ to be civil unions for ALL in order for it to be equal. We have seen that the "separate, but equal" status of Civil Unions in NJ is a promised that has not been lived up to. Too many "civil unioned" couples have been denied health care benefits under their partner's policies, etc.

[deborah]

Said with heart & smarts. Thank you for post!

[dave]

I think creating 2 types of marriage - one secular and one religious - makes sense.

The only part of your post that didn't ring true for me was your "respect for social conservatives." I can't go that far....many times their views seem to be guises for racism, sexism, elitism. Sara Palin is gonna be all over me for that comment, but hey - can anyone list a really conservative view they respect?

[Angela Wolff]

Re respect for social conservatives: I have many in my family whom I love dearly, but with whom I disagree wholeheartedly. It's not the positions I respect, but the people behind them that truly believe that they are doing the right thing.

There are definitely those in the crowd that are hypocrites, and who use conservative ideology to mask racism, sexism, elitism ... but you'll find those types in any crowd, right? Not just conservative ones.

[Laura Leone]

Very astute post, Angela, thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts on the subject.

I do have to agree with Dave, however. I can't see one conservative viewpoint worth defending.

While I agree that there are people holding all points-of-view/ideologies who remain narrow-minded and intolerant of others' ideas, to me, there's a very clear distinction these days between a conservative ideology - anti-gay, for the death penalty and gun rights (life is only for the unborn, apparently; once you're born and 'screw up,' to hell with you), anti-poor, anti-women (though admittedly, misogyny is alive and well in every ideology) - and a liberal one. The lack of compassion on the conservative side is astounding.

It's Reagan who really started all this - the way he raped and pillaged social and educational services in the late 80s - and the trend in the conservative world has only leaned more toward this way of thinking. The working class used to vote Democrat until Reagan got them to vote against themselves.

Liberals have their own problems, but at least they attempt to wrap their arms around people from more walks of life. Conservatives don't make that attempt, imo.

Democrats think the glass is half-full
Republicans think the glass is theirs

A platitude, yes, but imo, so on target.

I'm a woman, I'm Jewish, I'm gay. I know there are people who would line up to hate me. But I'm also extremely lucky to have supportive friends and family, my basic needs met, a warm place to live - I was just raised by my parents to know that we have an obligation to look after those who are less fortunate, who don't fit inside mainstream conventions. This is the salient idea, why I cannot understand a conservative ideology. Conservatives just don't give a shit about anyone who isn't them.

Now I'm just getting maudlin, please forgive me!

Unlike Angela, I haven't articulated anything well in this post, but like Ashley, I get so riled up that I am going to drive off the road - and I'm not even in a car.

Thanks for indulging me.

[Paula]

I agree with you, Angela -- I don't understand what possible threat "gay" marriage could pose to "straight" marriage or to "family" -- how? It's nonsensical. Other people being happy and caring for each other will somehow mean ...? Being given the ability to care for their families better somehow threatens me because ...? Huh?

I'm also scared by the idea of removing the separation between church and state, and what would happen if the religious right achieved what they (think they) want -- the ability to punish those who don't agree with them. Can anyone say "fascism"?

[Martha Ann]

What a great post! It just seems like common sense to me. Marriage is a legal agreement between two people, thus a civil contract. Equal protection under the law..let organized relgion take care of itself.