Oct 11 2008
Dan Savage’s Urge to Support Marriage Equality Rights
It’s long puzzled me that there are individuals out there that want to prevent the gay and lesbian community the joys of divorce, boring sex, and marital infidelity by enacting constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Why should the gay and lesbian community get all the benefits of being in a committed relationship without the legal entanglements? They should be punished by the law for making marital mistakes just like heterosexual couples.
This is why I am glad that famed sex advice giver, Dan Savage, is offering up a contest for those who donate to the cause to stop these constitutional amendments.
The six biggest Savage Love donors to either www.noonprop8.com or www.sayno2.com will see their letters in print, and everyone who makes a donation of at least $25 to either group-’send me your donation confirmation e-mail along with your question-’gets a personal reply from yours truly. The cutoff date for eligible letters is October 16.
Who else wants to give money so that gay and lesbians can be unhappy divorcees?
Related posts:
Oct 11, 2008 @ 20:59:45
>Who else wants to give money so that gay and lesbians can be unhappy divorcees?<
The only reason I didn’t give more is that I worry that if gays are allowed to marry, divorce lawyers will make even more money than they already do. And I am morally opposed to that.
Oct 11, 2008 @ 21:06:23
Now come on, this a Romance blog.
Oct 11, 2008 @ 21:44:15
Oh I adore Dan Savage. And I support everyone’s right to an unhappy marriage.
Oct 11, 2008 @ 22:18:08
Lori -
If you haven’t read his article about his mother’s death yet, you should. Not funny, like his columns, but tragic and beautiful.
Oct 11, 2008 @ 22:47:59
Mousie, thank you. It was gorgeous and heart-breaking.
Oct 12, 2008 @ 07:59:56
You’d think all the divorce lawyers in the US would be out marching for same sex marriage.
Oct 12, 2008 @ 13:15:06
It’s something I just can’t wrap my head around. Nobody is forcing any church to perform same sex marriages. Nobody is asking you to marry somebody of the same gender. If you are opposed to same sex marriage, don’t marry somebody of the same gender.
I work for John McCain in a small grass roots capacity. I swear to gawd I would vote Obama no matter how much it hurt if he would stop copping out and say “I’ll end don’t ask don’t tell and push for an amendment recognizing marriages between all loving couples.”
Oct 12, 2008 @ 15:32:26
Thank you for the links, Jane and Anonymousie.
Oct 12, 2008 @ 15:47:44
There is a great ad in opposition to CA Prop 8 that posits the basic logic of Chrissy’s first paragraph — hey, if you don’t like gay marriage yourself, don’t do it, but why deprive everyone else of what should be a *basic right to make a civil contract* (separation of church and state, anyone)? Even if I were against gay marriage (which I’m not), I would find the logic of that so much more persuasive than the ‘the schools are going to be indoctrinating your little kids with gay propaganda’ tack the pro Prop8 folks are circulating in their ads.
Oct 12, 2008 @ 15:55:15
Aside on his mom: I have PF. I’ve had the conversation with my husband already.
Took me by surprise. I wasn’t expecting to see myself when I clicked the link.
Oct 12, 2008 @ 23:24:44
The United States of America is not a theocracy. God doesn’t run this country. In theory, anyway, the people who live here run this country.
I’ve talked to my (gay) brother about this topic a lot lately. He and his husband have worn rings for almost a decade know, although the “ceremony” to exchange them was only personal. They’ve covered as many legal bases as they can by completing living wills, and regular wills, and powers of attorney giving each other the right to make decisions about each other and their belongings.
But it’s utterly ridiculous that they have to go through all this extra stuff that most Americans don’t consider until they’re much older. And there’s still that remote possibility that some loophole could be missed and they’d be overridden (if any of my relatives or his relatives felt so inclined, which to be fair, I don’t expect).
If Americans have a “moral” issue with same-sex marriage, then I say we need a renaming of the ceremony as it is performed in civil situations. If “marriage” is a moral imperative between one man and one woman, fine. So the ceremony performed by religious institutions can be called “marriages”. Those institutions can limit or define it however they like. They have that right. Separation of church and state also means that states should keep their noses out of religious matters.
But then the joining ceremony enacted by the civil authorities needs to have a different name and can be defined outside of “moral” (religious) expectations. The legal definition of this “union” (civil union, if you wish) would be for ALL Americans who wish to commit to one another and join their households legally and financially. Male-and-female, male-and-male, female-and-female – all alike. Equally recognized.
So go to the state for a civil union. And, if it is important to you, go to your religion of choice for your marriage. But that civil union should assign the same benefits and responsibilities to each couple, regardless of the sex of the chosen spouse.
In a country where many of the younger people I know are deciding against marriage and are “just” living together, I would expect them to be as interested in this outcome as the GLBT community. I’m old enough that I fear for my younger single (female) friends, because I worry they aren’t being legally protected in those cohabitation relationships.
I’d like to see this issue dealt with for ALL cohabbing couples, whether they choose to go further and “get married” or not.
Oct 13, 2008 @ 00:01:14
Wow, Chrissy, I’m so sorry.
What’s so ironic to me is that so much of the resistance to gay *civil* marriage is *religious* in nature, and yet as it stands in most states, gay couples can have a *religious* commitment ceremony but not a *civil marriage ceremony. Part of the problem is clearly that for those who are not judges some form of religious ordination is necessary to perform a wedding, conflating the religious and civil aspects of the civil contract of marriage. But the irony is still pretty thick.
Oct 13, 2008 @ 10:16:27
Thanks Jane, for the link to Dan Savage. I live in Ca. and everytime I see a Yes on 8 “Protect Families” sign I want to steal it and throw it in the recycle bin. I just don’t get it. I sincerly hope that it does not pass and encourage everyone I know to vote “No”.
Oct 13, 2008 @ 11:44:31
I quoted this column in a pm to my husband, he asked “who wrote that?” and I responded “the world’s most cynical romance reviewer!”
Oct 14, 2008 @ 13:13:17
Jane, your use of satire on this subject is wonderful; wit prevents the appearance of preaching.
After reading that same sex marriage is allowed in only 3 US states, I wonder about true freedom. Should it not be a right for all to attain marital status and thus the security of health insurance, SS benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid and hospital visitation? There are the additional financial issues of non-spousal estate tax, assumable retirement savings and pensions, maternity leave and family bereavement to be considered.
Miki, eleven U.S. states recognize common law partnerships with the same legality as marriage. It may interest you to know that domestic partnerships of both the same (2005 same-sex marriage became legal) and opposite sex are recognized in Canada, with varying provincial laws.