Today’s NJ Gay Marriage Vote Hurts Real People

William and Michael.  Sharon and Cheryl.  Chris and Chris.  Kevin and Bill.  John and Billy.  Ulysses and Gary.  Elaine and Lauren.

These are not pseudonyms or hypotheticals — they are actual gay and lesbian couples in my life, people I cherish, good Christians in long-term committed relationships, some of them for 30 years and more.  Today the New Jersey Senate spat on their relationships, and I am pissed.

The Web Goddess and I voted for different candidates, but on this issue we are united, standing proudly to the left of our President.  We’re confident that our marriage will not be damaged if our friends are allowed to marry as well.  The idea is so bizarre that I should not have to type those words, but there they are.

Same-sex marriage is a straightforward civil rights issue, and the only acceptable outcome is full marriage equality.  I believe I’ll see it in my lifetime.  But New Jersey took a step in the wrong direction today, and I weep for my friends.

.

13 thoughts on “Today’s NJ Gay Marriage Vote Hurts Real People

  1. It's a heartbreaking step backward, Kirk. But I applaud you for keeping up the fight. It's ludicrous that we live in a society that doesn't allow people to make choices that fit their lives.

  2. You are currently seeing full marriage equality. In order to discriminate against someone, you have to know the characteristic that causes the discrimination is there. In other words, if I wish to discriminate against you based on your race, religion, or gender, I have to know what your race, religion, or gender is.

    At no point in a marriage application process does one need to determine the sexual preference of the given couple. The law allows marriages under certain conditions. It does not allow (without regard to your sexual preference) marriage to minors, immediate relatives, people who are already married, or people of the same gender.

    This is the definition of equal treatment under the law. If I am straight and my twin brother is gay, the law allows us to marry all of the same people, and at the same time forbids us from marrying all of the same people. That is, by it's very definition, marriage equality. To spin this issue as some type of discrimination is incorrect, no matter where you stand on the issue.

  3. Thanks for commenting, trlrtrash13, but I think your legalistic argument ignores the fact that any successful marriage must involve suitable partners. For a gay man or lesbian, a person of the opposite sex is not a suitable choice for a lifetime partnership.

    • True, but based on that logic a suitable partner for a pedophile would be a child. For one who practices bestiality, it would be an animal. For a polygamist it would be multiple partners. Hence, we make laws to protect those who cannot consent and leave the rest to get in where they fit in. Nobody says one can't have multiple partners, we just say you can't marry all of them. Should we allow a brother and sister of consenting age to marry? How about mother and son? Most of us wish the best to gay couples, and I frankly could care less if they do marry. It is not right however, IMO, to call it inequality or discrimination, when all are treated equally under the law.

  4. trltrash13, in your strawman arguement, two of the three examples contain members who cannot consent, which, as you state, we have laws to protect. No one is saying the law needs to be changed to allow marriage between non-consenting people.

    Your first example contains another logical fallacy: you state that if you had a twin, you would be allowed to "marry the same people". That's not true. You, as the straight twin, can marry someone you love. Your twin cannot marry someone he loves.

    • Nice try, David. But not true. If the straight twin loves his sister, mother, or some other immediate blood relative he cannot marry her. That is the point. This is the argument, and it is unbreakable because it is a fact. The law treats both sides as equals because it is an equal law. You may not like the law, and that is fine. But to call it "unequal" or discrimination is absolutely ridiculous.

  5. thanks, David.

    trltrash13, by all means enjoy yourself with fanciful imaginings about a hypothetical bestiality-rights movement. I'm more concerned about the above-named real people in my life, none of whom asked to be born gay.

    • "by all means enjoy yourself with fanciful imaginings about a hypothetical bestiality-rights movement."

      Lol. Does that mean you have fanciful imaginings about gay sex, or was that just your way of saying you realize you're wrong, but prefer to remain that way, so you will attack me since my point is bullet proof?

  6. Kirk,
    Thanks for your post. It really is sad that in this day and age we still are so primitive in our ability to accept people – just People. Not, gay people, or straight people, or black people, just people. It was indeed a heart-felt post.

  7. Pingback: New Jersey Is “A Failed Experiment” | All That Is Necessary...

  8. Pingback: DADT: Some Days It’s Not Easy Being a Socially Liberal Republican | All That Is Necessary…

  9. Pingback: On Gay Marriage, NY vs. NJ, and the Maplewood Bubble | All That Is Necessary…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>