"I have had my fill of all the self-righteous, "The sky is falling!" hysterics going on about the need for a "Defense of Marriage" Act. The very name is misleading, and frankly, insulting.
No one's marriage needs to be "defended" against same-sex couples who wish to enter into a legal contract known as marriage, because they're not attacking anything! How can two men or women across town who want to be life-partners pose a threat to the love and commitment my husband and I share? They don't. What happens in someone else's marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with mine, or yours!
A marriage is only as holy, honorable and sacred as the couple who enters into it, and we heterosexuals aren't exactly setting a great example on that score. For centuries, marriage was a contract in which the man owned the woman, and was free to do with her as he liked. There are still places in the world today where a man can kill his wife if she "dishonors" him by doing something awful like being raped.
Today in America, we're more progressive. Here people marry 5 and 6 times, taking it no more seriously than a seasonal fashion, and make "sacred vows" that they have no intention of keeping. Married couples lie, cheat and beat their spouses. And just when you thought marriage couldn't get any more trivialized, we've turned it into a game show where people get married to win a prize, or as the result of a telephone poll! Talk about degrading the institution! Yet the churches and conservative foam-at-the-mouth-ers are pretty quiet on that front.
It seems clear, then, that what motivates the DOMA advocates to get on their soap boxes is personal moral and religious prejudices. Certainly a church has the right to refuse to perform a marriage between two people of the same sex, just as they can refuse to marry people of different religions or different races. They do not have the right to force their prejudices into the everyday lives and laws of people who do not believe as they do. People can believe as they wish, but may not make decisions for anyone but themselves on what is a family, or what is a religion- or what is a marriage.
When blacks and whites were allowed to marry, people howled that it was the end of civilization as we knew it. When women were allowed in the clergy there was the same wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet humanity carries on. It may be that our society is not yet ready to grant all members that most basic of human values: the right to love. But I remind people that they should look in their own backyard before they complain about their neighbor's lawn.
As for those who self-agrandizingly oppose homosexual unions, I just wish they would have the good grace to tell the truth. Call your stupid law the "God Loves us Better" Act or the "At Least I'm not one of Them" Act. Don't try to pretend that you are defending my marriage. That kind of help I can do without."
On the civil issue: Jim and Tammie Baker are divorced. I don't know how many others of them are divorced, but I know they are. Who defended their marriage??? Jimmy Swaggart didn't get divorced. His wife did defend their marriage. But then it wasn't threatened by a dirty old homosexual. It was threatened by a good old fashioned call girl - a whore - floosy. I don't want to call her cheap. I don't know what he paid for her.
On the religious issue: People continue to tell me what the Bible says. Now don't get me wrong. I think the Bible is a good book. But God didn't write the Bible - men did. Men inspired by God, but men, in all of their fallibility none the less. But the marriage vows say "What God has joined together, let no man put assunder". In a civil union, one could argue that God didn't join them together. But lot's of people get divorced, including ministers. Some were joined in civil ceremonies, others in religious. Either way, no one defends their marriage. They even show Divorce Court on television. Who amongst those who argue for the DOMA are making the arguement that divorce should be illegal? That would be defending marrige. And for those married in church - and then divorced, man IS putting assunder what God has joined together. Living in Alabama where Judge Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments judge, just got kicked out on his ass, I have pointed out to people that, while our laws may be based on Christian values, they are civil laws. And when someone commits adultery, they get Divorced, not STONED. The religious nuts need to worry about their own sins and stop worrying so much about this kind of nonsense. I believe that what God wants out of people who share an intimate relationship, is for there to be a commitment - that it not be driven only by hormones. ANY two people can make a commitment, whether they are the same or different sexes. I don't remember reading ANYWHERE in the Bible where Jesus says that homosexuality is sinful. I know it says it in the Bible, but it was said by the Apostles, NOT by Jesus. HE never taught that. And, once again, man is driven by his own prejudices. We are, all of us, prejudiced. It is our task in life to rise above our prejudices and not be driven by them. When they drive us, we become bigots, and I think bigotry is unforgiveable. Now, back to the issue of two intimates sharing a commitment. If two homosexuals are intimate, but have decided to share a commitment to each other, I think that they are less sinful than two heterosexuals who are intimate but do not share a commitment. For example, divorce (Jim Baker), extra marital sex (Jimmy Swaggart, Jesse Jackson) pre-marital sex (almost everyone else I know, including me) (and, yes, I have known myself) would represent putting our worldly pleasures ahead of our spiritual well being. So the religious arguement starts to fall apart. Even the Catholic Church, which refuses to recognize divorce because that is man putting assunder, grants annulments. That's Catholic divorce.
If people are so upset by calling it marriage, then they can divine a new term for it. I don't care. But I think that, if the law is going to recognize two peoples right to commit to each other, it must recognize everyone's right to make such a commitment. They can call it whatever they want as long as it carries the same legal commitment and the same legal rights. To do less is to have UNequal legal protections. And our Constitution expressly forbids that. That is a fundamental legal principle.
By the way, many of those in Congress who signed onto the "Defense of Marriage Act" have been divorced. Some have had extra marital affairs. And if you remember a few years back, they discovered that some of these Congressmen, in this case, only the men, were having sex with their interns. Intern is another word for under-age child. Morality is a very sharp sword. People should be careful they don't cut themselves on it. I attached an Editorial [re:Pat Robertson]... This is the reason that I am praying on my own a lot more lately. I don't want any part of people like this. The Reverend Pat Robertson (he supports DOMA) is trying to pray people to death. How Godlike!!!"
