The Gay Marriage Fight

What have gays been fighting for in the gay marriage issue?

An adult in the United States has the right to draw up a contract with another person regarding the use of his assets. In other words, an adult in the US has the right of contract. Thus, any two people can create a contract whereby their assets will be joined and they can be seen as a unit in their dealings with the world. That's what marriage in practical terms boils down to, isn't it? What's the problem?

The problem is, I think, that the gay marriage issue is a forced method of getting people to accept the existence of homosexuality and the right of a homosexual to be himself. The primary thrust, I think, of the gay marriage issue is OTHERS' acceptance.

Nowadays everything is political. If we can get other people to accept us, then we can accept ourselves. Now, this is a line of baloney that, if believed, will ruin your whole life. It is the reversal of cause and effect.

A secondary issue may be revenge. You notice that the gays who are interviewed after the announcement of legalized gay marriage always talk about love and this kind of thing. First of all lets get one thing straight: Homosexuality is not about love anymore than heterosexuality is about love. Since the partners of a gay marriage could have created a contract between themselves without the sanction of the state, to bring this issue up like it means something makes me think that they don't like all of that "non-love" that went before and that gay marriage will fix. Of course, it won't.

It doesn't make sense to me to take something so individual and so private as one's deeply personal values involved in romantic love and sexuality and blast it to the four winds of the public unless you want to use it for something other than what it is. And, this is why I cannot take political gays seriously on this matter.

How would I have handled this whole affair, so to speak? I would have made friends with straight people so that they can see that some gays, at least, are regular people. Secondly, I would have gotten married via contract. Thirdly, I would not give a damn if my marriage is widely accepted in the world since I have a right to take any action that does not infringe on another person, can have a religious or civil ceremony and celebration of it, and, above all, since the great gift of being gay is that one has to be an individual to enjoy his life.

This last is the real gift. Anything that sets one on a course of his uniqueness sets the stage for a really strong self-esteem, if he knows himself and what he wants from life. Many mainstream people do not get this opportunity. They suffer in the herd. A gay person or black person or any minority member who is not readily mainstream has the wonderful opportunity of showing us what a gift a unique human being can be. I say "Go for it" rather than pack yourself into some sub-herd seeking a safety that doesn't exist.

Viva la Individual and Viva la Individual Rights!
________________________________________

PS: After I published this, I heard the issue being discussed on a talk radio show - Neal Boortz, to be exact. One man called in and didn't want the word marriage attached to two men or two women creating a legal bond. I couldn't see that he had anything that identified his claim other than he holds marriage between a man and a woman as sacred and that calling a legal union of two men or two women defiles the way he holds it.

I can see his point although he didn't make his point. A man and a woman can create new life and it is this possibility that gives the union a sacredness beyond that of a gay relationship. New life is a wonder, a being of nothing but possibility.

On the other hand, two women cannot yet do this although they may be able to in the future, and two men will never be able to do it. This creates a different relationship to life than that of a heterosexual marriage.

The other point was a simple one. One of the gay partners goes to the hospital and he ends up needing an adult to make some decisions. When his partner shows up to do that, the hospital denies him that role since he is not family. Although this may have been able to be handled in advance, the presence of a gay union law would take care of these situations that one may have forgotten to itemize in a legal contract. Thus it is easier to carry out partnership roles that each of the partners would want carried out.

I stick to my main point and inside that ground of being for a valid gay partnership, I add the two above points. SCB