Gay Marriages

[Tyler Hewitt]

Thanks Barb for a well thought out response to Amanda
Geist's post. I read Amanda's post and found myself
getting really angry for the first time since this
discussion has started here. I decided to wait for a
day or two before firing off an angry response, and
and I'm glad I did. Barb's post mightnot be exactly
what I wanted to say, but it says it in a better way
than I would have.

Tyler


Barb Wrote:

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist"
<editor at t...> 
wrote:
>  What I don't like is two gay people who only
> want their marriage recognized so they can get tax
breaks filing 
> jointly, or to be able to "get" something. That sort
of thing came 
> into being to help ease the burden of raising
children, which most 
> gay couples aren't doing.

I'm a trifle confused by this.  Are you against
mixed-gender couples marrying to "get" something? 
This goes on all of the time, yet couples consisting
of a man and a woman can get married at the drop of a
hat with no problem.  I think that some mixed-gender
couples get married for absolutely APPALLING reasons,
but just because some same-gender couples may also get
married for what some people would consider to be the
'wrong' reasons, that's no reason to disallow
same-gender couples from marrying.  Equality is
equality.  Mixed-gender and same-gender couples should
have the same legal right to screw up their lives and
marry the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and the
same legal right to pay over-priced divorce lawyers 
to get out of it again. ;)

> Which is why they're well-dressed and speeding past
me in their 
> Hummers, while I trundle along in my low-end Saturn
with the 
> handprints and stickers all over the windows (DINK
envy, sorry; 
> and I know darn well it's not confined to gay
couples). The point 
> is, I hear way too much "we should get the same
stuff hetero 
> marriages get" without (in most cases) a
commensurate
> burden. If it's about *getting,* I think the intent
is misplaced.

Um, I have to say, I'm finding many of the stereotypes
in the above patently offensive.  It is a stereotype
that all gays are rich white males around the age of
42 with expensive cars and homes and no responsibility
to anyone but their show cats or dogs.  It is also a 
stereotype to say that all married people are couples
struggling to raise kids.  In fact, most married
people in this country do not have children (the
"burden" to which you seem to be referring).  Should
we forbid people to marry who cannot have children or
who do 
not plan to?  Should we forbid elderly couples who
meet in retirement homes to marry if they so choose?  

I know loads of gay couples raising kids for various
reasons (children from previous mixed-gender
marriages, children they had intentionally during the
same-gender partnership, adopted children, children of
relatives who died, etc.).  These couples with kids
can't even, in many states, be considered a family. 
Very few states allow second-parent adoption.  Only
one of the parents is legally recognized and the other
has no right to make medical decisions for the kids or
even to stand in at a parent-teacher conference at
school, and if the couple does break up, the parent
with no legal 
connections to the kids cannot even get visitation
rights, let alone fight to be the custodial parent,
even if he/she has been the primary caregiver.  And
while you might say, "Oh, well, those folks can get
married then," this "parenting" litmus test doesn't
exist for mixed-gender couples, so why should it exist
for same-gender couples?  Again, equality is equality.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com