Monday, June 05, 2006


Those who oppose gay marriage say that legal and sacerdotal recognition of the abiding love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman somehow degrades marriage between a man and a woman, and even threatens the social order.

I think love is outside and above the social order. If there is a higher law, love is that law.

I think denying gay people the sacrament of marriage degrades heterosexual marriage. I think that the refusal and the legal legitimization of the refusal to recognize the union between two people of the same sex degrades any claim we have to being a free society, and threatens the institutions that protect all our freedoms. There’s nothing "civil" about it.

I am married and my wife and I enjoy all the rights and benefits of any married couple. I have never thought that my marriage would be in any way diminished by the legal recognition of the union of two people who happen to be the same sex. In fact, I think all citizens having the right to legally consumate their intimate partnerships without regard to sex enhances the institution of marriage, strengthens the commonweal of our society, and promotes and protects families.

Banning gay marriage makes a mock of God’s love, and a mockery of the idea that we are all God’s children. It is an attempt to outlaw love. It is an attack on families that protect and nuture love in a dangerous world. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those who would deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." I say those who would deny family to others don't deserve it for themselves. Denying marriage and family rights to some is no defense of the freedoms we so proudly, and loudly, proclaim. People who propose such a ban should be ashamed.

You cannot outlaw love. As St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, love never fails. Love is greater than faith and outlasts hope. Love abides, as Paul says, when tongues and prophesies fail. Love will prevail.

In the meantime the senators will have their dog and pony show. The red meat is in the doggie dish for the God-loving fag and lesbo haters. I would be offended if I were them, to be appeased and used so transparently by guys who are otherwise busily engaged in rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.

Read Mr. Bush's diversionary hate speech on the "marriage protection" amendment here. See if it pisses you off as much as does me.


Blogger Karen M said...

I remember one of Moyers' interviews with Joseph Campbell, in which Campbell went so far as to say that in some culture(s) an illicit love, i.e., one that broke with conventions, was actually considered more holy. Just paraphrasing, so I may not have it exactly as he said it.

7:24 PM  
Blogger Thursday Next said...

I have always wondered how any love can be wrong. I just watched "Brokeback Mountain" last night and wept as my heart broke.

Karen, I think you're right about Joseph Campbell. I'm sure he wrote about that as well but I don't have my sources handy. (I can't be at SpecOps every second you know.)

8:35 PM  
Blogger Dr. Omed said...

Does the illicit/more holy equation encompass fornication and adultery? Passionate love always seems holy when one is in the grip of it. Some would consider unrequited love holiest, holier without thou than with thou--Love for Love's sake, adoration of the beloved one without expectation of being loved or even noticed in return--sorta like the love of God.

9:14 PM  
Blogger Thursday Next said...

At the height of chivalry, for a man to be in love with an unattainable woman was considered the most precious love of all.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Karen M said...

I'm pretty sure he meant to include adultery, but I'm not sure about homosexual love.

Still, adultery was just one envelope; homosexuality is another.

5:19 PM  
Blogger Michael Parker said...

Excellent commentary! You say: Abraham Lincoln said, "Those who would deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."


7:01 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home