This is a subject I find to be of great importance – partly because I’m gay, yes; but mostly because I believe in the sanctity of human rights (not gay rights; human rights). And before you get all up in my face saying, “Well, DUH! Of course you believe in gay marriage because you’re GAY,” I’d just like to say that’s not entirely the case. There are actually a large number of gays who don’t believe in marriage, who aren’t fighting for it, and who couldn’t possibly care less about it. Thankfully, those numbers are decreasing as the years go by. And to say that every gay (in which I’m categorizing the entire LGBTQ society) is for gay marriage and gay rights would be akin to saying that every Caucasian fights for white supremacy; or that every Republican believes gay sex is identical to polygamy, incest, and man-on-dog sex (oh, wait – that’s only Rick Santorum).
This blog comes on the heels of New Jersey’s State Senate passing the bill legalizing gay marriage, and Governor Chris Christie vowing to veto it immediately, believing that this issue should be voted on by the public.
But before I continue, I just have to point out a few things. The idea of “gay marriage” has nothing to do about two consenting adults of the same gender legally having sex. It has nothing to do with being able to file federal income taxes jointly. It’s about watching the one you love the most in a hospital emergency room and being refused access to them. It’s about having the rights to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of the one you love. It’s about having the right to legally be with that one person who is your entire life. I’m reminded of an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer back in January (here) which precisely told the issues of the difference between the legal terms “marriage” and “civil union” of which most people are unaware (see the Weiss/Grant part of the story toward the end).
So Gov. Christie intends for gay New Jersians (Jerseyites?) to allow their fates to be voted on by the public through a referendum?
Perhaps New Jersey should also vote on a referendum on all heterosexual marriages; or maybe just Christi’s. Who knows? Maybe the wider New Jersey public doesn’t approve of his overweight lifestyle and could settle that issue with a referendum.
State politicians are (at least on paper) put into office to be the voice of their constituents. The people elect them to speak for them, knowing they have the best interests of their majority at heart (again, at least in theory). The Senate passed it with a vote of 42 for, and 33 against; so it wasn’t a vote that was so close no one could tell the true majority. Yet Christie seems to feel that these legislators know nothing of the people.
Perhaps they don’t. But then again, perhaps Christie is out of touch, as well.
simul adoratur 
Feb 18, 2012 @ 09:46:47
The sad thing is, I doubt that Christie is personally, ideologically opposed to marriage equality or that he is a fundamentally bigoted guy. Rather, my reading of him is that he maintains ambitions for higher office and is selling himself out to the right wing bigots of his party, whose opposition he reckons would be injurious, if not fatal, to a future campaign for – say – the Republican presidential nomination. He instead could have allowed marriage equality to become law in NJ without his signature. Rather, he seeks to abdicate responsibility by pretending to be neutral and encouraging a referendum on equality (with a civil unions ombudsman thrown in as an attempted consolation prize). He’s just your usual hypocritical, sell-out Republican politician who follows rather than lead — albeit fatter.
Feb 18, 2012 @ 20:52:08
Out of touch indeed! Nearly every person who acknowledges an aversion to homosexuality does so on the basis of what he or she believes the Bible has to say. In their mind, there is no doubt whatsoever about what the Bible says and what the Bible means. Their general argument goes something like this: Homosexuality is an abomination and the homosexual is a sinner. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture we too must condemn homosexuality. One would have to be living under a rock to be unaware that this premise is being widely debated among evangelicals today and seriously challenged by biblical scholars, theologians and religious leaders everywhere.
It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview. In light of your post above and since I speak and write on this topic, I thought you might find this blog of particular interest (link below). Feel free to surf the “Archives” page as well. If you like, tell me what you think.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Feb 18, 2012 @ 21:11:20
Mr. Halken,
I am a Christian, and adhere to Christian teachings. In all my years of study, I have never found a single writ in the Gospels where Christ has condemned homosexuality. If you know of such writings (canonically) please do cite them. The only writings condemning homosexuality are in the Old Testament (old Jewish law) and the writings of Paul (who, if you translate the original, refers to married men who use the services of temple boys, which is actually a sin against free will, and not against a love between two men). And again, I say: I am a Christian, not a Paulian.
God never proclaimed that (eros) love can only exist between a man and a woman. That is man’s law, and only recent. Man has no authority to decide who can love whom.
Feb 18, 2012 @ 21:21:03
Dear Curious:
It would appear you have jumped to conclusions too quickly. If you see my blog (link below), you’ll discover to your surprise and perhaps delight that you are preaching to the choir!
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Feb 18, 2012 @ 21:32:56
My apologies Mr. Haiken! I shall peruse your blog.
Mar 09, 2012 @ 09:04:54
What is a blog subject that you would find interesting to read about?