![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I visited the Log Cabin Republicans site today, because I was curious about their position on Bush's recent support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. I was very happy to see that they condemn his actions on this matter as vehemently as most democrats do. There is something very encouraging about the fact that an issue such as gay marriage which is so capable of dividing our country can also unite us in a quite bipartisan manner. Encouraging too is the fact that people still remember that political parties are not defined solely by their stances on issues, but rather by the collective will of the people who make up the party. The Log Cabin Republicans are working from within to change their party's stance on the issue of gay marriage for the better, and I think that is truly an effort which deserves a tremendous amount of respect regardless of your particular political affiliation. Kudos to them, and my personal thanks. I know that it cannot be an easy route, given the homophobic positions of many prominent members of the republican party.
February 25th, 2004
This is a mirrored copy of a comment that I left at: http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/000858.html I wanted to share it here, as I found writing it helped me become clearer on certain elements of this issue that had previously eluded me.
-------------------------------------------
Posted by: Jarin at February 25, 2004 07:28 AM
To those who have stated here that they feel homosexual couples should be satisfied with civil unions and not push for an equal claim to the term marriage:
If semantics are not important, why is there so much opposition (including your own mild form of it) towards the term marriage being extended to include unions between those of the same gender as well as those of the opposite gender? Why is it so important that the word marriage maintain exactly the same meaning, and a different word be found to describe gay union?
Speaking for myself, as a gay man, I think a large part of the position we are taking on this matter comes down to the simple fact that for hundreds of years now there has been a different set of terms applied to gay union than to straight union. Terms codified into law, in many cases. What for straight individuals was lovemaking became sodomy when practiced by homosexual couples. What for straight couples was called romantic, for homosexuals was called perverse or deviant. The only reason to name homosexual union something different from the same act when performed by heterosexuals is to allow it to be framed in a different and less kind light. If there is truly meant to be no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil union, then why on earth would there be a need to make our legal system increasingly complex by using two separate terms and constructing two separate institutions with identical rights and privileges?
And, personally, I find it an insult to the love and commitment between two homosexual individuals who wish to marry to insist that we use a different term for our union, to distinguish ourselves from straight individuals who wish to do the same. It is a form of literal segregation through semantics, and is as distasteful as demanding that someone of another color or religion drink from a separate water fountain. Or, to return to the most popular analogy made in recent weeks, ride at the back of the bus.
-------------------------------------------
Posted by: Jarin at February 25, 2004 07:28 AM
To those who have stated here that they feel homosexual couples should be satisfied with civil unions and not push for an equal claim to the term marriage:
If semantics are not important, why is there so much opposition (including your own mild form of it) towards the term marriage being extended to include unions between those of the same gender as well as those of the opposite gender? Why is it so important that the word marriage maintain exactly the same meaning, and a different word be found to describe gay union?
Speaking for myself, as a gay man, I think a large part of the position we are taking on this matter comes down to the simple fact that for hundreds of years now there has been a different set of terms applied to gay union than to straight union. Terms codified into law, in many cases. What for straight individuals was lovemaking became sodomy when practiced by homosexual couples. What for straight couples was called romantic, for homosexuals was called perverse or deviant. The only reason to name homosexual union something different from the same act when performed by heterosexuals is to allow it to be framed in a different and less kind light. If there is truly meant to be no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil union, then why on earth would there be a need to make our legal system increasingly complex by using two separate terms and constructing two separate institutions with identical rights and privileges?
And, personally, I find it an insult to the love and commitment between two homosexual individuals who wish to marry to insist that we use a different term for our union, to distinguish ourselves from straight individuals who wish to do the same. It is a form of literal segregation through semantics, and is as distasteful as demanding that someone of another color or religion drink from a separate water fountain. Or, to return to the most popular analogy made in recent weeks, ride at the back of the bus.