This doesn't have much to do with learning to snakke dansk in Denmark.... but I want to use whatever platform I have to urge people from Washington state to approve marriage equality. **If you've seen the link before and notice it's different now... you're right - I'm a tech genius so I deleted it the first time.
WA United for Marriage website
So why gay marriage? (And lesbian marriage for that matter. Ok, it's partly convenience that leads to us shortening phrases like "LGBTQA rights" to "gay rights", but I'd argue it's also revealing which genders/identities get left out of that shortened account).
Maybe you think, like me, that the right to marry isn't the most pressing issue for LGBT rights and feel a bit odd about the incessant US focus on marriage, marriage, marriage. After all it's only how many thousands of couples in Washington who want to take advantage of this law? As opposed to all the other LGBT people who aren't in that point in their life or don't want to identify with the traditional institution of marriage. Fair point. But I'd still say the right of those couple thousand couples to enjoy equal access to our society's institutions is something extremely valuable and noble to fight for. I don't think that the nuclear family should be a pre-req to legal and social deservingness in our society. Frankly I think you deserve human rights whether or not you have 2.1 children and a golden retriever. And yet I also firmly believe that marriage equality is about even more than equal legal access to institutions that have a tangible impact on peoples' lives. The person who is 8, 13, 17, 23 years old and becoming aware that s/he loves 'differently' than others, than the people who are allowed to be proud of their love. That person is plainly going to struggle on some level with the idea that his/her love isn't something that society cares about or wants around. I firmly believe that we'll all be better off when every child can see from the get-go that s/he is valued and equal.
It's not that different. Here's a dream: what if little boys who like boys look up to their parents, whoever their parents may be, and think, "wow those are people that really love, respect, and complete each other." In other words, I want us to see the love, not genitalia.
What really gets to me is the hypocrisy of those who want to "get government out of our lives" but also see fit to regulate and legislate who can be in bed with whom. Now, I'm definitely more of socialist than most Americans. I want the government involved in my health care and education. I wish my government acted on the occasional statements of politicians who "care about the poor" and made social mobility and opportunity a reality through committed programs. But even I feel passionately that there are some places where we realllly just don't need - and must not have - government regulation. Like deciding who we love. For example. Sorry, Scalia, you just aren't wanted there. But apparently we do need the supreme court and state legislators in our bedrooms until we can all vote together for marriage equality. And then Scalia can skedaddle.
The beauty of this piece of legislation that we're voting on is that it doesn't limit anyone's rights. It gives rights to people. If you are straight and believe that your god doesn't want you to marry someone of the same gender or sex - that's your business. Some of the most compassionate and loving LGBT activists I have seen are religious leaders. Which makes sense to me... what was that about Jesus preaching love? Here's a personal favorite... watch it to the end:
Missouri Pastor Phil Snider
I love the resonate parallels between arguments forwarded against gay marriage equality and arguments once put forth against racial integration. There's always a danger in comparing contexts, and of course the struggles mean very different things for individuals' day-to-day realities.... but I think it's a helpful/stark way to frame the situation.
Electoral politics have been pretty supremely exclusively tiresome and repetitive lately... but there are things to smile about. Like President Obama's endorsement of Referendum 74, explained here by Washington State's Obama for America Press Secretary:
Some Scandinavian perspective, just cuz
If you know anything about Scandinavia you probably have an impression of openness, equality, acceptance of homosexuality.... and that impression isn't so far off. I don't want to romanticize it - but it's pretty cool over here. Homosexuality was decriminalized in Denmark in 1933. In 1989 Denmark became the first country in the world to legalize gay and lesbian registered partnerships with almost all the same rights as straight marriages. The key difference was that gay and lesbian couples didn't have the right to be married in the state church until this spring when parliament decided that since all Danes pay high taxes to support the state church, all Danes must have access to the church's functions. Though a small, small minority of Danes are actually religious, conducting major life ceremonies (baptisms, marriages, funerals) in the Lutheran church is an important aspect of cultural Danishness. I always have to remind myself of this when I see extremely traditional, church-based wedding announcements for super liberal, non-religious Danes. Hege would have us know that lesbian and gay weddings have been a legal right for five or six years now. Yep, Norway wins on that one ;)
Like I said, Scandinavia isn't perfect, and it would be a disservice to people here for me to pretend it is. It's still very difficult for gay male couples to have children because hardly anyone in Scandinavia gives their children up for adoption (since there isn't really poverty here), and most foreign country options make adoption extremely difficult - or impossible - for gay couples. As of 2006 lesbian couples have had the right to artificial insemination as part of their health care. On the ground level of course there is sexism and and homophobia - often in the form of straight white men who think that Denmark has had totally equal rights for 100 years and feminists should get over themselves.
In conclusion,thank you for reading. Please APPROVE Referendum 74 if you're fortunate to call the great state of Washington your home. Even if lesbian and gay marriage is not something you morally believe in I urge you to consider the ways in which a more inclusive Washington will be a stronger Washington and to remember that this is about giving rights, not taking them away from anyone.
Peace, love and respect for all,
Alice
Here are some of my favorite "marriage fact check" assertions and facts taken directly from Washington United for Marriage's Fact Check page:
WA United for Marriage website
So why gay marriage? (And lesbian marriage for that matter. Ok, it's partly convenience that leads to us shortening phrases like "LGBTQA rights" to "gay rights", but I'd argue it's also revealing which genders/identities get left out of that shortened account).
Maybe you think, like me, that the right to marry isn't the most pressing issue for LGBT rights and feel a bit odd about the incessant US focus on marriage, marriage, marriage. After all it's only how many thousands of couples in Washington who want to take advantage of this law? As opposed to all the other LGBT people who aren't in that point in their life or don't want to identify with the traditional institution of marriage. Fair point. But I'd still say the right of those couple thousand couples to enjoy equal access to our society's institutions is something extremely valuable and noble to fight for. I don't think that the nuclear family should be a pre-req to legal and social deservingness in our society. Frankly I think you deserve human rights whether or not you have 2.1 children and a golden retriever. And yet I also firmly believe that marriage equality is about even more than equal legal access to institutions that have a tangible impact on peoples' lives. The person who is 8, 13, 17, 23 years old and becoming aware that s/he loves 'differently' than others, than the people who are allowed to be proud of their love. That person is plainly going to struggle on some level with the idea that his/her love isn't something that society cares about or wants around. I firmly believe that we'll all be better off when every child can see from the get-go that s/he is valued and equal.
It's not that different. Here's a dream: what if little boys who like boys look up to their parents, whoever their parents may be, and think, "wow those are people that really love, respect, and complete each other." In other words, I want us to see the love, not genitalia.
What really gets to me is the hypocrisy of those who want to "get government out of our lives" but also see fit to regulate and legislate who can be in bed with whom. Now, I'm definitely more of socialist than most Americans. I want the government involved in my health care and education. I wish my government acted on the occasional statements of politicians who "care about the poor" and made social mobility and opportunity a reality through committed programs. But even I feel passionately that there are some places where we realllly just don't need - and must not have - government regulation. Like deciding who we love. For example. Sorry, Scalia, you just aren't wanted there. But apparently we do need the supreme court and state legislators in our bedrooms until we can all vote together for marriage equality. And then Scalia can skedaddle.
The beauty of this piece of legislation that we're voting on is that it doesn't limit anyone's rights. It gives rights to people. If you are straight and believe that your god doesn't want you to marry someone of the same gender or sex - that's your business. Some of the most compassionate and loving LGBT activists I have seen are religious leaders. Which makes sense to me... what was that about Jesus preaching love? Here's a personal favorite... watch it to the end:
Missouri Pastor Phil Snider
I love the resonate parallels between arguments forwarded against gay marriage equality and arguments once put forth against racial integration. There's always a danger in comparing contexts, and of course the struggles mean very different things for individuals' day-to-day realities.... but I think it's a helpful/stark way to frame the situation.
Electoral politics have been pretty supremely exclusively tiresome and repetitive lately... but there are things to smile about. Like President Obama's endorsement of Referendum 74, explained here by Washington State's Obama for America Press Secretary:
 |
Some Scandinavian perspective, just cuz
If you know anything about Scandinavia you probably have an impression of openness, equality, acceptance of homosexuality.... and that impression isn't so far off. I don't want to romanticize it - but it's pretty cool over here. Homosexuality was decriminalized in Denmark in 1933. In 1989 Denmark became the first country in the world to legalize gay and lesbian registered partnerships with almost all the same rights as straight marriages. The key difference was that gay and lesbian couples didn't have the right to be married in the state church until this spring when parliament decided that since all Danes pay high taxes to support the state church, all Danes must have access to the church's functions. Though a small, small minority of Danes are actually religious, conducting major life ceremonies (baptisms, marriages, funerals) in the Lutheran church is an important aspect of cultural Danishness. I always have to remind myself of this when I see extremely traditional, church-based wedding announcements for super liberal, non-religious Danes. Hege would have us know that lesbian and gay weddings have been a legal right for five or six years now. Yep, Norway wins on that one ;)
Like I said, Scandinavia isn't perfect, and it would be a disservice to people here for me to pretend it is. It's still very difficult for gay male couples to have children because hardly anyone in Scandinavia gives their children up for adoption (since there isn't really poverty here), and most foreign country options make adoption extremely difficult - or impossible - for gay couples. As of 2006 lesbian couples have had the right to artificial insemination as part of their health care. On the ground level of course there is sexism and and homophobia - often in the form of straight white men who think that Denmark has had totally equal rights for 100 years and feminists should get over themselves.
In conclusion,thank you for reading. Please APPROVE Referendum 74 if you're fortunate to call the great state of Washington your home. Even if lesbian and gay marriage is not something you morally believe in I urge you to consider the ways in which a more inclusive Washington will be a stronger Washington and to remember that this is about giving rights, not taking them away from anyone.
Peace, love and respect for all,
Alice
Here are some of my favorite "marriage fact check" assertions and facts taken directly from Washington United for Marriage's Fact Check page:
ASSERTION
NARRATOR: If gay marriage happens here, schools could teach that boys can marry boys.
FACT
The marriage equality law passed in Washington has nothing to do with curriculum taught in schools. The text of the legislation can be found here – it makes no mention of schools or curriculum.
ASSERTION
DAVID PARKER: After Massachusetts redefined marriage, local schools taught it to children in second grade, including the school our son attended.
FACT
In 2004, gay and lesbian couples were granted the freedom to marry in Massachusetts as a result of a state Supreme Court decision. This decision had no effect on educational standards or other instructions to schools.
State educational policy on families was established five years earlier, long before marriage was legalized for same-sex couples in the state. In 1999, Massachusetts developed a new Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework that read, “Students will gain knowledge about the significance of the family on individuals and society.”
As the US Court of Appeals First District summarized: “In January 2005, when Jacob Parker (‘Jacob’) was in kindergarten, he brought home a ‘Diversity Book Bag.’ This included a picture book, 'Who's in a Family?', which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, ‘Who's in a family?’: ‘The people who love you the most!’ The book says nothing about marriage.”
ASSERTION
We cannot stand by as activists conduct a social experiment that will be harmful to our children and grandchildren.
FACT
In 2010, sociologists Judith Stacey (New York University) and Tim Biblarz (University of Southern California) conducted a review of nearly every study on gay parenting. They found that “Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious… At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.”
Studies contending that children of same-sex parents fare worse than children of heterosexual couples have been widely criticized for employing faulty methodology.
The American Academy of Pediatrics “recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.”
The National Association of Social Workers sa
id, “Legislation legitimizing second-parent adoptions in same-sex households should be supported. Legislation seeking to restrict foster care and adoption by gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people should be vigorously opposed.”
ASSERTION
Marriage exists for the benefit of children.
Social science research and thousands of years of history show that children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.
FACT
In 2010, sociologists Judith Stacey (New York University) and Tim Biblarz (University of Southern California) conducted a review of nearly every study on gay parenting. They found that “Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious… At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.”
Studies contending children of same-sex parents fare worse than children of heterosexual couples have been widely criticized for employing faulty methodology.
The American Academy of Pediatrics “recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.”
The National Association of Social Workers said, “Legislation legitimizing second-parent adoptions in same-sex households should be supported. Legislation seeking to restrict foster care and adoption by gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people should be vigorously opposed.”
ASSERTION
Same-sex couples ALREADY enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married couples in Washington under the domestic partnerships, “Everything But Marriage,” law from 2009.
FACT
States that have passed civil unions have found that they’re fundamentally unequal and harmful. [See here, here, and here.] As the Supreme Court of Connecticut wrote in 2008 when it struck down a statute that prohibited same-sex marriage, civil unions and marriage “are by no means ‘equal.’”
ASSERTION
Same-sex couples are entitled to respect and to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all society.
FACT
R74 does not redefine marriage. It simply asks voters to affirm the bipartisan state law by approving the question, which would allow all loving couples to marry.
No comments:
Post a Comment