Sunday, November 16, 2008
Dearly Beloved are you listening?
Yesterday afternoon, Lovely and I were honored to witness a friend of ours get married in the French Quarter. It was a fine ceremony, and afterwards we had fun drinking cocktails, eating oysters Rockefeller and remembering when we got hitched in the French Quarter eight years earlier. While we sat on a balcony, surveying the River and the neighborhood, I decided to kick the occasion into high gear by quoting the Bard and the Bible. Do I know how to party, or what? (It had been a tough week for Lovely and I, and we were finally having a chance to relax.)
"All these woes shall serve for sweet discourses in our time to come."
-- William Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet
"For I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed [in] us."
-- Paul of Tarsus' letter to the Romans, 8:18
Then I looked down and saw a long, long line of people marching down Decatur,
making an impact. I waved to them in support.
An old woman came over from the reception hall and said, "I can't read the signs, what are they saying?"
"They're saying they want to get married, too," I replied.
"
Who are they?" yelled the old woman's friend standing by the door.
"The gays," the old woman yelled back.
===
Can you imagine how bad the
California fires would be if Prop 8
didn't pass? We'd have to immediately start
torturing the gay away (again), in order to avoid a fiery apocalypse. Right?
===
On the drive home Lovely and I listened to
Franz Ferdinand:
Walk among us
Never judge us
Yeah we're all blessed
...
Walk among us
Oh if you judge us
We're all damned.
===
Update: Jeffrey took some pictures of the march.
Update #2: Gentilly Girl wants to know why she can't marry someone she loves.
===
* Title reference:
Jesus of Suburbia by Green Day
And there's nothing wrong with me
This is how I'm supposed to be
In a land of make believe
That don't believe in me
...
To live and not to breathe
Is to die in tragedy
To run, to run away
To find what you believe
And I leave behind
This hurricane of f*cking lies
I lost my faith to this
Labels: gays, Les Bon Temps, Lovely, music, oyster
11 Comments:
Beautiful post, Oyster. You made me cry.
There is no good reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to marry as they choose. It's a simple civil contract--blessed or sanctioned or recognized or not by clerics has nothing to do with government's responsibility to treat all equally.
The only arguments preventing it are founded on ignorance and dominionism.
Peace,
Tim
I feel as if I should throw my 2 cent$ in here, for no other reason than because I can...
(What a country, in my best Yakov Smirnoff voice)
I think the main problem that involves the right and the left in gay marriage is that Government (state, federal, local, etc) parroted a religious term of deep significant to those who subscribe to religion and ascribed it significant legal meanings and definitions.
Marriage had been around for thousands of years, and it was mostly a religious ritual, performed in a house of worship, (or if nothing else) performed by a leader or elder of the particular faith of the couple intending to unite in matrimony.
I have no problems with homosexuals who wish to marry in a legal sense, for issues of legal reason, or even in the public eye as a sign of dedication and love for one another.
The problem is...Marriage is-as I said before-a deeply religious and meaningful experience for many folks whose religion also calls out, castigates, and ostracizes the act and lifestyles that define homosexuality.
I think its a case of the government borrowing a religious term, ascribing it legalistic and deep societal meaning in our society, outside of religious meaning, and now folks want to access that aspect of it. Folks who are also married but believe it as much-or moreso-a religious commitment, and not just one recognized by the state so a husband, wife, or child can get health insurance, are offended based on the same religion they committed to a marriage within.
I think if the government ceased using the term married, and used a less hot-button term like civil union or legally recognized relationship, or (insert catchy politically correct definition here), then folks on the right would back off.
The problem I think is that folks on the left-mainly, those who are fighting for gay marriage-would probably no be interested in getting "civilly unionized", or "legally recognized" as having mated for life...
I personally have no problems with gay folks of any persuasion from being recognized by the state as having the same status as folks that are legally married in a heterosexual relationship. I just have a problem with government defining that heterosexual relationship as marriage. It's a problem of semantics, I know, but I think that's where this problem essentially bubbles up from...
Was there a second line in front of Jax Brewery after this wedding?
Yes, probably so.
Sorry, just a coincidence as I too was at a wedding by the river eating oysters rockefeller (and drinking bloody mary's) on Sat. afternoon. I missed the march, but not the second line...
jaba
go,
And which religion owns the term "marriage"? You make it sound like there are two camps here: the deeply religious and the rest of the world. Well I can tell you there's plenty of diagreement within the "deeply religious" community as to what is right regarding marriage.
Peace,
Tim
You make it sound like the rest of the world really finds the issue of gay marriage to be of singular importance to our collective existence...
I'm guessing they don't.
Tim, let's be honest...There are plenty of "deeply religious" people who file for divorce every single day. Hell, Henry the VIII started his own religion, just so he could...
What I meant with my comment is that this is an issue that basically tracks itself back to the "law of unintended consequences". As society and mores evolve, our government's way of doing things has in some respects.
In this respect, it has not.
Once again, my closing thought here is what's catching you up, just as it catches many people up...
If you'd ask anyone on either side, there's no inherent problem with free will & personal choice when it comes to an individual's "pursuit of happiness". The problem comes when you attach a word to it...Semantics, in other words...
Who cares what you "term" your commitment as? I know many men who abhor the thought of "marrying" someone, but have living trusts with teeth the size of a T-Rex to protect their "common law" wives out of love and concern. That they refuse to attach the term marriage, or the legally binding aspects of the term that society has attached to the act of marrying someone, does that mean their bond and love is less than mine with my girlfriend? Or yours? Or any married person?
Of course not...It's all semantics...That single WORD is what creates the problem...For both sides...
Society has taken a word that was used for a lot longer than any of us have been around and attached it legal and societal importance.
It always had religious importance to those who were married, long before the preachers had to say, "by the power vested in me by the state of (insert your state here)," before pronouncing folks man & wife...
Government attached additional meaning to it...I think that's where folks line up on either side...Some folks-the religious right and other more moderate, yet still conservative folks-are not saying you can't get benefits or walk into a court and claim spousal abuse if something happens between you & your significant other. They're wanting to protect what they feel is a more intangible meaning of the term that Government's using for more tangible reasons...
That's not their fault...It's the fault of government...
At least in my view...
go,
Are you suggesting that if government drops the word "marriage" this whole issue goes away? I'm afraid you're wrong. The boiler plate language used by many state referenda explicitly bans same-gender legal arrangements under any name or form. The people supporting these laws are of the opinion that homosexuality is WRONG and SINFUL. They say it's defense of marriage, but it's really about dominionism.
Peace,
Tim
Whatever you call the joining, marriage, civil partnerships, or whatever, treat everyone equally under the law. Separate but equal is never equal. Whether the joining is deeply religious or not has nothing to do with equality before the law.
The Christian church was not involved in marriage until around the fifth or sixth century if its existence. The churches can choose to officiate at any wedding or not. Equality before the law will not force clergy to officiate at marriages.
Merci, Grandmère. You are absolutely correct.
Peace,
Tim
