Marry a Committed Lover? No. Marry a Stranger? Yes.19 February, 2010
As I have said (written?) before, one of my best friends is gay. He envies the relationship I have with (((Wife))). He envies the fact that I can be married. Here in Pennsylvania, he cannot. Hell, we don’t even have a domestic partnership law — Pennsylvania has gone so far as to ban, by statute, gay marriage.
Two total strangers (as long as they are of opposite sex) can get married. An 80-year-old geezer can marry (in most states) a sixteen-year-old girl. A death row inmate can marry a girl he only met through the mail. Yet, in most states, gay and lesbian lovers, who may have long term, committed relationships, cannot marry. Why not? Religion.
The arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are absurd. It will damage the institution of marriage (how?). It violates god(s)’ law (we live in a secular country). It will lead to men marrying dogs, parrakeets, children (reductio ad Santorum fallacy). Gay marriage cannot produce children (should infertile couples divorce?). It is perverted (deny civil rights for an ewww factor?). And gay marriage is neither natural nor loving (like this (from Towelroad.com)):
Kitty Lambert and her longtime partner Cheryl attempted to apply for a marriage license yesterday in Buffalo, New York.
And were, of course, denied. New York State does not recognize gay marriage, nor does the state allow gay marriages to be performed. Almost all of the objections to gay marriage boil down to cherrypicking Leviticus but it is the state which refuses to allow a civil, secular, non-religious marriage.
Not to worry, though. As some religiobot asshats are fond of pointing out, everyone can get married as long as they are a man and a woman. And only a man and a woman. Which man and woman doesn’t matter. As long as one has a penis and the other has a vagina. And Kitty Lambert proved it:
“With news cameras rolling, Kitty then turned to the crowd and asked for any male who would be willing to get married to her. A gay man named Ed stepped forward and volunteered. They briefly exchanged information and presented the appropriate documents along with $40. City staff verified the information, and proceeded to give them a marriage license. Kitty’s point in approaching the City Clerk for a marriage license is that there is no religious basis for marriage, and it serves only as a legally binding contract in our society. Instead of being offered the ability to receive a license with her long-term partner, she was able to secure a license with a virtual stranger, strictly based on their gender.”
More details from YNN Buffalo:
Even though a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated by the New York State Senate in early December by a vote of 38 to 24, gay marriage advocates continue their fight to marry. In a symbolic measure, a same-sex couple applied for a marriage license at City Hall Wednesday. When they were denied, gay marriage advocate Kitty Lambert found a man she had never met and applied for a marriage license with him. She says she did it to prove a point.
“Our point is, for $40, I can come in and purchase a marriage license with a total stranger. But all these years with the same woman and I still can’t get a marriage license. What is the senate thinking?” asked Lambert.
Lambert says she will not actually actually marry the man. She wanted to show that committed gay couples are denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.
As I’ve said before, (((Wife))) and I got married with no Bible, Q’uran, Torah, priest, minister, imam, rabbi, or any other religious person or text, and we didn’t have to stand in a church, temple, mosque, or any other religious building to do it. Marriage, as (((wife))) and my marriage prove, marriage is a secular contract. Kitty Lambert showed the hypocrisy of our civil laws which are based on Bronze-age myths and superstitions. Every argument against expanding this basic human right to all consenting adults boils down to religious dogma and religious teachings. When will America, as a nation, grow up and recognize that (1) human rights apply to all humans and (2) we cannot use the tribal laws of some pre-modern goat herders to determine who is eligible for human rights?