About the Author

author photo

Garry is a young black professional, Florida State and UNC Law grad, and attorney currently residing in Miami, FL.

Other posts by Garry

Sanctity Now, Insanity Later

July 24th, 2007 • Related • Filed Under

CNN recently reported a story about a man who must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnership. California allows same-sex partners to register under the legal status of “domestic partnership.” This is the closest approximation to marriage same-sex partners can muster in California, where a ban on same-sex marriage has been passed. But, even though his ex-wife entered the domestic partnership Ron Garber must pay the $1250.00 alimony.

With the purpose of alimony seemingly vitiated by the new partnership, the decision seems patently unfair.  However, in the words of the chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, Therese Stewart, the case highlights “the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme” for same-sex partners. And in truth, Garber was aware that his wife was cohabitating with another woman before he signed the agreement (that he also stipulated could not be modified). If, in turn, the law recognized the right of any adult, competent and consensual couple to marry, inane decisions of the kind could be avoided.

Want more? CNN also reports GOP Senator David Vitter’s recent admission of his “serious sin” in the DC Madam case (himself a married man and staunch conservative who disavowed same-sex unions during his 2004 campaign, boasting that he had co-authored and fought for the Federal Marriage Amendment). In the past he  vowed to protect ‘the sanctity of marriage,’ saying ’this is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. senators won’t do anything about it,’ he said in a statement on his campaign Web site. ‘We need a U.S. senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts values.’” Let’s all exclaim Mission (unquestionably) Accomplished as we add him to the list of family values champions like Ted Haggard, John McCain’s political strategists, Mark Foley, and those involved in the Catholic Church abuse scandal.

So what is being protected? The act of marriage is no more sacred than combing your hair. The sanctity derives from the honor, respect and dignity the participants cultivate and bring to the covenant. When lies and dishonesty corrupt marriage or the law works to bastardize it, we have to ask ourselves if we are really achieving ”our” goal? And divorce rates nothwithstanding, in all our efforts to exclude “others” from the right query if we are being rational and judicious (not to mention fair).

Viewing 12 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I'm not for gay marriage but this ruling is a serious injury for America's justice system. The WaPo's pro gay blog machine further twists the knife by stating that "social conservatives who fought for the strict definition can take some solace in the fact they've walked a mile in Dick Cheney's shoes." Ouch!
    • ^
    • v
    I pray this is successfully appealed. How can you choose not to allow gays to marry but then treat them as legitimate couples in another situation? Dude has no business paying alimony.

    Marriage is being made more unsanctified as the days go by ... but that doesn't mean that needs to continue.
    • ^
    • v
    It's funny, people use the Bible to say gambling is "wrong," but that's legal. Killing is "wrong" but we've found justifications for that. People also chew the bible for evidence that drinking is "wrong," but alas, adults can choose to do that, too. A MORAL objection is not enough. Interracial dating used to be illegal remember?
    What is the harm of homosexual relationships? Bustin' up YOUR definition of family? Having to see gay people kiss in public (I know! Ewww!! Love is gross!!)? Having to explain love and tolerance to your children instead of hate and prejudice (I know, takes more effort when you're out of practice). It's shocking to me how many kids are watching Desperate Housewives (adultery, alcoholism, murder, statutory rape), but the mention of a homosexual and people start vomiting on the floor. How about I work in dependency court and can promise you that most of the people in relationships having kids (married or not) that I see leave them in trashed apartments, have sex with and in front of them, make them eat off the floor and on and on. Sure, I know "opponents" aren't suggesting this is what they had in mind. But, most opponents haven't "proven" what a family is either.

    What are you (that is BRAVE "?" above) afraid of? I don't want to "turn" you. I don't want to go to your church. And, if you warn me I don't want to be at the same restaurant as you either. If I am on TV- change the station. If I work with you, ask for another desk or get another job. Or, talk to me. Ask me why this issue is so important to me? Ask me why i find it impossible to "change" or "switch?" Try to understand my struggle and maybe then you will get a sense of the hurt I endure. Maybe then you'll see a commonality in something you have been forced to feel less-than or insecure about. I am worthy of running your office, designing your wedding, providing the music for your ministry, managing your portfolio, educating your child, flying your plane and serving your food, yet I am still somehow unworthy of the same rights as you. Yeah, THAT makes sense.
    • ^
    • v
    I wouldn't expect it to make sense to you, GIB. You're talking "logical," I'm talking spiritual.
    • ^
    • v
    so let's talk spiritual. I feel comfortable then that you'd be ok if we stoned adulterers, amputated the hand of a thief, and had a slave or concubines. All that stuff is spiritual, too, right (at least in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament)?

    (Note: Jesus never mentions a man laying with a man as with a woman. And, I am sure you are already aware the WORD homosexuality doesn't appear in the Bible. He is, however, CLEAR in Matthew that anyone who marries someone who is divorced commits adultery. Translation: unless your "ex" dies or commits some sexual sin you cannot remarry without committing adultery).

    Also, SPIRITUALLY, the greatest sin is Blasphemy. So, I'll rest comfortably that you will be seeking the forfeiture of rights by all those who defame the name of God.

    That abomination talk is so convenient. But, somehow all the "other" rules don't apply. The very men and women championing anti-gay amendments are spiritual anorexics at best. Judgment, condemnation, injustice- these have NOTHING to do with the way, the truth or the light.

    Jesus didn't come so that the spiritually blameless, those without a criminal past, or the moral majority could have life. He came that ALL of us should have life and have it abundantly. With all due respect, which part of ALL is confusing? The A or the L's?

    It's fine for those who don't agree. My only wish is that we stop cloaking anything remotely less than love, and being loving, as Spirit. You are entitled to your moral indignation, but don't hide behind Jesus and the Bible. Come out and say, something about this doesn't work for me and maybe pray that you be shown how to be loving and forgiving anyway. THAT, not judgment, is the call.

    I hope this doesn't exist in a vacuum for you. Sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, mothers and fathers are gay. Maybe even some of yours. Be very careful to say that these people close to you in spirit and/or blood aren't deserving of the same rights as you.
    • ^
    • v
    GIB, I can't even talk faith with you, because (no pun intended) your spirit is wrong. Your anger and tone is seriously off-putting. You and yours would probably do much better getting allies if your approach was different. You couldn't even hear me if I DID speak ... which honestly is expected.

    All faith is free to interpretation, so of course for every "scripture" you bring up implying that Jesus was okay with homosexuality, I can bring up one justifying my beliefs. Irony is that you don't even know what I - or others - believe, so you're mouthing off ... in ignorance.

    But let's just leave it at this: You do you - faithwise, let me do me. I will believe what I believe and you, you. One day, we'll all understand it better by and by.
    • ^
    • v
    hmmm... every time i type i try to offer evidence and facts. every time you type i get vagueries and blanket statements of opposition. true i don't know what you believe, but few religions or spiritual (to use your word) practices other than Christianity have been used in arguments to condemn homosexuality so vigorously so i have to go with what i am given, which from you, on average, is very little.

    You don't "speak," at least not at length or with any amount substance yet prospectively accuse me of preventing you from speaking IF you did. YET you haven't. again, a convenient avoidance of discussion. You "can" bring up scripture in support of your interpretation, yet you don't, nor do you offer any reasoned response to mine.

    I am the one accused of ignorance and a deficient "spirit" (by the way are you talking about the "spirit" of my email, my own "spirit," or what? thanks for JUDGING it, though. remember that whole "judge not" scripture? is that on your list?)

    my tone, i admit, was bitter. and, i did ask a colleague if my comments are too conclusory and discussion-stifling, but since you offer no thoughtful rebuttal why should i question the merit of my arguments or argumentative style? i'm a lawyer. i'm trained to be persuasive, assertive and confident. i won't speculate about your training.

    i applaud your ability to summarily quash debate and use my tone and spirit as an excuse to skirt accountability for your narrow-minded bigotry- independent of any support. so to borrow from jay-z, get ya' independent a** up outta' here. question ?
    • ^
    • v
    It's unfortunate that you confirmed my previous post. I was kinda hoping I was wrong. But oh well. Nevertheless, be blessed.
    • ^
    • v
    the beautiful thing is we are living the blessing. So I will, and you continue
    • ^
    • v
    umm GIB and ? interesting convo.
    I just want to point out that the Bible does talk about homosexuality.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

    ...carry on y'all :)
    • ^
    • v
    oh and I also want to point out that in my opinion, I do not think we as humans should use the Bible as justification for 'ostracising' people. If Jesus did not throw stones at Mary Magdalene, why should we?
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you, ybpreader. I should clarify. That word was not placed into the Bible until sometime after the nineteenth century (and I emphasize "placed"). You will not find it in the King James and most early versions of the Bible. I am sure you can find it in many more Bibles now that it has been politicized. It is for this reason we are encouraged to read the Bible with a certain amount of caution and discernment. For instance, did you know there were places in the King James version of the Bible that translated the word woman as slave?
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus