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

Obama: SayNo2

June 12th, 2008 • Related • Filed Under

Florida, California, Indiana, and Arizona have gay marriage ban amendments on their ballots this year. Senator, and presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama told Florida Red and Blue (organization spearheading opposition to the amendment in Florida) that he opposes the amendment.

Tolerated, Not Accepted.
Creative Commons License credit: Craig Axxie
Ignorance = Tolerated, Not Accepted

Though backers contend that the amendment does not affect domestic partner benefits (extended to partners both gay and straight, young and old by companies like I.B.M. and 86% of the Fortune 500), a ruling in Michigan last month makes clear that these divisive and unnecessary amendments can have far reaching effects. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the language of the amendment prohibits public employers such as universities and cities from extending benefits to domestic partners. It would limit the rights of unmarried, committed adults involved in domestic partnerships, and eliminate their ability to share health care and pension benefits (read here). This affects seniors seeking the tax benefits of not being married but living together, University employees and any one else who should be able to make these decisions for themselves.

So, if you are in one of these pivotal states, or just care in general, please inform yourself and anyone else not interested in protecting bigotry. The Defense of Marriage Act and multiple laws on most States’ books already prevent gay marriage. Perhaps the time, money and effort could be better spent.

In the meantime, check out these 6 reasons to Say No 2.

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I really don't get the drastic opposition to gay marriage and civil union.

    Even if I was to believe the argument about the interpretation of 'what the Bible says', since when does American policy become an edict of all Christian values?

    I mean, the this country was founded out of religious difference from the England and its patriarchy. To say that we have to sign into LAW things that people may have issue with religiously is completely contradictory.

    Am I missing something?
    • ^
    • v
    As a lesbian, I get it. Completely.

    FEAR

    It's another facet of the wedge used to divide us by race, class and now sexuality.

    When my brother got married, I RSVP'd for 2 because I planned to bring my male friend Tripp who was also my brother's friend (I was single at the time). My mother heard that I'd RSVP'd for 2 but assumed that I was bringing a woman.

    When she called, I didn't correct her.

    So she got to let me know everything she was afraid of; mostly she feared I would be overtly and inappropriately sexual (isn't that a stereotype of black men?) with my partner in front of everyone at the wedding and reception. And because I was bringing someone she knew, I could hear her out without getting defensive.

    Politicians and organization use these naive perceptions to create fear among the citizens, the same way Hillary Clinton incited fear when she used Barack Obama's full name or said, "He's not Muslim. As far as I know."

    I'm not saying that my experience as a white lesbian is the same as yours as an African American. I am, however, saying that we have a few things in common including a common enemy: fear.
    • ^
    • v
    @Jeanne

    Thanks for your comment. I understand where you are coming from. This 'fear' thing, I guess, is built into our genes and reiterated through our daily interactions. We don't know our neighbors, we don't want to immunize our children, we shouldn't spend any money or pursue our dreams....

    Sheep, I tell you. Sheep.
    • ^
    • v
    sheep, indeed. and, i will say i completely respect the Church's prerogative not to recognize any marriage it doesn't agree with. the government is a totally different matter.

    it is absolutely fear, jeanne. it's not a democrat thing, it's not a republican thing. it's fear. it's thinking gays try to convert children, it's over-sexualizing their behaviors. it's not understanding the difference between physical acts and emotional predispositions. as with most things, it's a lack of knowledge and compassion.

    if someone doesn't agree with gay marriage, they should not have one. otherwise, everyone should be able to decide whose on their insurance, who can visit them in the hospital, who gets their stuff when they die, who can claim who on their taxes, and what other consenting adult they want to spend a lot of time with.
    • ^
    • v
    Let me jump in. It's not fear, it's morals and moral standards. Yes the country has them, yes they should continue to be upheld. Call it whatever you want to but the country isn't obligated morally to uphold alternative or abhorent lifestyles (civil unions or gay marriages). They are the same to me. It's for these reasons that although he is my candidate, Obama is wrong on these points and I will fight him on them as he brings them up. No, it's not about "rights", it's about "what is right".

    Yes the spiritual and political traditions of the country compliment each other. The law of the land was developed from the spiritual principles and traditions of the founding citizens. Doesn't matter that they were individually personally imperfect in applying them in their own lives (slavery, racism other obvious flaws). What matters is that the principles are upheld.

    There are standards of proper family structure that have stood the test of time. Civil unions and gay marriage don't fit the standard. It only leads to bad things for families and societies especially the well being of children who are being raised in a confused household environments by gay/lesbian couples every day. (Children have a right to a proper family too don't they?) No this isn't about rights, people. The ramifications are much, much deeper than that.

    By the way YBP Guide team. Nice upgrade to the blog. Haven't taken a look in a while. Have a good weekend.
    • ^
    • v
    There are standards of proper family structure that have stood the test of time.

    Marriage isn't an institution that has stood the test of time. Not 40 years ago, in the US, people could not marry outside of their race (and the same arguments you use were used against whites and blacks marrying--caring for the children, the structure of society). More recently than that, women were considered the property of men in marriage until marriage laws were changed. Until African Americans were freed, they couldn't marry each other legally.

    During the time of Christ, marriage wasn't about love or family--women were breeding stock and traded like cows or goats.

    The question isn't whether marriage is going to change, the question is how. If you cast your eyes toward Massachusetts, you'll see that their society hasn't imploded since they've begun allowing same-sex marriage. Children of same-sex couples are thriving.

    And I think a bigger problem of marriage in our culture is adultery and rampant divorce--these things harm children far more than two loving women or two loving men.

    I don't advocate forcing any church to marry same-sex couples. I think what's done in the church belongs to the church. But why can't I be legally married if my church recognizes my union?
    • ^
    • v
    I consider myself to be a God fearing woman and frankly who am I to judge what someone decides to do with their life. To be frank we live in a country that prides itself on the separation of church and state, yet the moral basis to which the country is erected is based on the moral principles taken from religious precepts.

    This country has many denominations with the Christian faith which believe in different interpretations to the bible. Each facets decrees a different set of beliefs that are imposed by the written words of the Bible. So by this standard, it does say in the bible that we should not be eating pork and engaging in premarital sex and a dozen other rules. However time progress new rules are enacted. Look at the evolution of the Laws from that of first testament to that of the second. I consider myself to be a Christian woman who is able to ascertain for MYSELF what I believe, however I do not force my beliefs another individual.

    If this society we live in breathes in the condition of TOLERATION, for which the pilgrims, civil rights fighters and now Gays, fought to attain then why can't they get married. We preach, yes PREACH ,that we must love our neighbors as ourselves etc...than why are you upholding the main principle.

    As to fitting the standard give me a break. This country since its inception has never fit the standard if it did my family would not have immigrated and would have still remained in chains. What frankly is the standard. It was the standard not more than 60 years ago for me and my brothers to cower at the sight of a white man. It was the standard years ago that my close friends could not date a white woman. Get over it...The standard changes every day. Standard is driven by the fear of individuals who do not understand differences in others. If we complied with the "standard" than many of the innovations that have come to be would not have constructed if those individuals complied with the standard.

    Commentary about MA. Ive lived in the state for the past 4 years as I attend undergrad. That state still remains one of the most racist. In the country they are just better at being subtle about it. What an irony you allow gay marriage openly(which is not my business)but there are still places in its metropolis (boston) where black people refuse to walk in OPENLY. SMH at the irony.
    • ^
    • v
    Let me respond to some of your particular points in more detail.

    Jeanne: "Marriage isn’t an institution that has stood the test of time. Not 40 years ago, in the US, people could not marry outside of their race (and the same arguments you use were used against whites and blacks marrying–caring for the children, the structure of society). More recently than that, women were considered the property of men in marriage until marriage laws were changed. Until African Americans were freed, they couldn’t marry each other legally."

    Martin: As I said earlier, society's misuse of and non-application of the principles, doesn't nullify the principles. Black people didn't have any degree of self governance during slavery so there were obviously no choices about family structure except what an owner allowed. But when we became emancipated and started reconstituting our families what did most Black men and women do? They got married because they new what it took to have a strong family unit. That carried us solidly through the perils of Reconstruction and Jim Crowism. And forty years ago that generation of Blacks took it upon themselves to embrace divorce and not bothering to marry in the first place. We took the idea wholesale and it's killing us today. Broken families and bastard babies in record numbers. Yes Jeanne, the family standard in Black America was the same as it always has been in any strong society in history. I'll use your four decade reference again. Back then, 75-80% marriage rate. Today, less than 1/2 or 1/3 of that rate. The consequences stare us in the face daily. It's not racism that brought on modern society's continuing decline. It was our people's choice to embrace the right to do the wrong that everybody else does instead of what has always proven to be beneficial to us.

    Jeanne: "And I think a bigger problem of marriage in our culture is adultery and rampant divorce–these things harm children far more than two loving women or two loving men."

    Martin: I agree with your first point to a degree. I don't think they are bigger problems but adultery and divorce definitely don't get a free pass. A child carries that confusion with them for decades. Take it from me, a child of divorcees. But again, it falls within that forty year time frame. I disagree with your second point though for reasons already stated. Those kids are really going to be messed up in the head. Yes I see it in my part of the country too.

    Jeanne: " I don’t advocate forcing any church to marry same-sex couples. I think what’s done in the church belongs to the church. But why can’t I be legally married if my church recognizes my union?"

    Martin: First, because even church leaders (pastors, elders, bishops) whatever their titles in a particular denomination are capable of egregiously misinterpreting scripture. The consequences - spiritually and societally - of misinterpretation and misapplication of scripture by church leaders is dealt with extensively in the Bible. It's specifically because God holds them to a higher standard since they are duty bound to lead us properly and to represent Him properly. Second, scripture specifically denounces and decries the entirety of homosexuality and all its consequences from front to back. I can share a few with you if you like. Yes, all sin is wrong but yes again, God does give particularly harsh attention to some sins more than others. It's not about rights, Jeanne. It's about what actually is right. Implication being, some things are absolutely wrong no matter how we want to make them otherwise.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Eddie, I'll address a couple of your replies in detail too.

    Eddie: "So by this standard, it does say in the bible that we should not be eating pork and engaging in premarital sex and a dozen other rules. "

    Martin: Yes, and all those things are still relevant. But, it doesn't matter that people do or don't live by them. They still apply.

    Eddie: "Look at the evolution of the Laws from that of first testament to that of the second. I consider myself to be a Christian woman who is able to ascertain for MYSELF what I believe, however I do not force my beliefs another individual."

    Martin: The old and new testaments compliment each other. Old leads to new. There are no contradictions. Jesus brought a better and final law in His day. I'm not sure if that's the evolution you're referring to but, O.K. It's still consistent. It's not about forcing your beliefs on anyone. It is about stating your beliefs and being firm in them. No one else is ashamed of what they believe in so why should we Christians act like we're scared to address things directly where ever we see wrong in the world. That's our job as good witnesses. And yes, as you said, a solid Christian always has to think for themselves but that doesn't mean that we don't speak out. And we can always confer with each other on matters that we agree on or disagree on like we're doing in this forum.

    Jeanne: "As to fitting the standard give me a break. This country since its inception has never fit the standard if it did my family would not have immigrated and would have still remained in chains. What frankly is the standard. It was the standard not more than 60 years ago for me and my brothers to cower at the sight of a white man. It was the standard years ago that my close friends could not date a white woman. Get over it…The standard changes every day. Standard is driven by the fear of individuals who do not understand differences in others."

    Martin: That was life sixty years ago. What changed it was freedom fighters insisting that the principles be lived in reality and not just spoken in theory. That's why we no longer live thru those things. Specifically because the standards don't change, but society is made to change and live according to known standards.

    Jeanne: "If we complied with the “standard” than many of the innovations that have come to be would not have constructed if those individuals complied with the standard."

    Martin: In this case we're talking about people, not objects so the innovation example doesn't really apply.

    Jeanne: "If this society we live in breathes in the condition of TOLERATION, for which the pilgrims, civil rights fighters and now Gays, fought to attain then why can’t they get married. We preach, yes PREACH ,that we must love our neighbors as ourselves etc…than why are you upholding the main principle."

    Martin: Because tolerance doesn't mean that everything goes. Wrong is still wrong and right is still right. Yes, we love our neighbors in all cases, even if they don't show it back. But love doesn't make a wrong thing a right thing. It still is what it is.
    • ^
    • v
    Lead yourself. Instruct yourself. Interpret yourself. If God is love, who are we to judge/interpret/restrict His Glory?
    • ^
    • v
    martin, i could use a little evidence. please illuminate for me the 'bad things' being experienced by children in 'confused homes.' how EXACTLY will they be "messed up in the head?" because they have two loving dads/moms? the confusion will come from intolerance and non-acceptance. people making the child feel different because of his/her household. the bad things i see everyday are children who were abused, abandoned or neglected by their (straight) parents. now, i get that this doesn't fit the standard of 'proper families' you mention, but what of that? how does denying other loving people the dignity (and right) to raise families and try to fit the very 'standard' you mention help? many gays want to do exactlny what you (implicitly) suggest: build a home, go to PTA, maybe even a church (if 'allowed')and accepted, get a dog and a white picket fence.

    how is it that it's not until gays want to marry or adopt that they become inept, 'abhorrent' (to use your word), predators. when we are pastoring from pulpits, performing your surgery, managing your portfolio, teaching your children, serving your food, building your high rise, or designing your vehicle we are fine. we are fine until we go behind our own doors to do what every american deserves: MIND THEIR BUSINESS!

    and, interestingly, though the new testament is informed by the old, Jesus NEVER mentions two men or two women being in loving, committed, relationships. What he does mention is the stinging failure inherent to divorce and even suggests we stay single if we can handle it. what he does talk about are the two greatest commandments. loving the lord above all else, and loving the neighbor as oneself. what right would you deny yourself? when you come up with a list, i encourage you to put that on your ballot amendment and vote on it.

    imagine replacing your disdain for gay people and or their families with unconditional love. seriously, for one moment try to replace it. you'll notice judgment and love can't exist together so you'll have to really try. pretend for one moment we don't know everything and we weren't put here to judge. and remember that if we are children of God, a living God, there is no way His word, His inspiration, and His truth ended behind the two covers of a Bible. Revelation continues, Love grows, Wisdom inheres to those who seek it and not cling so desperately to ancient, hard and fast rules and to labels and judgments that separate and divide us. EACH of us were made in His image and likeness. The prisoner, the president, the atheist and the polygamist. The call is to spend our time seeing the divine and the worthiness in every single person. because it is there. right there. As JMAC said, God is love. and we christians know God is all power, all knowledge and all presence. meaning if we are experiencing anything but love, we have separated ourselves from God. love never stops being loving. we do.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus