Thursday, November 06, 2008

Gay Marriage

Prop 8 has been passed in California and for those of you who don't know what that's about it's a ban on Gay Marriages. And as the world turns, shit like that had an effect everywhere. WE're only beginning to tackle the subject in our own oh so progressive country, so this needs to be addressed.
I did a quick scout around some of the sites today to gather the reactions and apart from the many who are disgusted, there's the usual mishmash of.
'Marriage is sacred, it's between a man and a woman under God.'
'They have civil unions already, why do they need marriage?'
'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.'
Something to do with people not standing up to Hitler in time- It was too convoluted for me to follow.
'I have gay friends/cousins but....'
'I love everyone like the bible tells me, but...'
'I am a Christian, but...
'It's confusing for the children...'
'50 cents ( sic) said he was confused about his mom kissing a girl'
'It's JUST my opinion, but...'
'...attacking the sanctity of marriage.'
'What's next, will we allow people to marry animals?"
'MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN ONE WOMAN UNDER GOD!! TIME YOU HOMOS ACCEPT YOUR SICKNESS IS NOT THE NORM!!!!"

Naturally there were a few other more offensive ones but I'm not giving them the oxygen to breathe.
It is STAGGERING to me that people in this day an age still consider their fellow humans somehow lesser and not deserving of the same rights based entirely on their sexual orientation. That they can gloat over their legal superiority with such stupid rhetoric.
Marriage was in the 'olden' days a contract between two families ( it still is in many parts of the world) There was never anything sacred about it. And sacred? What the fuck is that about? There is NO evidence for a god of any description, but plenty for gays, so why should he/it get precedent?
The idea that two people of same sex getting married is an 'attack' on traditional marriages is one of the most stupid and easily refuted claim to dribbled out of a scalded arse. You know what attacks traditional marriage? Divorce. But do we condemn divorced people in the same way as a gay person? Of course not ( not that we should).
Divorce, adultery, getting married for all the wrong reasons, being a shit spouse, all these things 'attack' traditional marriage. Being gay does not. How could it? Why would two gay people getting married stop 'you' getting married- if that is what you wished to do?
It's all just hate speech, in various forms and to be honest it's nearly better to hear a straight out 'I don't like queers' than the odious 'I have gay friends but...' line trotted out by so many weak willed cowards. You have gay friend and you love then huh? Then why the fuck would you be SO comfortable treating them as second class citizens? What kind of love is that?
Because that's what it boils down to at the end of the day.
Not every gay person wants to get married, not every straight does either, but god damn it, who gives anyone the fucking right to tell someone their love is suspect, their emotions not as important, their fucking rights second place to 'tradition.'
Fuck tradition, and fuck cowards, and equally fuck bigots. Because if you're so much of a fucking pussy that the very idea of two people getting married shakes the foundation of your beliefs and your own marriage to the core then you're in a sorry state already and ought to go get help for your spineless condition.
Anti-gay bollocks, I am EXTREMELY against it.

Labels:

32 Comments:

Blogger lorrainbow said...

There is NO evidence for a god of any description, but plenty for gays, so why should he/it get precedent?

I'm stealing this and claiming it as my own, fabulous post

8:55 a.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

You're welcome to it.

9:01 a.m.  
Blogger gimme a minute said...

The Mormons pumped $20,000,000 into the vote. Because marriage is a sacred institution between a man and his six underage wives.

Fuckers.

9:09 a.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

But of course they did, hypocrisy is sacred too.

9:13 a.m.  
Blogger JL Pagano said...

Normally voting is relatively pointless for me, since my home state is California, but Prop 8 was one of the reasons I made sure to have my postal ballot organised early, and I voted no.

I think the following link may interest you; it suggests that Obama's supporters could be responsible for the Yes vote winning...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3388430/Barack-Obama-may-have-helped-California-Proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban-pass.html

10:01 a.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

So what happens the gay folks who are already married? And what did Guvnor Ahrnold say?



JL, haven't opened that link - it is the Telegraph after all.

10:14 a.m.  
Anonymous Fiona said...

Gah! Excellent post but am equally incensed. I can't believe they've gone backwards on this. There is no logic to it whatsoever. (shakes ineffectual fist in the air). Is of course going to be seized upon with glee over here too. Harrumph.

10:48 a.m.  
Anonymous sheepworrier said...

I thought the california state supreme court already ruled that it was discriminatory not to allow same sex marriages? This should be overturned pretty quickly.

10:54 a.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

I saw that JL, not in the least bit surprised.
Conan, I believe their marriages are null and void, although I could be wrong. Sheepie might be correct.
Fiona, I know it's so frustrating.

11:13 a.m.  
Blogger Andraste said...

FMC IS RIGHT!

This should NEVER have come up for popular vote. The majority should never been given the right to vote to restrict the rights of a minority. And the constitution of any state should not be used to EXCLUDE anyone. The only time a constitution should be amended is to INCLUDE.

If the civil rights act had been up there for popular vote, it wouldn't have passed. Then where would we be.

I'm glad I'm living in Massachusetts, where the bigots haven't won.

12:36 p.m.  
Anonymous tpe said...

Sinner. Read your Bible and learn the error of your filthy, misguided ways. Repent before the Lord and cleanse your....

No. I can't keep it up, sorry. I've not been that stupid since, well, kindergarten. Hello. This was a pernicious piece of back-sliding, wasn't it? Neatly buried beneath the euphoria generated by the election, I wonder how many people were even aware that such an attack on (very basic) human rights was taking place? More pertinently, perhaps, I wonder if they even cared. I hardly dare imagine the answer to that.

If human beings will insist on getting married - and we do seem mighty keen on the institution, for some unfathomable reason - then I'm at an absolute loss as to why this event should be out of bounds to any consenting adults. How vindictively backwards do you have to be to fail to understand the notion and desirability of equality before the law?

Does my head in.

Exquisite rant, by the way.

Kind regards etc....

TPE

(Conan Drumm - hello. What's wrong with The Telegraph? I feel curiously defensive about one my daily papers - along with The Guardian and The Independent. Is there something especially wrong with The Telegraph or a particular reason you seem happy to discriminate against it? Just interested. Kind regards cetra etra.....)

1:07 p.m.  
Blogger Medbh said...

Andraste's state has the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. while also honouring the right of all couples to get married. In contrast, the jeebus freak states have the highest rate of divorce and teen pregnancy.

2:53 p.m.  
Anonymous Penelope_CA said...

Very impressive and compassionate post FMC. TBH I didn't think anyone in Ireland would be aware of California's Prop 8 so your post was an soothing salve to the staggering blow I feel that I and my Beloved are deemed unworthy to marry in my home state.

I'm deeply dissapointed but not surprised because of the sheer volume of pro-8 ads that focused over and over again that Prop 8 would REQUIRE schools to teach about gay marriage and felt that the anti-8 ads were too little too late, refuting the claims of gay marriage taught in school and focusing on discrimination, bringing up the fact that at one time inter-racial couples could not marry or the WW2 Japanese interrment camps. But then again anti-8 forces didn't have the MASSIVE infusion of funds from outside the state from various religious groups. Think of the children!!! It sickend me how they used children to promote discrimination.

Unfortunatley it seems that the increased turnout amongst african-americans may have been the tipping point. I've long known from reading various queer anthologies and articles that black culture is very homophobic and I read somewhere that 70% are against gay marrigae. Ironic that a demographic that has suffered so much discrimination would approve of others being made second-class citizens.

But then again some would argue that skin colour is inherent whereas being gay is a "lifestyle" choice. Yea... sure... I struggled for years to fit in and even got married to a man becuaseit was expected of me but felt I was living a lie and only came into my own once I came out. But try telling that to those who would believe that I would CHOOSE to be part of a marginalised group just because it gets my rocks off. Oh please!!!

This piecemeal state-by-state approach is bullsh*t and is the reason why I'm planning to move to Belfast come spring because, no matter what one's stance on Irish politics is, as part of the UK we can get legally married in Northern Ireland. Im excited to start a new chapter in my life but feel it's not fair that I have to move halfway around the world just to get married.

3:32 p.m.  
Anonymous sheepworrier said...

penelope_ca: Have you been over to belfast? Its not exactly a haven of tolerance for the gay community, tho it is better than previous years.

4:04 p.m.  
Anonymous Penelope_CA said...

Yes I have Sheepie. 6 times over the past 3 years and coming for my 7th this Christmas. I've spent many a night at Kremlin and Mynt and find NI attitudes towards LGBT folk quite curious. One the one hand the individual people I have met, including my Beloved's parents, have been nothing but open, kind and accepting. Yet a look at any gay topic on Slugger O'Toole shows how neanderthal and bigoted many are.

I am well aware of the Iris Robinsons about the place, but hey at least I can get married!

4:34 p.m.  
Anonymous sheepworrier said...

penelope_ca: Im really chuffed you had a warm welcome here before, just keep in mind that quite a few attitudes are firmly rooted in the dark ages - Iris robinson being a perfect example.

Hope you have a great time when you come over again anyway, and be sure to hit the bar at the christmas market! Mmmmulled wine.....

4:47 p.m.  
Blogger daisy mae said...

so here's my take on it all: as long as these things stay at the state level, they're going to be mired in years of flip-flopping between yes and no. what NEEDS to happen is something at the federal level, saying that all people are equal under the eyes of the law.

being a proponent of the separation of church and state, my personal feelings are this:

no state of government of the US should grant "marriage licenses". instead, ANY couple (gay, straight, trans, bi, take your pick) is granted a "civil union" license under the law, and then joined by a judge of the state. this would then take care of any and all legal issues - in an ideal world, anyway.

marriage is something that is then up to the couple themselves and their faith/family. want to be married? fine. choose whether or not it's taking place in a synagogue, church, a formal family gathering, etc. but it should have nothing to do with the state.

i do think that it's a good sign that obama did state, very clearly, that america and the government are for ALL people, gay and straight.

4:51 p.m.  
Blogger johnifer said...

I love you FMC!

7:29 p.m.  
Anonymous madnessburgers said...

Hmmm... yes in SF we were very dissappointed. But today my boss told me that his 12 year old daughter came up to him and said "I have dyslexia and thats just the way I am just like gay people are gay so noone should stop them from marrying". Plus the last time it was shot down by 70% and this time by 52% so things are changing. Noone has given up the fight and my gay friends were very happy that Obama included them in his speech.
I suppose Im trying to say that things are changing and it might take a bit longer than hoped for but change will happen.

8:38 p.m.  
OpenID grimsaburger said...

I believe marriage is a sacred institution to be shared between unwilling teenagers. [/Palin]

9:04 p.m.  
Blogger laughykate said...

Talk about going backwards. Will they give up electricity next?

9:17 p.m.  
Anonymous problemchildbride said...

The Yes on 8 yard signs were everywhere. People who didn;t express any other political sentiment on their lawns - you any of the ones that would be pertinent to them - chose to reserve their political expression exclusively for hating and had Yes on 8 signs everywhere. I saw as many of them as I did Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin ones, latterly.

All the couples that were legally married in the 4 months since the California Supreme Court decision - the one that allowed ellen to get married this summer - are now in a legal quandary as to theri rights. It's going to bugger up so many people's lives and be a mess in the courts.

And Andraste's right, rarely do we see a Proposition that actually wants to take rights away from people. It's unconstitutional, it's backward, it's hateful and it's depressing.

11:36 p.m.  
Blogger Twenty Major said...

Would gay folk getting married have to declare which of them was the woman?

When he says "You may now kiss the bride", it'd be somewhat awkward unless they had that worked out beforehand.

9:00 a.m.  
Blogger Conan Drumm said...

Thanks for the details. Can't get my head around the idea that a Supreme Court can deliver a verdict which can then be overthrown by popular vote. It was constitutional, and now it's not? This aspect of politics in the US seems destined to fall apart at the seams. Flip/Flop/Flip/Flop etc ad infinitum...

I took it the Telegraph was going with the Afro-American voter = homophobic analysis. While there may be an element of that would it would have been decisive?

11:32 a.m.  
Blogger jothemama said...

I think is terrifying. In CALIFORNIA!!??

Could they REALLY invalidate people's marriages? Land of the Free, my ass, it's like an Iyatolla (sp?) rolling up and taking over. Scary shit.

And why should heterosexual people get to vote on this anyway! What's it got to do with us! Threatening society BLLLLAAAAAHHHH. Bollocks.

2:51 p.m.  
Blogger Dr. James McInerney said...

Sinsational

3:56 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

hahahahah, brilliant Docky.

JO, I know, total fuckwittery.

6:55 p.m.  
Anonymous The Horsebox said...

Hello Fatmammycat. I like your blog, but I'm still going to shit all over your post anyway, because I think it's hyperbolic nonsense. Why do you assume that anyone who does not warm to the idea of gay marriage is automatically a gun-totin' bacca-chewin' muck-savage? Sheer feline arrogance, if you ask me.

If there was a vote on the issue in our fair Emerald isle in the morning, I'd vote to ban gay marriage. Now excuse me while I take time out from my normal routine of shaving my head, riding a crucifix and queer-bashing the fairy next door to explain my stance.

Marriage, first of all, is not a 'right', it's a gift of recognition from others. It's not just an expression of love from one person to another. The state wouldn't need to get involved if that were the case - any cunt with a bunch of flowers and a romantic notion could do that on their own. Marriage is when a couple asks for recognition for their love from their community. That's why they stand up on a great big altar or at the front of a registry office and do it in front of everybody.

So if the point of marriage is to ask for the community's (i.e. the state's) blessing for the union, then surely the community is perfectly entitled to set the perameters for the marriages it gives its blessing to?

In Ireland, the state/community, has decided - as is its wont - that as far as it is concerned, marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The reasons for that are long-standing and traditional, and clearly held by the majority of the population or this would have become a hot political issue (currently, it's not, outside the gay community).

To change the status quo (because there has never been gay marriage), the gay lobby needs to put forward a compelling argument as to why the law should be changed. There is none, in my opinion. "This is breaching my rights" does not stand up.

No amount of bullying by the gay lobby will convince me that just because I believe marriage should be reserved as the bedrock of the traditional family, I am therefore denying gay people their rights.

I'm no bible basher, I do not attend church, and I'm not religious. I also don't think that I am a "in a sorry state already and ought to go get help for your spineless condition". I'm a reasonable person, with reasonable views. I don't engage in hate speech. I only hate dogma and wilful ignorance.

I'm not making a value judgement on the love between two men or two women. People can fuck who they want, and I'll still like them the same. But the rest of us are entitled to decide who we give recognition to.

7:47 p.m.  
Blogger fatmammycat said...

I don't mind being called arrogant, I can be. But my belief that gay people are not lesser beings does not make me arrogant. And denying them the opportunity to get married if they so choose is-to my mind- saying exactly that.

You say you believe in traditional marriage- such as it is here. So would you be against a divorced couple remarrying? Single parents? There are plenty of traditions bucked in this country as people gradually crawl out of the 'traditional' mire.
Just once someone could explain to me how two gay people getting married 'attacks' traditional marriage. If two people what to stand up before their friends and loved ones and declare their love commitment and intentions then why should they NOT be allowed to do so? What would it be about them doing so that might undermine another couple from doing the same?
In the end of the day you're right, a good and forthright argument will need to be put forward, and I'm pretty sure it will be. In the mean time, as a woman with many kind and upstanding gay friends I reserve the right to be outraged on their behalf, with a twist of hyperbole on the rocks for good measure.
Yes the people have spoken, what of it? That's what people do, and they will continue to do so. Times change, attitudes change and at some point the pendulum will swing a different direction. Doubtless I will find something else to harp on about then, as I'm sure you will and as long as we are able to voice our opinions, even if they differ, then so the world shall turn.

8:57 p.m.  
Blogger daisy mae said...

keith olberman says it better than i ever could....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

9:00 p.m.  
Anonymous the horsebox said...

"If two people want to stand up before their friends and loved ones and declare their love commitment and intentions then why should they NOT be allowed to do so"

But Fatmammycat, the point is that they are allowed to do this. There's nothing stopping them, no problems at all. They just can't call it marriage. In fact, they can call it marriage - they can call it anything they like. But the state won't call it marriage, because it never has done and nobody has put forward a water-tight argument as to why things should change.

My rights are exactly the same as a gay man's rights - he is not discriminated against in this regard. I can't legally marry another man, and neither can he. When someone makes the (in my opinion, brave and beautiful) decision to come out as being gay, the law that applies to that person does not immediately change to discriminate against them. The law remains the same.

Now, you can make the admittedly sensible argument that, as a straight man, I wouldn't want to marry another man. And you'd be damn right. But the point is that there is no inherent discrimination in the law.

The state/society (i.e. all of us Mammycat - me, you, them and even the fuckers we don't like) have an obligation to protect the welfare of our minorities, to make sure that they are not oppressed or mistreated.

I don't think that the state's hitherto refusal to withhold equal legal recognition for a same-sex union (which in the grand scheme of things, is pretty friggin' new when it comes to accounting for it in the law) and opposite-sex unions (as old as the hills in legal terms) oppresses anyone. It doesn't mistreat anyone either. It just is what it is.

If gay couples want to express their love for each other, and stand up in front of everybody and do it, with a ring, and a white dress and a poncey cake and all that shite... then good luck to them. If two of my mates were to fall in love (after too much beer, they often appear to, to behonest) and they invited me along, I'd be there with gusto - YMCA tune, chaps, the whole lot.

But legal marriage? That's a massive step. And obviously one that there is no appetite for amongst the great unwashed, me included. It also opens a whole can of worms, such as adoption rights, tax issues, inheritance issues, all sorts of crap, which have implications for people other than the happy couple.

Fuckit. Whay can't we all just get along.....:-(

6:52 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well i personally tihnk that it is pathetic for these people that probably were appallad by other racism such as the holocaust are so quick to believe and tell other people that it is allright to treat gay people lower class.

and horsebox about you saying you have the same legal rights as a gay man is, quite frankly, true but at the same time it is stupid because you wouldn't want to get married to another man and it isnt gay peoples fault that they are homosexual.

9:40 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home