October 17, 2004
Koin 6 Gay Marriage Panel
I'm watching Koin 6's gay marriage panel right now - debating Amendment 36.Brian Stahl, parent of two sons - one gay, one straight - says:
What it effectively does is: one of my sons, simply by uttering the words "I do" in getting a marriage license, has thousands of federal protections, hundreds of state protections automatically conferred on them, whereas my other son doesn't. Unequal treatment of my sons, being brought up to know we want equality in Oregon, is wrong, and we'll be voting No.
And Kelly Clark, attorney responds:
The marriage statutes and the traditions of marriage have always made distinctions. We don't allow people, for example, who are already married to get married. We don't allow people who are not a certain age to get married. We don't allow peope who can't consent to get married. There are rules and have always been rules and distinctions about marriage. One of them has been that it has been between a man and a woman. To that extent, there have always been distinctions made in the concept of marriage in the west. This is no different.
It just pisses me off so much that people would see Clark's point as reasonable. That some people can't see what he's saying. That a gay marriage is "no different" than bigamy, or underage marriage, or a relationship not based on consent. Clark sees the difference as irrelevant. He uses the point of bigamy as a reason to not allow Stahl's son to get married. And what is the rationale behind underage laws, and lack-of-consent laws? It's protection. Protection of the underage, and protection of those who can't give consent. Protection of one party in the relationship. Who in a gay marriage would be protected here? Clark discards the protection argument, leaving only arguments of morality. And as far as I'm concerned, arguing that gay marriage is immoral is bigoted.
As far as I know, this would be the only limitation of marriage based purely on questions of "morality". Every other distinction I'm aware has to do with matters of power and responsibility, of someone being defended. Who's being defended here? There are plenty of snarky responses to that question, but how about a serious one? Who's the party that needs defending against gay marriage here? Who's the victim in a gay marriage?
Vote No on 36.