Birthing Beautiful Ideas

On Wednesday, the State of New York rejected a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage.

To those following New York politics (like me, a former resident of the state), the outcome of the vote wasn’t entirely surprising. 

But it was entirely disappointing.

Admittedly, there are tons upon tons of excellent insights/analyses/arguments out there on the topic of same-sex marriage in the United States.  And I would like to add my own rant to the mix–one that is just itching to pour out of my fingers, onto my keyboard, and into my blog.

Sometimes this rant has me asking others to give me one–just one–example of how same-sex marriage literally threatens their own heterosexual marriages.  How in actuality it poses such a threat.

Sometimes this rant has me seeking for any piece of evidence supporting the claims of those who think that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to rampant crime, the “homosexualization” of the entire population, and the right to marry children and animals.  (I waffle between uncontrollable laughter and blistering rage whenever I hear comments such as these.)

Sometimes this rant has me exclaiming, “Oh, and while we’re on this topic, WHAT ABOUT THE MANY OTHER WAYS IN WHICH LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE FACE ALL SORTS OF HATE, PERSECUTION, AND EVEN DANGER EACH DAY IN THIS COUNTRY?!” 

But for now, this rant has me wanting to ask those who oppose same sex marriage if they know exactly what their position effectively denies hundreds of thousands (if not more) same-sex couples across the country who wish to marry one another.  (FYI: it’s not just the right to marry.)

Because when you oppose same-sex marriage, you simultaneously (though perhaps unwittingly) oppose offering same-sex couples over 1000 rights and federal protections afforded to heterosexual married couples in the United States.*

What sorts of rights and protections, you might ask?

You oppose a person’s right to make medical decisions on behalf of his or her partner in case of a medical emergency.

You oppose a person’s right to take leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of that partner.  (The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 only covers the right to leave work to care for one’s children, one’s spouse, or one’s parents or spouse’s parents.)

You oppose a person’s right to sponsor his or her partner’s immigration to the United States.

You oppose a person’s right to inherit property from his or her partner in the absence of a will.

You oppose a person’s right to file a joint tax return with his or her partner.

You oppose a couple’s right to assume immediate dual legal guardianship of their child after their child’s birth.  (And in order for both parents to assume legal guardianship of that child, they must undergo an extensive and expensive legal process, part of which can involve both parents–including the biological parent–adopting their own baby.  And this is only in states that allow second-parent adoption!)

You oppose a person’s right to purchase health care coverage for his or her partner after that partner loses a job.

You oppose a person’s right to take advantage of the Social Security spousal survivor benefit after the death of a partner.

In sum, you oppose a whole lot more than a person’s ability to say “I do” to the person that s/he loves.

So at the end of the day, if you insist upon holding unreflective and narrow-minded attitudes about the world and the people who populate it, so be it.  Go on continue holding your intolerant beliefs.  Remain firm in your prejudices. 

But my requests to you are as follows:

Stop legislating your intolerance.

Stop taking your prejudices into the voting booth.

And for the love of God, stop parading your and/or your constituents’ intolerant and prejudiced beliefs around the state and national congressional floors when you vote “yea” or “nay” on pieces of legislation that come your way.

Because in my humble opinion, these sorts of actions are downright immoral.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Hence, in order to be truly on par with marriage, any legistlation sanctioning same-sex civil unions would need to explicitly grant all 1000+ rights and protections to same-sex couples–or, all 1000+ rights and protections (or those ammendments, policies, and/or over-arching laws pertaining to them) would need to be changed in order to accomodate same-sex civil unions and the individuals who enter such unions.