What Gay Marriage Is

[undeRliRcs]

"The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family"

- By Dan Savage (Dutton, 291 pages, Nonfiction)

"Being told we can't is making a lot of homos wanna"

In "The Commitment," sex columnist Dan Savage explores what gay marriage actually feels, sounds and smells like -- but should he tie the knot?

By Louis Bayard

Sept. 30, 2005 | I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I didn't give a **** about getting married until George W. Bush told me I couldn't. My partner and I were in one of those "dignified" gay relationships, the kind whose very longevity triggers smiles of amazement in straight people. We had all our appliances; we were jointly leveraged; and because we were the fathers of two rampaging boys, we knew that neither of us could ever leave without the other putting a bounty on his head. Who needed a ****ing ring to keep us in one place?

But as Dan Savage says in his fractious, uneven, ultimately moving memoir-screed "The Commitment," "Being told we can't is making a lot of homos wanna." So it was with this homo. The idea that someone could deny me a basic right of citizenship -- even go so far as to try to write me out of the Constitution -- was enough to make me sit up and notice this right, even though I (and my purported representatives in the national gay-rights movement) had never really paid it much attention before.

And at first, I could see gay marriage only through the prism of its enemies. It seemed to me that the best reason to marry was to **** off, in one stroke, George W. Bush, James Dobson, William Buckley, Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps and the pope. There was a certain luster to that; a glamour, even. But when I thought about it, I realized I could just as easily **** them off by giving out free condoms or morning-after pills or voting Democratic or skipping church -- or going to church -- all of which would entail significantly less expense and taffeta than a wedding. Regardless of whom I angered, what would I gain? In today's America, why should any gay man or woman (outside of Massachusetts) get married? Would it be an act of revolution or just volition? Would it bear a public or strictly private meaning? And would I have to buy a tux?

That's just it, you see. The debate is being waged from pulpits -- holy and secular. Voices are raining down on us, some of them shrill, some (Andrew Sullivan, most notably) eloquent -- all speaking in abstract cadences because they're trying to define an institution that has barely begun and, in some quarters, may never exist. What we need, clearly, is someone to field-test these abstractions, to show us what gay marriage actually looks, feels, sounds, smells like in these legally and culturally proscribed times.

Well, OK, I didn't know we needed that until I read "The Commitment." But having realized we did, I can now see that Savage was just the guy to fill this peculiar niche in our national discourse. In addition to penning the sly and scabrous sex-advice column "Savage Love" (his most sustained work -- an underground com?die humaine), Savage has, in his last two books, staked out the front lines of cresting social movements and given us a view from the trenches. "The Kid" was a funny, achy, refreshingly unsentimental look at how Savage and his boyfriend, Terry, went about acquiring a baby. (It was also an ur-text for a whole generation of gay parents.) "Skipping Towards Gomorrah" was a takedown of William Bennett and the virtuecrat movement in which Savage (not always convincingly) went about committing or witnessing all seven of the deadly sins in order to show how little harm they posed to sinners or the surrounding populace.

Full review here (requires viewing of short ad OR premium membership): http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/09/30/savage/

Mods: Not sure if it belongs here, if not please feel free to move it.

[Envark]

Anti-gay marriage people get me riled up.

(I just felt like saying that...doesn't really apply to article)

[Master Shake]

Anti-gay marriage people get me riled up.

(I just felt like saying that...doesn't really apply to article)

586600298[/snapback]

Same here... I don't think it's hurting anyone.... Perhaps they should pay attention to the tons of other stuff that needs taken care of.

[Envark]

Same here... I don't think it's hurting anyone....  Perhaps they should pay attention to the tons of other stuff that needs taken care of.

586600362[/snapback]

Agreed.

Govt. marriage is not a religious institution.

It is a contract.

They just have their wires and priorities crossed.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

bingo, marriage used to be religious, but its not anymore. athests, buddists, muslims, jews, anyone can get married, unless u are gay. the whole its against religion or sanctity of marriage is just a cover for bigotry.

[ACTIONpack]

buddists, muslims, jews are religion

[R-Flex]

buddists, muslims, jews are religion

586600981[/snapback]

In the US, people who can be married: Atheists, agnostics, Satanists, polygamists, sinners, communists, pagans, terrorists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Nazis, and anyone who wants to be except:

In the US, people who can't be married: Homosexuals.

I think that is what MonkeyClaw was getting at.

[xxpor]

polygamists cant be married in the us.

[Envark]

polygamists cant be married in the us.

586601462[/snapback]

True, which also doesn't make much sense.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

In the US, people who can be married: Atheists, agnostics, Satanists, polygamists, sinners, communists, pagans, terrorists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Nazis, and anyone who wants to be except:

In the US, people who can't be married: Homosexuals.

I think that is what MonkeyClaw was getting at.

586601074[/snapback]

bingo, my point was its no longer a religious or christian religious institution. that whole argument is simply an excuse for being prejeduce.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Marraige never started as a Christian institution, that's a revisionist history like Christmas. I find it rather humorouse how they try and claim all these basic normal traditions as thier own making.

[metro]

Marriage for the most part is nothing but a piece of paper that outlines a legal joining of 2 people between the church and state. The main problem is that Christianity and Catholicism view homosexuality as a forbidden sin, and with the majority of people in the United States belonging to those religions it creates an issue where there should not be an issue. This country was founded mainly to give people religious freedom, yet this same religious freedom is also used as a pawn by people who believe that others should be subdued by what their beliefs outline as right and wrong. This is why the United States is slowly becoming full on JesusLand. There are people in office wanting to force laws upon people influenced by their own personal religious beliefs, beliefs that not everyone in this country shares with these people in office. We are growing closer and closer to losing rights because of this, because of what others feel we should be like because of what the Bible says is wrong or right.

Now, I don't turn my nose at religion. We all have our beliefs, and most of us know what is right and what is wrong. You don't have to get married to dedicate yourself to someone for the rest of your life, and for them to dedicate themselves to you. There are ceremonies that people take part in to celebrate this joining of two people, without the legal nonsense and tax breaks. I do not find it disturbing that a gay or lesbian couple want the same rights to legally dedicate themselves to one another in the same way. The only issue lies with religion being tied to the process, and what has been outlined as a legal marriage based upon those roots. The thing is, each religion has it's own ceremony and process, some deemed as legal binding under law. How can we hold gay and lesbian people from wanting to exercise the same rights? Most of them do share some form of religious beliefs even though they are condemned by them for their sexual orientation.

I could go on and on about this, but this is what I expect from the government of a country that was founded by a group of slave owners who coined the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."

:no:

[popsandthefamily]

Polygamy is sick, and immoral. As for gay's marrying, they've lived their whole lives trying to be happy for who they are, and they dont need an official document to bind them together in marraige. They should be happy just loving each other, I give them that

[Chad]

In the US, people who can be married: Atheists, agnostics, Satanists, polygamists, sinners, communists, pagans, terrorists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Nazis, and anyone who wants to be except:

In the US, people who can't be married: Homosexuals.

I think that is what MonkeyClaw was getting at.

586601074[/snapback]

Who can be married in the US? A man and a woman. No one is taking away anyone's right to marry someone of the same sex. They never had that right in the first place. It's been wrong since the beginning of time. Why they all of a sudden feel discriminated against, I don't know I think the article is more damaging to the homosexuals cause than anything. As it says, the only reason this guy wants to get married is because he was told he can't. If there's ever a reason to get married, that's certainly it.

Marriages are hard enough to keep together. It irks me to no end that this character would reduce marriage to something that's done just to **** someone off. It's an insult to people who take marriage seriously. He's fighting for a right he could care less about

Marraige never started as a Christian institution, that's a revisionist history like Christmas.? I find it rather humorouse how they try and claim all these basic normal traditions as thier own making.

586602815[/snapback]

I find it rather humorous how they try and claim all these basic normal traditions aren't based on Christianity, with zero proof to back themselves up.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

Polygamy is sick, and immoral. As for gay's marrying, they've lived their whole lives trying to be happy for who they are, and they dont need an official document to bind them together in marraige. They should be happy just loving each other, I give them that

586603511[/snapback]

but if they are people that love each other, then if they want to get married then they should have atleast have some sort of bonding agreement provided by the state that entitles them to legal rights. anything less is discrimination and bigotry

remember, homosexuals are people too, people may not appreciate or respect their lifestyle but they should be respected as people and provided the same rights as anyone else

[Liandros]

i think that if a person loves another person, they should have the right to be married no matter if they are homosexual or not. that is all i am going to say.

[curme]

South Carolina removed the ban on inter-racial marriages in 1998, and Alabama lifted the ban in 2000 (even though one county, Washington, actually wanted to keep the ban). The USA is slow to change. Equality never came quick for anyone, but liberty and justice for all is something we must continue to strive for. If two people love each other, and want the legal benefits a marriage includes, they should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, or sexual orientation.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

South Carolina removed the ban on inter-racial marriages in 1998, and Alabama lifted the ban in 2000 (even though one county, Washington, actually wanted to keep the ban). The USA is slow to change. Equality never came quick for anyone, but liberty and justice for all is something we must continue to strive for. If two people love each other, and want the legal benefits a marriage includes, they should not be discriminated against due to race, religion, or sexual orientation.

586604285[/snapback]

couldnt have said it better myself :yes:

[curme]

Who can be married in the US?  A man and a woman.  No one is taking away anyone's right to marry someone of the same sex. 

586604196[/snapback]

There is no Federal marriage license. Licenses are issued by the state. What you are taking away with a Federal ban is the state's right to govern itself.

As for the Christian religion, people can use it to justify anything:

At one point, 40 states in this country forbade the marriage of a white person to a person of color. In other words, people could not marry a person of the "wrong" race. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural". Overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. A Virginia Judge upheld that State's ban on interracial marriages saying, in a language with the same rhetorical tone as used against gay people today:

    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court led the way in challenging racial discrimination in marriage and became the first state high court to declare unconstitutional a ban on interracial marriage. Perez v. Lippold, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948). The Court pointed out that races don't marry each other, people do. Restricting who can marry whom based on that characteristic alone was therefore race discrimination. The court decision was controversial, courageous and correct: at that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision.

Marriage Equality.org

[Hum]

In the end, Marriage is (gay or not) just a piece of paper. :no:

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I find it rather humorous how they try and claim all these basic normal traditions aren't based on Christianity, with zero proof to back themselves up.

586604196[/snapback]

Lol, I didn't think I needed to as it's been a facet of human history, I thought it was common knowledge. Oh well, as evidence I present to you the fact that in ancient Greece people got married, and some of thier Gods were married. There, marriage in a Pagan religion hundreds of years before Christ, I've disproved Christianities claim to the whole organization now stop spreading disinformation.

[Diffused Mind]

Who can be married in the US?  A man and a woman.  No one is taking away anyone's right to marry someone of the same sex.  They never had that right in the first place.  It's been wrong since the beginning of time.  Why they all of a sudden feel discriminated against, I don't know  I think the article is more damaging to the homosexuals cause than anything.  As it says, the only reason this guy wants to get married is because he was told he can't.  If there's ever a reason to get married, that's certainly it.

Marriages are hard enough to keep together.  It irks me to no end that this character would reduce marriage to something that's done just to **** someone off.  It's an insult to people who take marriage seriously.  He's fighting for a right he could care less about

I find it rather humorous how they try and claim all these basic normal traditions aren't based on Christianity, with zero proof to back themselves up.

586604196[/snapback]

I've never seen someone who was so cemented in to ancient ways. :no:

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I've never seen someone who was so cemented in to ancient ways:no:o:

586606260[/snapback]

Well not really, if he was stuck in ancient times he'd be more open. He's stuck in ~26 BC.

[Chad]

I've never seen someone who was so cemented in to ancient ways:no:o:

586606260[/snapback]

You disagree with me and all you can bring to the discussion is an insult. How....mature.

Bottom line, before anyone ever brought up banning gay marriages, how many gay couples did you see express their desire to get married. It was EXTREMELY rare. It wasn't an issue anywhere at all. Fast forward to government wanting to ban gay marriage and they are literally coming out of the closet again claiming that we are infringing on their rights. Rights they had previously never cared about and never had. They didn't care about getting married when it was about love, but all of a sudden, when someone tells them they can't, it's the most important thing in the world. Give me a break.

Well not really, if he was stuck in ancient times he'd be more open.? He's stuck in ~26 BC.

586606268[/snapback]

Again...nothing to bring to the discussion but an insult. You guys really crack me up. I could care less if you disagree, but at least look like you have a reason for your belief. Posts like that tell us you jumped on the side of the bandwagon that got to you first. If you are for gay just say why.

I realize you guys are still young, but someday you'll realize the importance of marriage and why people like this author are making a mockery of it. Marriage is for people who love each other, not for people who love marriage.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Marriage is for people who love each other, not for people who love marriage.

586606799[/snapback]

Interesting choice of words, infact I don't think I could have said it better myself. Now I guess the true test of the strength of your belief is if you'll also bar straight people from marrying as it seems by thier example of divorce rates that they also love marraige.

Anyways here's my opinion of "they never had them before" type crap. In before 1920 women did not have the right to vote, so by extension of your logic should we have never given it to them on the basis of they never had it in the first place? Until 1964 blacks couldn't swim in the same swimming pools as whites, should they still be riding thier own buses and drinking from thier own fountains just because before they couldn't either?

You have just produced the stupidest argument against something I never have.

Before you wanted to claim that marraige was a Christian claim and right, and now after losing that you have to resort to "well they never had it before". Really pathetic.