The events of the past few weeks in San Francisco and Massachusetts have placed a light on a topic that many people in this country either don't understand well, don't wish to discuss, or feel fervently one way or another and wish to push it to the forefront of all debates. I speak of course on gay marriages.
We've heard the debate that this is a civil rights issue, not special rights. That this is something intrinsic to all americans, nay human beings, and that gay men and women in loving relationships should be allowed to openly engage in this human activity.
We've heard the debate that this is will do nothing but defame and destroy the institution of marriage as marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That marriage is for child rearing and the continuation of the species; the bedrock of society and religion.
I recently wrote a form letter to my senators Clinton and Schumer, as well as my district congressional representative Weiner. The following is the letter as it read when I sent it to Senator Clinton:
I brought up points that I've felt the pro-gay constituency that have been on television, even the lawyers, have not brought up en masse. To look at the current situation is to see a mirror of the legal problems in the 1940s and 1950s. There were those on the right who felt that marriage was between members of the same race and nothing more. That to acknowledge marriage between members of the same race as valid would be to undermine god's creation in separating the races on different continents. That it would be the end of creation and society, this abomination of man's work.
The law on the books at the time stated precisely:
One Virginia judge who ruled against the eventual claimants in the landmark supreme court case, Loving vs Virginia, stated, in concordance with the Virginia Racial Integrity Act and Virginia's main Anti-Miscegenation Law:
The history of our nation is riddled with instances of exclusion because some in the majority have felt that those in the minority were not worthy of the institutions and freedoms they held dear. It is my belief that if Americans are reminded of their history and how what is going on is nothing but the continuation in civil disobedience and fighting for civil rights, our cause will eventually prevail.
The supreme court in striking down the Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the landmark Loving vs Virginia 1967 court case stated:
In the present day, those on the right attempt to deny this fundamental freedom, this fundamental right of marriage, on an unsupportable basis of sexual orientation because of the harm it would cause heterosexual families. That heterosexual families marry to procreate and advance our species. Unfortunately that falls apart when one looks at the fact that millions of people who get married aren't getting married to have children. They're getting married to spend the rest of their lives together. There is no statute that forbids the marriage of a man and a woman unless they proclaim that children will be the result. Nor is there a statute that claims that if a marriage has not resulted in children, it is null and void. If this were the case, we might have no right to the institution of marriage because it would be indeed just for child rearing. But of course, this is not the reality of the situation.
Returning to the legal aspect of what is occurring today in Massachusetts and San Francisco, I find it tickling in a sense that President Bush and his supporters have labeled the ruling body in Massachusetts as "activist judges," and Gavin Newsom as "law breakers." I prefer to look back upon history and take a different interpretation on this matter.
If President Bush had been President in 1967, it stands to reason that he would have called the Supreme Court of this nation's decision in Loving vs Virginia the act of "activist judges." And yet, today we do not see their decisions in Loving vs Virginia as such, but as judges upholding the rights of the minority against the tyrannical will of the majority, as writ in the constitution.
If President Bush had been President in 1955 when Rosa Parks decided she would not relinquish her seat on the bus and move to the back as the law stipulated, it stands to reason that he would have called her a "law breaker." And yet, today we do not see her actions as such, but as a woman who helped spark over a decades worth of prominent civil disobedience.
Laws across this country forbade eating establishments to serve blacks at their lunch counters. And yet blacks and whites banded together in mass civil disobedience in order to break the bonds of the sacrosanct laws passed by the majority. What Gavin Newsom is doing in San Francisco, what Victoria Dunlap did in New Mexico, what Mayor Richard Daley is doing in Chicago, and other individuals around this great nation of ours are doing, is civil disobedience in order to effect change. Those that spit upon them as law breakers would do well to remember how change has been enacted in our nation through the act of civil disobedience, and remember that this is in fact a historically accepted and legitimate maneuver.
Why did I have the urge to write this? Yesterday, I found out that a small town in upstate New York by the name of New Paltz, 75 miles north of New York City to be exact, will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay men and women, courtesy of Mayor Jason West. When will this occur? Today, Friday, February 27th, 2004.
My boyfriend edgar and I have been in a committed relationship for over 3 years now. We met in October 2000 by a random occurrence and began our romantic relationship with one another on November 28th, 2000. In late December 2000, we purchased committment rings (gold with a centered platinum band) with the inscription "Edgar & Malik Together Forever Always." We moved in together on June 30th, 2001, and have been living together since then. We have had our relational ups and downs during this time, as all do. Yet we have done nothing but grow stronger and even more committed to one another.
Yesterday I jubilantly called Edgar on his cellphone and informed him of the news regarding New Paltz. He was busy getting his new cellphone and cellphone plan from Sprint, so he kind of brushed me off. I was understandably rather hurt by this at the time considering what it meant for us as a couple, but I figured that we'd talk about it when he got home.
About 45 minutes later, the doorbell rang and who should I find on one knee, with a single red rose and a box of chocolates?
Of course, I said Yes to the eternal question.
To say that we feel a renewed and deeper committment to one another after taking another small step toward our goal of life long recognized love for one another is an understatement. To those that would take marriage for granted, especially heterosexuals such as Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, and the 50% of heterosexual marriages that fail in this nation year after year after year, I say to you, take a step back, and really understand what it is that you are doing. What it is that you are saying to one another. What it is that you are promising to one another.
Marriage is a sacred institution. But it is only as sacred as the people who enter into it make it. To that end, I can find no better official outlet to express my devotion to Edgar, and his devotion to me.
We will be married, and I for one look forward to that day with great anticipation and respect. 50 years from now, this entire fight will be as antiquated as the fight for interracial marriage seems now.
Long live this great country of ours.
We've heard the debate that this is a civil rights issue, not special rights. That this is something intrinsic to all americans, nay human beings, and that gay men and women in loving relationships should be allowed to openly engage in this human activity.
We've heard the debate that this is will do nothing but defame and destroy the institution of marriage as marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That marriage is for child rearing and the continuation of the species; the bedrock of society and religion.
I recently wrote a form letter to my senators Clinton and Schumer, as well as my district congressional representative Weiner. The following is the letter as it read when I sent it to Senator Clinton:
Natoma said:
I brought up points that I've felt the pro-gay constituency that have been on television, even the lawyers, have not brought up en masse. To look at the current situation is to see a mirror of the legal problems in the 1940s and 1950s. There were those on the right who felt that marriage was between members of the same race and nothing more. That to acknowledge marriage between members of the same race as valid would be to undermine god's creation in separating the races on different continents. That it would be the end of creation and society, this abomination of man's work.
The law on the books at the time stated precisely:
Virginia Racial Integrity Act said:
One Virginia judge who ruled against the eventual claimants in the landmark supreme court case, Loving vs Virginia, stated, in concordance with the Virginia Racial Integrity Act and Virginia's main Anti-Miscegenation Law:
Judge who convicted the Lovings of Miscegenation said:
The history of our nation is riddled with instances of exclusion because some in the majority have felt that those in the minority were not worthy of the institutions and freedoms they held dear. It is my belief that if Americans are reminded of their history and how what is going on is nothing but the continuation in civil disobedience and fighting for civil rights, our cause will eventually prevail.
The supreme court in striking down the Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the landmark Loving vs Virginia 1967 court case stated:
In the present day, those on the right attempt to deny this fundamental freedom, this fundamental right of marriage, on an unsupportable basis of sexual orientation because of the harm it would cause heterosexual families. That heterosexual families marry to procreate and advance our species. Unfortunately that falls apart when one looks at the fact that millions of people who get married aren't getting married to have children. They're getting married to spend the rest of their lives together. There is no statute that forbids the marriage of a man and a woman unless they proclaim that children will be the result. Nor is there a statute that claims that if a marriage has not resulted in children, it is null and void. If this were the case, we might have no right to the institution of marriage because it would be indeed just for child rearing. But of course, this is not the reality of the situation.
Returning to the legal aspect of what is occurring today in Massachusetts and San Francisco, I find it tickling in a sense that President Bush and his supporters have labeled the ruling body in Massachusetts as "activist judges," and Gavin Newsom as "law breakers." I prefer to look back upon history and take a different interpretation on this matter.
If President Bush had been President in 1967, it stands to reason that he would have called the Supreme Court of this nation's decision in Loving vs Virginia the act of "activist judges." And yet, today we do not see their decisions in Loving vs Virginia as such, but as judges upholding the rights of the minority against the tyrannical will of the majority, as writ in the constitution.
If President Bush had been President in 1955 when Rosa Parks decided she would not relinquish her seat on the bus and move to the back as the law stipulated, it stands to reason that he would have called her a "law breaker." And yet, today we do not see her actions as such, but as a woman who helped spark over a decades worth of prominent civil disobedience.
Laws across this country forbade eating establishments to serve blacks at their lunch counters. And yet blacks and whites banded together in mass civil disobedience in order to break the bonds of the sacrosanct laws passed by the majority. What Gavin Newsom is doing in San Francisco, what Victoria Dunlap did in New Mexico, what Mayor Richard Daley is doing in Chicago, and other individuals around this great nation of ours are doing, is civil disobedience in order to effect change. Those that spit upon them as law breakers would do well to remember how change has been enacted in our nation through the act of civil disobedience, and remember that this is in fact a historically accepted and legitimate maneuver.
Why did I have the urge to write this? Yesterday, I found out that a small town in upstate New York by the name of New Paltz, 75 miles north of New York City to be exact, will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay men and women, courtesy of Mayor Jason West. When will this occur? Today, Friday, February 27th, 2004.
My boyfriend edgar and I have been in a committed relationship for over 3 years now. We met in October 2000 by a random occurrence and began our romantic relationship with one another on November 28th, 2000. In late December 2000, we purchased committment rings (gold with a centered platinum band) with the inscription "Edgar & Malik Together Forever Always." We moved in together on June 30th, 2001, and have been living together since then. We have had our relational ups and downs during this time, as all do. Yet we have done nothing but grow stronger and even more committed to one another.
Yesterday I jubilantly called Edgar on his cellphone and informed him of the news regarding New Paltz. He was busy getting his new cellphone and cellphone plan from Sprint, so he kind of brushed me off. I was understandably rather hurt by this at the time considering what it meant for us as a couple, but I figured that we'd talk about it when he got home.
About 45 minutes later, the doorbell rang and who should I find on one knee, with a single red rose and a box of chocolates?
Of course, I said Yes to the eternal question.
To say that we feel a renewed and deeper committment to one another after taking another small step toward our goal of life long recognized love for one another is an understatement. To those that would take marriage for granted, especially heterosexuals such as Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, and the 50% of heterosexual marriages that fail in this nation year after year after year, I say to you, take a step back, and really understand what it is that you are doing. What it is that you are saying to one another. What it is that you are promising to one another.
Marriage is a sacred institution. But it is only as sacred as the people who enter into it make it. To that end, I can find no better official outlet to express my devotion to Edgar, and his devotion to me.
We will be married, and I for one look forward to that day with great anticipation and respect. 50 years from now, this entire fight will be as antiquated as the fight for interracial marriage seems now.
Long live this great country of ours.
