Why do Hollywood Gays need to Beg for Permission?
We’ve all heard the arguments from both sides of the gay marriage issue. Over and over again I’m sure. When I tell people that Obama and Romney are the same, they say “No, they don’t agree on gay marriage”. And they look at me like I’m crazy when I tell them that they both want us to ask permission to marry. I understand that state recognized marriages have certain financial and legal advantages, such as the “right” to hospital visitation and property issues. So I don’t blame the average person for believing that a state recognized marriage is the best (or only) option that they have. Most of us don’t think we have the time or resources to get those advantages without one, but there are simple documents that can resolve these issues at a fairly low cost and not too much time. Many “legally” married couples get them just to be safe.
Which is why I was bothered, when I was watching TV with my wife (yes, I do have a state approved marriage), to hear Neal Patrick Harris (NPH), in an interview with Oprah, tell her that he had to call his partner David his “fiancé” because it was illegal for them to marry. I love NPH, but he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I have two problems with this statement. First, who said that it was “illegal” for gays to marry. Since when is it illegal for a willing clergyman (or anyone they choose) to “marry” two people, regardless of sex or any other reason. To stand up in front of their friends and family, and say words to them about their love and commitment to each other. Because friends and family (their loved ones) and possibly their local community, are the only ones that their marriage need involve. As far as I know, it is just not legal for them to obtain a marriage license from the state. Their rulers are not allowed to grant them permission. So what? Who needs it?
Secondly, why should two people, as well off as Neal and his partner David be in any way concerned with these so-called advantages? How could they effect them in any way? The financial benefits are nothing to them, and I’m sure that they can work out the other stuff with a lawyer, like hospital visitation, wills, child visitation, custody issues, etc…
The only way to solve the issue of gay marriage is to abolish the practice of begging permission from the state monopoly. As for the religious objections to it, I don’t believe that they will ever be satisfied with any solution that would allow someone to make a choice that they believe is wrong or a sin. If something is distasteful to them, it should be controlled or banned. The only explanation for this is intolerance.
I think that it is sad, because I believe that gay marriage could be a great help in solving the abortion issue that the “right” is so upset about. Consider the advantages of having that many more tolerant and loving couples willing to adopt unwanted children. Neal even says in the interview that “We didn’t just accidentally get pregnant and realize all of a sudden we need to make this work. These kids come into our world with nothing but love.”, it was something that they really wanted and had to work hard for. If that isn’t a reason to let gay couples adopt, I don’t know what is. Combine that with Walter Block’s ideas about “Evictionism”, an idea that even Ben Stone of The Bad Quaker Podcast defends, and you have something that could eliminate the need for abortion altogether and satisfy everyone on both sides of the issue.
Everyone except the intolerant religious people.
But marriage is not their domain alone, as they would like to believe. It is an agreement between two individuals. And it is their choice, and theirs alone, if they want any god, or gods involved. Even if those gods be politicians.
The only real permission they need is each other’s.
This was originally posted by me at The Freedom Feens Blog.