 Jennifer HemmingsenI'm an op-ed columnist and member of The Gazette's editorial board, writing primarily about Iowa politics, social issues, public safety [...] |
|
Email the author
Why you should care about same-sex marriage
Nearly two years after county recorders started handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, polls show Iowans are pretty evenly split between favoring, opposing and, frankly, not caring at all about marriage equality.
But the rhetoric’s never been hotter, with opponents pushing for constitutional amendment and Republican presidential hopefuls compete for the title of World’s Most Devoted Proponent of Traditional Marriage.
So marriage equality supporters are in an odd position, trying to persuade the middle third of Iowans that they should care at all. “I think a lot of people haven’t had the conversation yet with themselves,” One Iowa Political Director Troy Price told us when he met this week with The Gazette’s editorial board.
And really, why would they have?
Price was here with Kate Varnum and Rev. Tom Capo, pastor at Peoples Church Unitarian Universalist in Cedar Rapids, to lay out a conservative case for marriage equality — a message they’re taking to campuses and rural towns, to fiscal conservatives and people of faith.
“It’s about conservative values of limited government,” Price said. “What if we were talking about government’s control of health care or guns instead of your ability to choose a spouse?”
It’s a logical argument, even if it does lack the punch of the brimstone-laced rhetoric of politicians looking for a few votes and some airtime.
Marriage equality supporters can’t very well compete with the threat of eternal damnation. All they have is the real-life stories of how dramatically marriage equality has changed the lives of our neighbors, co-workers, family and friends. People like Varnum and her wife, Trish.
“You can beat me on the street, you can call me faggot, you can spray paint my house and that would not have the impact that taking away my marriage would have,” Varnum told us Tuesday.
Then she told us about her 92-year-old great aunt, a lifelong Republican from Radcliffe, who explained her support for same-sex marriage like this: “I don’t understand it, but I love you and I love Trish.”
That probably sums up the feelings of a good number of you who haven’t thought much same-sex marriage because you don’t think it’s your fight, or the issue’s been decided, or for whatever reason.
But we all take a big risk when we allow government to deny the civil rights of a few. And just because your life hasn’t changed doesn’t mean you don’t know someone who has everything to lose in this fight.
Think about it.
Comments: jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net; (319) 339-3154.
Nice column, Jennifer. The fear and most of the opposition would evaporate if same-sex marriage opponents could see happily-married gay and lesbian couples.
I don’t care about same sex marriage.
Certain things baffle me. There are those on the right that scream about government taking over our lives, and then turn around and want the government to dictate who can marry. How can a person say, “I’ll drive what ever car I want,” or “I’ll carry a gun if I want,” or even “I’ll pick my own healthcare,” and not want the government involved, and then want the government involved in this case. I don’t understand.
Gay marriage doesn’t affect me. I won’t go to hell if other people get married. The society will not be any worse off if gay marriage is legal. Disallowing gay people to marry will not make them magically go away. For those on the right, pick a side. Pro big government or against big government. You can’t have it both ways.
Really? He11 is censored? It’s a place just like heaven. Why isn’t heaven censored?
Those on the right that oppose gay marriage are called republicans. They are only slightly better than democrats.
Q: What is a “Republican?”
A: A Democrat after he’s had a lobotomy.
No lobotomys for democrats, nothing to remove!
You’re mistaken, David: Republicans cannot have heart transplants, since they are heartless by nature…
That ought to raise your grade point one or two with Jennyfur. Some folks are unmitigated suck ups. others ain’t. She obviously ain’t got a clue. Wonder where she picked up her ” thinking” it can not be self inflicted. Probably got it down at the big holier than the rest of the state U of I.
Thanks for the column Jennifer. It always amazes me how those who are otherwise for limited government involvement in individuals’ lives are the first to advocate the government denying same sex couples the right to marry, or women the right to seek an abortion. Not everyone who marries someone else is joined together in a church ceremony performed by a member of the clergy, and those who choose the non religious route are just as married as those who do marry in a religious ceremony.
You’re right, same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, and I have yet to hear anyone make a legitimate argument against allowing same sex couples to marry that is firmly based in the law, and not on religoius beliefs or personal bias. Both the US and Iowa Constitutions have equal protection clauses which forbid allowing one group rights while denying those same rights to another group.
I think this column should address another important demographic in Iowa. Those who vehemently oppose same-sex marrige. The state is not only made up of folks who support same-sex marrige and those who are indifferent. As our recently out-of-work activist judges go to show, there is strong opposition in this state when it comes to same-sex marriage. With traditional couples having an unacceptably high rate of divorce, abuse, and child neglect, is it really the right time to loosen the restrictions and broaden the category of what constitutes a legal marriage? No. Let’s work on fixing the institution of traditional marriage first. After that, we’ll monkey around with what defines a marriage. We aren’t ready yet.
That ship has sailed.
Salvatore, why should gays and lesbians be denied a civil right because some heterosexuals have screwed up?
Stating “there is strong opposition” is a descriptive thesis which does nothing to explain the basis for that opposition. Why are you opposed, especially since same-sex marriage does NOTHING to diminish marriage or infringe on your freedoms?
Jeff, I don’t think the state shold be involved in any marriage whatsoever. Marriage is a covenant between two people and God. There shouldn’t be any special privileges associated with it. What infringes on my freedoms is paying higher taxes because I chose not to play the state religious “get married and get a tax break” game. Just to get divorced less than 5 years later as the majority of them do.
Marriage is not always between 2 people and God. Try telling that to an athiest couple who get married. God is only brought into marriage if the couple brings it. It is civil and religion may not be involved at all.
You got that right, Stephanie!
No, Salvatore! My goodness I’m sick of this!
Religious matrimony is a covenant between two people and God. Marriage is the civil version that provides legal rights.
Ahhhh! *tears hair out*
Quit hiding your hatred behind your religion! You are creating a bad name for Christianity!
There is nothing civil about ” Gay” and or lesbians civil rights or carrying ons.Get out of our face , you are all moral rejects if you insist on invading established appropriate conduct when ill equipped.
The libby’s can create all the laws they insist on, you will not be included by the moral majority, as Married. Will continue to show love and compassion for your unfortunate condition, we all have crosses to bare.
The “equality” I believe in, is repeal the marriage laws and stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone!
Great: “scorched earth” social policy…
You’re going to love that one, John, on the day you get that phone call and have to rush out of work to take care of your wife in the hospital.
And your boss says,
“What, you think I’m gonna let you go for your *roommate*???? Your female *lover*????? You can see her after quitting time. Now get back to work, Anderson!”
How do you suppose anyone would get married? Marriage licenses are nation wide.
And how do you propose it to be legal?
I think that this discussion is one that has been had many, many times before. It was one that was had when women were given the right to vote, it was had when african american’s were emancipated and when they were are recognized as citizen that were equal in the eyes of the government. It is evolution to be able to look at the lows that we have and be able to correct injustices. history will judge those that are moving to revoc the civil rights of the citizens of our community, the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered members of our society. I appreciate it when people are able to open their mind and empathize with the situation of a neighbor, a friend, or a stranger. but having the guts to have that conversation is only the begining. I was ashamed of my community when Iowa voters voted to make judges a politial figure. They are there to interpret the constiution, not to re-write it. I hope that I will never have to sit here and have a discussion why, as a woman, I should be allowed to maintain the right to vote.
Well said Jennifer!!
Build on your self imposed allusions , poor souls , this constant love in put on by the Gazette, must give you all a warm fuzzy feeling of acceptance that you ain’t never gon’na get. Will keep praying for your eventual redemption .Hopeless as it may seem. Tis auta give you somethin to rant and on about.
Do wish you all eventual satisfaction and happiness, however, you may not ever attain it on earth.
You have made it a living he ll for those who have found comfort in cohabitation for mutual expediency, friendship and companionship , you have made it an untidy appearing living he ll for them, shame on you all.
Merle,
There are those among us who believe that the world we have now is all we will ever know. There are people suffering, people being denied rights, and people committing atrocities in this world, and we believe that we can do something to help. We focus on this world, rather than an afterlife, because we’re concerned for others’ well-being. We care not for our souls (many of us do not believe in a soul) or any retribution from a higher power.
This world, the here-and-now, is all we know, and the world we know suggests that we should make it better for all the people in it. Prayer isn’t our solution. Our solution is to speak out and try to solve social problems.
And there are those that DO believe in the soul that agree with you about civil rights. All religious people have their own interpretation of spirituality. Even within a specific doctrine, the individual believers think differently about their religion than their counterparts.
There are religious people out there that don’t find it necessary to fight against homosexuality. Merle is not one of those.
As a matter of fact, it is not his religion that leads him to believe what he believes. Considering the message of the Gospel, the only thing I can see that would cause such a reaction is self loathing.
You think it would be rough to be gay? Try finding yourself in the middle of human sexuality when you have subscribed to this society. Of course you would go on blathering about how wrong a choice it is to be gay…
merle, “allusions” are references to artistic or literary works; “illusions” are hallucinations; “delusions” describes your belief in an afterlife.
“delusions” describes your belief in an afterlife.
Whoa, Jeff! This sort of religious attack is part of the wall that has been put up between believers and non-believers and it’s not helping anything.
The thing is you don’t know for sure. That is what faith is about, trusting your beliefs… no matter what. Thank goodness for Jesus Christ. He laid a framework that could lead us all to get along with one another.
The problem arises when “religious” people that say they are Christians do not follow in Jesus’ footsteps and do not even hear the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Another problem arises when people speak for God himself, thinking that their own interpretation of religion is somehow more tuned in than anyone else around them.
I see it as a form of subscribing to a false deity – yourself. Dangerous stuff in soulful terms.
All I will say, Peter, is that my mind was made up by a college roommate who told me, “Jeff, if you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you’ll go to He11.”
I declined Pascal’s wager in that moment.
Valid. Unfortunately that person went about it like a preacher on the street who are nothing more than worthless forms of Satan himself. Religion is there for a person and what they personally need. Religion is not there so that people can feel self-righteous. Shame on those that think it is!
Not too late Jeff he was a true friend.
Meant allusions, Jeff.> Snivel on in your little circle of deprivation .
No you don’t mean allusion, Merle. You are making an allusion to what piece of work? As written (if what you have created could be called writing), it SEEMS that you mean illusion.
Be careful trying to run with the big dogs. No wonder you hate academia.
Have no illusions about allusions>> try getting a life of your own.
That is actually kind of funny, merle!
You old joker, you!
Thought you would pick up on with “alluding” to your prior ramblings., My bad i guess, a bit too subtle for astute academically perfected types?. Do thank you both for your efforts however. Must be a tough go for your students.
If that is what you meant… yes. It was more subtle than I realized.
I will concede that to you. Nothing else.
And to get one thing straight…
“Will keep praying for your eventual redemption .Hopeless as it may seem. ”
From you above.
You already know how absurd your argument is. You KNOW that there is only one thing that guarantees redemption… and it has nothing to do with SSM.
Poor merle… you’re delusional. Please try to retreat thirty-five years.
The clock has not stopped ticking Peter.We shall all eventually see.
Might not hurt to leave the crack to eventual redemption open just a tad, it ain’t been proved otherwise yet. You nor anyone else evolved from nothing, nothing.And it ain’t a bad crowd to hand with in the meantime.They do have some good church suppers also.
OOPS , better not tip my hand!!
Great column Jennifer.
My last attempted post was judged to be a bit spammy. I’m not sure what the basis for that was, but anyway…
This topic is full of posturing whenever it comes up. People pay homage to their political beliefs and their religious beliefs by stating whatever they believe the preferred dogma to be.
For some, it is easier to objectify whatever group they disagree with. Take the humanity away from anyone or any group and it is much easier to deny them basic rights or to make broad generalizations about them. Once you reduce anything to black and white, it feels much easier to be right and for others who disagree to be wrong.
The fact is that gays exist in all areas of society. Some are liberal, some conservative. Some are deeply religious and others not religious at all.
Usually, one’s thoughts and opinions on this topic aren’t so much related to politics as they are to life experiences and culture.
Much of what is publicly said, though, is based on having the right sentiment for the audience we are speaking to, the church we attend, the politics we focus on, or acceptance by those we deem to be our peers.
It is disappointing, to me, that in 2011 this remains an issue that causes controversy. It is equally disappointing that those who oppose gay marriage resort to arguments that lack any real substance and sometimes simply objectify and make broad generalizations about homosexual people.
You are at liberty to be agnostic as the rest are to have the religious opportunity of their choosing. However it is not fair to force acceptance of any dictate on everyone without full bodied appraisal. Denial of equal opportunity for accountability from the entire state government, is a travesty against the people of the entire state.
Let the Senate discuss and vote on the question, if you are correct in your appraisal, what are you worried about. It is being blocked by a two or three person majority of one body of government. How can the liberal element defend that position??
Perhaps it is to give time for the “Jennifer” types to whip up the base into unreasonable insulting blasts at fair minded individuals.What in the world does the gazette have in mind,to allow this in their delicate diminishing condition?
There is NOTHING fair-minded about wanting to vote away a right. Can’t you see that the will of the majority has NOTHING to do with this? We live in a Republic, for the love of everything! You can’t just change that because of “the will of the majority.”
NOTHING is being imposed upon you or anyone. Choices have opened up. That is it.
And you can’t use any of those arguments ever again! Because they have been defeated right here!
merle, there was no “dictate” in Varnum v. Brien, just a carefully-worded, thoughtful explanation of why the Iowa DOMA was an unconstitutional infringement on Iowa’s equal protection clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You only see it as a “dictate” because that decision shows you have no legal basis to deny equality under the law to gays and lesbians.
Give it up you lost even more moral high ground with that one.
It is pretty sad that large majority totally misunderstood their carefully worded meaning. Do wish them a pleasant retirement, gives them time to reflect on where the made their hug mistake. They could have asked a couple of kids with mama’s and dad’s, who could have explained what marriage is all about. Perhaps then they could have run out their string in dignity, rather than forever have to live with the collective knowledge that they were wrong.
Continuing incoherent ramblings by the unqualified will never alter the fact that they were summarily fired by their bosses. Power to the people!!!
The proper solution to this “problem” is to institute civil unions for any and all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, and to provide said unions with the same privileges and responsibilities as marriages. That way same sex couples are not denied their “civil rights” and the institution of marriage can maintain the character and identity that it has had for the past several millennia. Problem solved!!
As soon as opponents of SSM let homosexuals tell them how to live their lives, then the opponents can tell homosexuals how to live theirs.
Opponents of same-sex unions have NEVER been able to explain how this negatively affects so-called “traditional marriage.” To me, it’s simple: you may disagree with the concept of same-sex unions, but it’s none of your–and, frankly, the government’s–d**n business if it happens.
I don’t waste my time worrying about SSM, because managing my own life is a full time job. What two consenting adults do with their time is their business, not mine, nor the government’s. It’s ironic that lawmakers behave like children when they don’t get their way when they’re in session, yet they imagine themselves to be experts on how everyone else should live and behave. If everyone would manage their own life and leave others to do the same, we’d all be a lot better off.