Is Freedom Of Association The Same When Gay?
If so, is gay marriage a rightful freedom of association?
"Publishing the bans" used to mean telling everyone else to stop hitting on my babe. She's mine.
The practice would appear to date from our animal days. It announces to the community an association that is closer than the common bond. It asserts a right of association with your sweetie that transcends the social contract. Animals do this as they bond in pairs, gay pairs as well as straight, within their flocks. So, too, do gay humans 'publish the bans' within their circles as they pair off for long-term relationships. My church married two men in San Francisco in 1974. Two elderly librarian women in Chicago in the 90's. Fourth-class felonies we all committed, signing the marriage certificate as we did. Our flock broke the larger social contract by formalizing the bond.
The right to freely associate wants to include the right to publish the bans.
The social contract that unites us all gives special rewards - tax breaks, legal breaks - to encourage marriage among hetero couples. The making of children was once important to a frontier economy. But the world is round, frontiers are gone, and couples are just couples today. Kids are incidental, although nice to have and usually planned. All kids ideally should have at least two parents. Although many kids today have four parents, some of them gay, even more have only one. More kids will have two parents when gays can marry. Two moms are better than one.
The social gain from formalizing gay unions in marriage is about the same for gay couples as for straights. Couples nest. Nests shelter.
Married in our hearts, married in spirit, married in our lives together, why is one class of humans still denied - in some states - the reward that is the marriage contract, our common social contract's acceptance that our marriage is real?
Why should an Illinois couple need to go to Iowa to get real?
Washington?
"Publishing the bans" used to mean telling everyone else to stop hitting on my babe. She's mine.
The practice would appear to date from our animal days. It announces to the community an association that is closer than the common bond. It asserts a right of association with your sweetie that transcends the social contract. Animals do this as they bond in pairs, gay pairs as well as straight, within their flocks. So, too, do gay humans 'publish the bans' within their circles as they pair off for long-term relationships. My church married two men in San Francisco in 1974. Two elderly librarian women in Chicago in the 90's. Fourth-class felonies we all committed, signing the marriage certificate as we did. Our flock broke the larger social contract by formalizing the bond.
The right to freely associate wants to include the right to publish the bans.
The social contract that unites us all gives special rewards - tax breaks, legal breaks - to encourage marriage among hetero couples. The making of children was once important to a frontier economy. But the world is round, frontiers are gone, and couples are just couples today. Kids are incidental, although nice to have and usually planned. All kids ideally should have at least two parents. Although many kids today have four parents, some of them gay, even more have only one. More kids will have two parents when gays can marry. Two moms are better than one.
The social gain from formalizing gay unions in marriage is about the same for gay couples as for straights. Couples nest. Nests shelter.
Married in our hearts, married in spirit, married in our lives together, why is one class of humans still denied - in some states - the reward that is the marriage contract, our common social contract's acceptance that our marriage is real?
Why should an Illinois couple need to go to Iowa to get real?
Washington?
posted by Dan McIntyre at 8:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home