Jesurgislac’s Journal

May 20, 2008

A human marriage and a card marriage and a loving marriage

George Takei on human marriage:

The California Supreme Court has ruled that all Californians have a fundamental right to marry the person he or she loves. Brad and I have shared our lives together for over 21 years. We’ve worked in partnership; he manages the business side of my career and I do the performing. We’ve traveled the world together from Europe to Asia to Australia. We’ve shared the good times as well as struggled through the bad. He helped me care for my ailing mother who lived with us for the last years of her life. He is my love and I can’t imagine life without him. Now, we can have the dignity, as well as all the responsibilities, of marriage. We embrace it all heartily. (updated from Takei’s blog)

Orson Scott Card on card marriage:

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of “marriage” to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

Mildred Loving on loving marriage:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people civil rights.

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. Hey, followed you over from Shakesville. Great juxtapositions- it really goes a long way to showing the real values of marriage.

    On a personal level, I’m profoundly disappointed to learn that Card wrote that. While some of his books lost me, I always enjoyed the original thinking and compassion for the misfits in the Ender series. But there is no way I will buy another book from someone so intellectually dishonest.

    Comment by mouse — May 20, 2008 @ 11:06 pm | Reply

  2. Orson Scott Card = dickhead.

    And he’s got his facts wrong, too. Queer folks have existed as long as humans have existed – it’s hardly a modern “invention”.

    By the way, I know we disagree on stuff, but your blog is still pretty cool.

    Comment by missnomered — May 20, 2008 @ 11:10 pm | Reply

  3. Thanks, mouse.

    Orson Scott Card’s personal beliefs about homosexuality and marriage were really jarring to me – I’ve been trying for years to just enjoy his books and forget his personal beliefs, but the more I know about what he believes the more I see how his personal bigotry against gay people informs his writing.

    Thanks, missnomered. I’m sure we agree on basic principles – and probably on a lot more than that.

    Comment by jesurgislac — May 21, 2008 @ 7:23 am | Reply

  4. In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of “marriage” to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth

    Wow. Marriage never anywhere on earth included the presumption that you would be pleasantly sexually involved with your spouse? I mean, I know there are times and places when people get married for other reasons, but really, Mr. Card (presumably happily married to someone you’re attracted to), what planet are you on that the meaning of marriage *doesn’t* commonly include “gets to be with the person one loves and wants to sleep with”?

    Comment by Nenya — May 21, 2008 @ 3:47 pm | Reply

  5. PS: Go George Takei! ❤

    Comment by Nenya — May 21, 2008 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  6. I never read that essay by Orson Scott Card without wondering what on earth his own personal experience of marriage can be like: he has written such wonderful fictional descriptions of marriages, good, bad, and even celibate, but in this nonfictional essay, he seems to have such a dismal and dreary idea of what marriage ought to be.

    Comment by jesurgislac — May 21, 2008 @ 8:30 pm | Reply

  7. […] Don’t let the anti-marriage activists try to redefine marriage for everyone by eliminating from marriage the love, respect, devotion and joy that Del and Phyllis feel for each other, and cutting marriage down to a card figure of any man or any woman. […]

    Pingback by How to celebrate your 55th anniversary « Jesurgislac’s Journal — June 17, 2008 @ 1:59 pm | Reply

  8. […] meaning of marriage” to Maggie Gallagher is not loving or human: she sees marriage as an instrument to enforce bigotry, to oppose equality. She really is […]

    Pingback by Maggie Gallagher redefines marriage « Jesurgislac’s Journal — June 18, 2008 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

  9. Pope John Paul I (the First) — more on “Loving Marriages” :

    “We must find the courage within us to set aside the many prejudices built into us. We must hold sacred this of God’s creation — this perfect balance of mental energy that exists between any two people when they love — this perfect union of minds that can only be made by God.

    “We must hold this holy union in sacred trust before Almighty God whenever it exists between ANY of God’s children — man and woman, or black and white, Christian and Jew, virgin and divorcee, man and man, or woman and woman. To think that it pertains only to physical body parts is to say that the sacrament of Matrimony should pertain equally to animals in the forest.”

    * remarks by Bishop Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I, at seminary graduation in Vittorio Veneto, Italy: 6/23/61.

    —————-

    Ten years later in 1971, speaking with a small group of gay Catholics, he expanded on these thoughts. Then Archbishop Luciani, Patriarch of Venice, told them,

    “The church bases her position on tradition, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong….because she is convinced that sex is the foundation of long term relationships. Thus she defines marriage as being limited to two people of the opposite gender. In time, as she becomes better educated in this thing she claims to be expert in – the psychology of loving relationships – she will come to realize that love, and not sex, is the foundation of long term loving relationships.”

    * (Nostro Priviliego: 6/16/71)

    Comment by J.M. Kelley — June 18, 2008 @ 3:35 pm | Reply

  10. Thank you for this comment: I didn’t know this about Pope John Paul I.

    Comment by jesurgislac — June 18, 2008 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  11. […] Christians, unloved by God, who have the choice as inferior Christians of forcing themselves into card marriages or remaining celibate: they can’t be accepted as fully equal members of the Anglican […]

    Pingback by You cannot invite someone halfway in « Jesurgislac’s Journal — August 6, 2008 @ 11:22 am | Reply

  12. […] marriage, for example: this paragraph might as easily have been written in 1967 in opposition to Loving vs Virginia: In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay [inter-racial] marriage should […]

    Pingback by The awful self-pity of the self-righteous bigot « Jesurgislac’s Journal — October 27, 2008 @ 5:29 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: