The gay marriage ban should be scaring heterosexuals, too

Three states passed bans on gay marriage in the national election a few days ago. Regardless of where you fall on gay rights’ issues and the definition of marriage, this should frighten you because it is, plain and simple, the beginning of theocracy. Neo-Christian fascism. Sieg heil, Fred Phelps.

I was so livid about this for 24 hours, I couldn’t write on the topic. Now I’m calmer, but I’m glad gays are angry, and I hope a lot of other people join them.

Christians didn’t invent marriage. No culture did. Every culture invented a form of it, not exactly the same as every other, and not always for quite the same purpose. Letting any single group – and in this case, huge funding to promote these bans came from the Mormon Church, the assholes who also worked hard at defeating the ERA and ex-communicated at least one member who supported it publicly – decide how to define marriage under the law is mixing of church and state: an ugly display of religious privilege. And please note that being “Christians” didn’t stop the Mormons from lying to voters to sway them.

Be afraid. And hope that lawsuits against these measures succeed wildly. Because if Mormons can decide what marriage is for all Americans, then there’s precedent for them deciding what’s real parenting. What’s a real family. What’s in the best interest of your child, you undesirable Wiccan freak, you nasty non-Mormon Christian, you evil atheist. Marriage is not “theirs” to protect, except within their temple walls; in the eyes of the law, it’s simply an entity individuals enter into, not unlike a corporation. There are tax implications, paperwork to be filled out – otherwise, it’s none of the government’s business.

There are several things we can do to help. AfterEllen published a list of businesses that contributed to passing Prop 8 in California, and when DailyKos reported it, commenters added quite a few more – feel free to take your business elsewhere. Here’s a list of businesses owned directly by the Mormon church, which functions more like a megaglobalconglomercorporation than a religious institution these days.

Now, some people say it’s discrimination if I choose not to shop at any business owned by any Mormon, because some of those Mormons may have been against Prop 8. The problem with this argument is that every Mormon gives 10% of her net income to the church. Every time I make a purchase from her, I’m giving money to a church I feel is funding hatred. In order to stop funding hatred, I have no choice but to stop funding Mormons in general. And those Mormons who don’t like what the church is doing with their money should take that up with the church. Blame the church and its hate agenda for their loss of livelihood, not us.

I’m not a fan of boycotts, myself. I don’t think they’re very effective. And in this case, it’s not just Mormons promoting this who are responsible. What about the voters? They’re from a variety of faiths, and some of them may even be secular homophobes – it’s not like religion invented the concept of hating people who don’t or can’t conform to your arbitrary insecure bullshit standards.

In my opinion, it’s time for the law to stop recognizing marriage, period. There’s no need for it. Let it be a purely cultural/religious institution. Let people set upproperty sharing and medical proxy decision arrangements via legal documents other than a wedding license. The government shouldn’t be endorsing marriage at all, let alone one kind versus another.


  1. dunvi says

    You know, I find it really amusing that the old music teacher at my old school, who was a Mormon, was replaced by a gay man. But anyway…

  2. Leita says

    Hell yes. Damn, I wish I had this blog post at hand when discussing sexuality issues in my diversity class last week. You, dear madam, are full of win.

  3. DragonLord says

    I have to disagree with the sentiment to ban marriage, as things like the tax breaks are there to help those who chose to live together as an entity, with all the benefits and disadvantages that it brings (such as 1 person being able to stay at home with the kids/dog/looking after the house, having your credit rating permanently linked to the other person, being socially limited to your preferred relationship gender, etc).

    However I would agree that the legal and religious aspects of it should be separated, so that you can’t be legally married unless you’ve been married in front of a state witness regardless of religious leanings, and keep the tax breaks, credit linking, and other such benefits/disadvantages regardless of who was married.

    As a side note, in the UK if you’re not having a church of england marriage, you need to be interviewed by the registrar before you are married to try to ensure that you are a) actually in love and b) genuinely getting married because you want to rather than some other benefit such as immigration. This sort of process would be needed as well (IMO)

    • Jennifer Kesler says

      The tax breaks for marriage in the US are not good enough to merit what you’re talking about. In fact, many couples feel royally screwed by the govt compared to their tax burdens if they could both file as single individuals.

      • DragonLord says

        The same is now true in the UK (the new govenment is promising to re-introduce some of the things that the previous government did away with.) as it was all done away with in the name of single mothers everywhere (it wasn’t fair on single mothers and people that chose not to get married that married people got all of these benefits when they didn’t)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>