In attempting to attack the marriage laws in Massachusetts JD Hayworth, a former Arizona congressman with a name easily confused for a recently failed mortgage brokerage, stated in a Flordia radio interview that:
“I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse”
What follows is an Open Letter to both the former Arizona congressman and to the citizenry of my hometown of Birmingham, a central battleground of the Civil Rights Movement, where too many have allowed some selective revisionist view of religious doctrine to create a false exclusory clause to once fought for basic liberties.
To You All,
Wit, Mr. Hayworth, must first contain truth to be witty. An attempt at wit that instead reveals ignorance of the speaker isn’t witty.. It is merely ignorant.
To mock the statutes calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage by implying that it will lead to people marrying other species is a tired and ignorant attempt at demonizing not same-sex marriages but homosexuality itself.
It is no different than equally ignorant attempts at aligning homosexuality with pedophilia and child abuse. Sexual orientation actually has no bearing in regards to pedophilia. Child abuse, like rape, has nothing to do with the act of sex. It is about power. The overpowering of another person, whether by physical force or mental manipulation, gives the perpetrator a sense of power and control. It is not sexual conquest. And it is not love. They are acts of violence and exploitation. Sex and sexuality are merely the methods used. And again, just to clarify, they have nothing to do with sexual orientation.
The characterizations of homosexuality as sexual perversion, and thereby deviant, are actually laughable when set afloat on the vast never ending sea of accepted “heterosexual” sexual perversions.
Combine this with the odd types of accepted marriages – older men marrying younger women, older women younger men, marriages of financial necessity, marriages strictly for the sake of an unborn child, arranged and semi-arranged marriages, the marrying of second cousins, persons under the legal voting being allow to marry, etc. – it isn’t hard to see that the real perversion of marriage is taking place within the realm of heterosexuals.
If you examine the rate of divorce, remarriages, multiple marriages, and the occurrence of infidelity, you’ll quickly see that marriage itself doesn’t have a pious leg to stand on. There is no sanctity.
One could go further still into the progression of marriages throughout history. Instead let’s just skip to where you’re referencing. Biblically a man’s wife was his property as were his daughters. If he were to die his wife and daughters would be willed to his oldest son (or nearest male relative) along with his livestock. I mean if we’re going to get back to the real intent of a marriage “under god” being between a man and a women then let’s go all the way back to when your Creator created the idea of the union current marriages are supposed to emulate:
Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
But my favorite example of the “sanctity of marriage” comes from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Lucky girl. Her marriage is actually the Punishment given to the man that Raped her. That is of course only if “they are discovered.” I’m guessing that if no one walks up it’s a “no harm no foul” / “wham-bam-thank-ya-ma’am” kind of thing.
So there’s your “It’s between a Man and Women / Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” examples. Which are fine as long as you believe women have no rights and must follow their father’s rule being passed to their husband (usually for purchase and only if they are virgins).
So let’s recap.
- Gay’s can’t marry because then people will marry horses/other animals – Ignorance not wit.
- Same Sex Marriage as Perversion – Swingers clubs… and that’s Minor Leagues.
- Sanctity of Marriage – divorce rates, infidelity, etc.
- God/The Bible says… – God/The Bible/Koran/ etc. Say a lot of things. I actually used examples within relevant context. And, in case you missed this, it would actually be an easier line of thought to say that the traditional Biblical definition of marriage and women’s role in them as Property could be a gateway to men marrying other property… I.e. Horses.
This supposed “protecting of marriage” from the evil dark forces of a certain demographic of the population is bigotry poorly disguised.
And while I understand that bigotry, especially in terms of any legislation, is a violation of Civil Rights and that violation is what the proponents of same-sex marriage want outed; I can’t help but notice a disturbing common theme with the arguments against it:
The Man and Women concept has its roots in its above mentioned religious origins. Outside of the religious the legal end of a marriage is a civil contract between two people that gives them special, and specific rights under the law. Since to treat a group of citizens differently based solely on them being in that group would constitute bigotry and bigotry in terms of legislation would constitute a violation of Civil Rights; the Man/Woman issue’s roots are in respect to religious not legislative reasoning.
Keeping in mind the side-point that the religious sense of marriage everyone keeps clamoring to “protect” has been, by its own definition, antiquated since Women’s Suffrage; I quote an older piece of American law:
“Amendment One:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
That was the opening line of the First Amendment to the Constitution… of this country, Mr. Hayworth.
I realize these truths may fall on deaf ears as you’re busy parading deep rooted bigotry under the guise of “states rights” or “family values”… I just hope you realize you can call it what you want, it is bigotry all the same.
Nomenclature subterfuges aside, what is truly telling is that the whole idea of marriage, (when you take into account such factors as its history, its many forms, infidelities, divorces, etc.), leaves one with a feeling that everyone’s trying to protect a Leave It to Beaver / Hallmark Card version of marriage… that is, Fictional and Well Wishing.
Marriage as it turns out has no real singular definition to which sanctity can be ascribed… All marriages are different, singular, complicated, weird, strange… oh… what’s the word for something that doesn’t really fit in to a group…
Oh yeah: Queer.
All marriage… is Queer.
Sincerely,
-Matt Davis
Private Citizen
