Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow

Already a member?

Click here to login

Welcome to Brazen Careerist!

Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.

  
Posted On 10.27.09

There are two ways to look at the history and traditions of marriage.

There’s the sweet adorable heart-stopping made-for-the-movies way that is all about unicorns and rainbows and love.

Then there’s the clinical transactional business arrangement that involves the property and ownership of women and need to control rampant problems with baby daddies.

If marriage truly is about the sappy beautiful idea that is love or if it is the legal contract between two consenting individuals one thing is certain when looking at both. If you do not extend the same courtesies and laws to all people then you are negating the entire concept of marriage, whichever theory it is you believe in. It is basically taking marriage and putting it into a tiny little box.

Since Hammurabi’s Code, laws have clearly been drawn surrounding the idea that marriage is the only interpersonal contract that is legally recognized by civil and governmental organizations. The laws didn’t change much since Mesopotamian times, save for the introduction of authority by organized religion.

In fact the greatest change to modern marriage came in 1920 when women won the right to vote. Beyond the ability to cast their opinions into the collective “democratic” ring, in 1920 women earned the right to be acknowledged as their own being. No longer were they their father’s property to then be traded off to a husband.

Heck, the past 90 years have seen such crazy things as inter-racial marriage and new laws stating that a woman’s sexuality was NOT the property of her husband, and thus marital rape IS a crime. Things have changed not only because the world around us changes, but also because people realize that laws created 2,300-4,500 years ago MIGHT not be relevant today.

I do not believe in unabashed idealism. And while I do acknowledge the rights of everyone to have their own beliefs, I do not see what same-sex marriage is going to do to detract from the institution as it stands. It isn’t like heterosexuals should be able to claim a corner market on getting it right any longer. Close to 50% of us definitely aren’t. We can no longer make this about the “sanctity” that is this union.

Because if marriage is only a transaction, then we have an entire segment of our population discriminated against by virtue of being shut out of certain inalienable rights. And if marriage really is about love, then you are saying that you don’t believe that gay people can love each other. Regardless of either, the truth is that the change has happened. Whether same-sex marriage is legalized or not, gay couples WILL continue to exist. YOUR VOTE WILL NOT DESTROY HOMOSEXUALITY.

If this is the case, the decision seems to be obvious. Logically, methodically, and legally our society functions better when people are acknowledged as equals. And if you have an issue with the lifestyle then this vote will do NOTHING to stop it from happening. The only thing it will do is continue to complicate. The laws are already in place, they just aren’t applied to everyone.

Be bold enough to state the real reason you are voting. And don’t make it about marriage, because by all accounts there is nothing this vote will do to bring down marriage anymore than straight people already have. Have an opinion, have a voice, and don’t try to make it something it is not.

—————————–

Addendum

I was actually going to refrain from posting this. But a calling out by a friend on Twitter challenged us to say what we think and not hold back. So I will say this. I have tried to be open minded to all sides as much as I can with a very strong leaning towards one. However this most recent commercial by the Yes On #1 campaign just angered me to no end.


A.) When you use “scary music” in your political ad I absolutely positively guarantee I will lose ANY respect I may have had for your opinion or your campaign.
B.) I’ve rarely seen a situation in which sheltering children from the realities of the world outside of school/home/life ends well.

C.) I don’t know what the heck you people were learning in Sex Ed but I learned what a prostate is, how to care for an egg baby and how to put a condom on a banana. No one “taught” me anything about how to have sex, straight/gay/or otherwise.

You can check out all the campaign videos here and try to find SOMETHING about a real issue. Again, I have a newsflash for parents. Regardless of whether it is taught or not…you’re kids are not morons. I know because I see all your bumper stickers about how they are honor students at their respective schools. They already know. Way to give them credit.

Share and Enjoy:

Comments

10.27.09

I applaud you for not holding back, Elisa.

Also, outstanding point about the age of certain legal concepts.

I usually give opponents of equal rights for gay partnerships credit for at least a medieval point of view.

Though really, it's a detraction.

I do quibble with your use of the term "lifestyle," as if gay partnership--I'm too much of a civil libertarian to look with an unjaundiced idea at marriage. Why does the state have any say in who and how I love? But you must know that "lifestyle" is a term front-loaded for and by those most fanatic opponents of equal rights. They sell it to the vast middle-of-the-road as prima facie justification for the belittling and restricting they impose, or seek to, on homosexuals, who are no more choosing their sexual orientation than any heterosexual is.

Homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle;" it's an inherence, a way one works, and as you say, laws can't possibly change that.

They can and do only persecute the different simply for being so.

10.27.09

Meant to say, "as if gay partnership, or any intimate partnership--I'm too much a civil libertarian to look with an unjaundiced eye at state sponsorship/control of relationships--is tantamount to choosing suburbia over exurbia or downtown living.

10.27.09

Jay, I would actually agree with you. I think it's bullshit that the government even gets involved in deciding whether it's "ok" for homosexual couple to be married. But that's not the world we live in. The world *I* live in has trivialized the concept of marriage to a referendum vote that slowly spreads throughout the United States because apparently government at some point in time became the all-knowing authority in how we should live our lives. (PS, I lean libertarian as well...)

I'm a little perplexed, however, that you pick out one single word from the entire post to comment on. I had to do a Control-F to even figure out what you are referencing. Again, I would agree, homosexuality is much more. I suppose lifestyle might have been a less than adaquate choice of words. However when we let words have such power over an argument then we trivialize the argument to nothing more than semantics. The post was so much more a singular word...810 other words, a video and an image to be precise.

I apologize that the overwhelming point of the article did not come through because a reader got hung up on one word.

katenonymous
10.27.09

Why only those two views of marriage? That seems awfully limited. I suppose that setup supports your argument, but it seems strange to place such restrictions on a post that argues against them.

By the way, I agree with you. I can't for the life of me figure out how gay couples getting married devalues anything. The institution of marriage? Really? If the friend who sang at my wedding wants to marry his long-time partner (and I don't know whether he does, but knowing him it wouldn't surprise me), how does that affect my marriage one way or another? Answer: it doesn't. It has no effect on my marriage. It doesn't support it, it doesn't undermine it. Why? Because it's not my marriage--it would be theirs.

If houses of worship want to place their own restrictions on who they do or do not marry, they can continue to do that just as they do now. But the government's only real interest is in property rights, so what do they care about the genders of the various property owners?

10.27.09

Here from your neighbours up north, same-sex marriage is legal (in BC, where I am from). And we have yet to spiral into any manner of chaos. We're working on adoption benefit laws now. It's never made sense to me why this would be an issue. I think it all comes down to changing mind sets and definitions, and that may take a while.

Got Something To Say?

Got Something To Say?

You Must Be Logged In To Comment
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.

Virtual Events

Schedule an Event
4e5b0c1db71b111.jpg
Male Enhancement.jpg

Ask A Citi Recruiter Zone

Q: Hi Amy, me again. l applied IT business analyst in ... (More...)
A: Janna, I have contacted the Recruiter for you. (More...)

Jobs

  • Page 1 of 3
Deployable Data Manager-TS/SCI Required
Manassas - General Dynamics Information Technology
Commercial Banking Relationship Manager NYC
New York - Citi
IT Business Analyst
Melville - Citi
Sales Associate
Various - Cellular Sales
Web Development Intern
Mclean - Brazen Careerist

Employer? Post a job