Thanks to the wonderful PG Forte for sharing this video on Facebook.
“Perry v. Schwarzenegger plaintiffs Paul and Jeff discuss how they met, how they fell in love and why marriage matters to them. This case is about constitutional principles, but it’s also about real people and real stories. This video, and their story, is why we’re in this fight.” Source
Video embedded above. If you can’t view, try the original blog post.
Cheers,
Sloan
What a wonderful video. Thank you so much for sharing.
Great video. I for one believe that love is love no matter who you’re loving. But I have a problem with the changing of the definition of marriage that incepted at the dawn of civilization.Why can’t there be a brand new term to honor gay unions that is recognized legally and has the same benefits? Why should the majority of people have to “change” their definition of marriage? Why not add a new word to the dictionary that they everyone can accept? Wouldn’t that be a more loving thing to do? Or am I missing something?
Thanks, Jambrea. Glad you liked it. I hadn’t seen anything about them before and wanted to share.
Thanks for the comment, Leigh. I’ll try to succinctly give you my take on it, but I’m a writer…I get wordy.
The institution of marriage (how it is defined, celebrated, governed, etc.) has been changing for centuries and continues to change. I think if we left the definition of many “terms” as they were when civilization was born, we’d be living in very sad times. If there were the same social structures and “rights” today as there had been even 100 years ago, you and I, as a women, would not have the same rights we do today. And it was a long, hard struggle to get where we are now. The women fighting for the right to vote were ridiculed, tormented, and dismissed because it made no sense to change what had always been in place in this country: men making the decisions for their families. Change has to be made at the highest legal levels (even when all citizens do not agree) for the improvement of society and the individual person’s life.
The legal definition of marriage in this country has changed in the past, for example allowing interracial marriages in states where laws existed prohibiting those marriages. At that time the same arguments for protecting the definition of marriage and protecting the children were used that are being stated today by the anti-gay marriage movement. They didn’t hold up then, and I hope they won’t now.
I’m not asking to change anyone else’s marriage. I’m asking the government to recognize my commitment as equal to any other life-long committed couple. From the HRC: “Marriage would continue to recognize the highest possible commitment that can be made between two adults, plain and simple.”
If so many laws and benefits in this country will continue to be based on the legal construct of marriage, then gays and lesbians need to be included in that term. Creating a new term segregates them for continued discrimination, and as we’ve seen in the past, separate but equal does not exactly work out the way it sounds. As stated by The Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
What you are proposing does sound like a loving compromise, but sometimes compromise is not enough. My hope is that people like you who support gay men and women in their right to love each other can help support us in our fight for equality. Your voice could really make a difference.
*okay, stepping off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening, Leigh*
I loved this video Sloan. I don’t think enough people see the heart of the matter: that we are talking about two people that are in love and want to be married. Simple as that. You really can’t help who you fall in love with, and no one should be penalized because they are in love with someone that other people deem “inappropriate”. My “husband” is Native American, and while we chose to have a marriage without the wedding, we would not have been allowed to be married not so long ago.(and I have probably said that too many times lol!) It is sad to me that hate-mongers choose to hate an entire community of people simply because they love and are loved in return. I believe you should be able to marry whom you want because you WANT to.
Well said, Elaine! I like the part about being “penalized because they are in love with someone that other people deem ‘inappropriate.'” It’s like banning books. What books are offensive to others may not be offensive to me and vice versa. If you keep pulling every book that offends any one person, pretty soon the shelves are empty. Thanks for sharing.
I’m not sure most people with anti-gay sentiments know or can explain why they feel that way. Because the concept makes them feel uncomfortable and losing control of their ‘sacred ideas.’ In order to feel superior they have to make those with different views wrong in order to justify their righteous indignation. It’s very sad…
Arlene: I often wonder about that. Can those who oppose gay marriage even put into words why they feel the way they do. How exactly is it going to hurt heterosexual marriages? How is it going to harm children? If marriage is about procreation then why can people who have no intention or ability to procreate still get married? Why can the elderly get married? It also didn’t seem like their argument in the prop 8 case was grounded in anything concrete.