Archive for ‘shacking up’

March 21st, 2008

Today’s letter – teen sex out of wedlock

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

As a parent I was disgusted with the latest CDC study that revealed that one in four teenage girls are infected with at least one sexually transmitted disease.

It seems strange that the more obsessed we are with blocking gay marriage, the more teenagers are having sex out of wedlock. Maybe it is time for a change of course?

I wish you would advocate marriage as a way to encourage monogamy, instead of using it as a weapon to punish California’s lesbian and gay citizens for wanting to make the commitment of marriage.

You don’t protect our children by “protecting marriage.” You protect them by giving their parents the tools they need to be good parents. Please give us the freedom to marry.

Yours,

Share
December 23rd, 2007

Today’s letter – Leviticus bans Sex, not Love

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

Bible Week continues with a clarification of Leviticus. The old-testament passage says “[a man] shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” On the surface, this seems pretty damming, but anybody who reads the bible with more care than they give the Recycler knows that this is nothing about gay marriage or same-sex relationships, and certainly not an appropriate guide for public policy.

As a gay dad, I differ from the biblical scholars who dwell on issues of context and applications to temple prostitution and pagan ritual. Instead, I recognize that to “lie with” anybody – man or woman – the way it is said in Leviticus is wrong. That’s adultery, prostitution, promiscuity and a bunch of other things.

God begins Leviticus 18 saying “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.” and then goes on to list other “abominations” practiced by the Canaanites, such as eating pork (11:7) or seafood (11:9), planting mingled seeds (19:19) or wearing polycotton blends (19:19).

Nowhere – and conspicuously nowhere – does He endorse heterosexual relationships or ban homosexual ones.

This is consistent with Genesis and the rest of the bible where we are taught that God created partnerships for the purposes of companionship, not to exclude gay people.

“It is not good that the man should be alone.” Genesis 2:18.

As long as man can debate what the Old Testament says about homosexuality, we need to use a higher standard for deciding public policy, such as freedom and liberty. Please reconsider your admonishment of same-sex relationships and support the freedom to marry.

Yours,

Share
November 15th, 2007

Today’s letter – This joy remains tinged with sadness

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

Next week, three generations of our family will gather around the dinner table: us, our newborn twins, and all four of our parents. It is amazing to watch our parents glow in the pride of their grandchildren – the first on both sides of the family.

Yet, this joy remains tinged with sadness. Unlike our parents, my fiancée and I are blocked from marriage. I am upset at being excluded from the time-tested security the law provides married couples, but what really makes me sad is that it deprives our parents of the hope of seeing their children’s wedding. All of the gratitude, joy and unqualified support that will be in that room that day are not going to create a world where we are free to marry.

We will be the only unwed couple at the table – the ones who had our kids out of wedlock – and until we can wed, we will always be thinking there is a small sense of shame when we – despite all our hard work – are grouped with Anna Nicole and Larry Birkhead as our parents shake their heads and cluck their tongues about the fallout from their unwed escapades.

I have been finding ways to convert the shame into anger, and I was surprised at how easy it is: we simply blame the fact that we are treated as less than equal, less perfect and less human than other couples directly on you, Governor.

You could have signed AB 849 in 2005; you could have signed AB 43 this past October; you could have said that you think all Californians should have the same freedom to marry. But you did none of those things.

It will take a lot more than you to spoil our Thanksgiving, but I don’t think I’m being greedy to say that I wish your support could have been one more thing for which to be thankful, rather than one more thing over which to shake our heads and cluck our tongues.

Yours,

Share
October 19th, 2007

Today’s letter – mail bag: "marriage doesn’t make love"

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

I’m somebody who believes in old-fashioned letters, and the old-fashioned concept that people living together should be married. So today I want to share my response to a YouTuber who read (or rather watched) my July 27 letter to you about upgrading Domestic Partnerships to Marriage.

Dear SIGNAB43:

Its IMPOSSIBLE to love someone FOREVER! sooner or later your love for someone will deminish, its only after your love deminishes where true love can be formed. True love is sometihng like “no matter what happens, i will always love you” kinda like a mother and her kids. Its only after you lose your love for someone, then you can create true love. that will be the ultimate test

JUKIO01

Dear JUKIO01

Well, my “partner” and I have been together for ten years three months (yesterday). We liked and loved each other when we met, and we still like and love each other now. We had two kids through surrogacy in March. We made a commitment to each other and to God to stick together through the rough spots, and it worked to make our love even stronger. We did that without “marriage.” So all these hateful laws are not even effective – only hurtful, not just to us, but to the whole idea of “marriage.” Like you said, it’s true love that makes a family. We passed that test – can we get married now?

SIGNAB43

So, Governor, the kids are asking “why marriage.” Your veto of AB 43 combined with our example of true love out of wedlock shows the unfortunate side-effect of “defending marriage” by excluding people: like postal mail in the age of computers, if it is not necessary, it will go away. That would make traditionalists like me really sad.

I wish you had signed AB 43, but it’s not too late to save marriage by supporting the freedom to marry.

Yours,

Share
October 5th, 2007

Today’s letter – successful "shack-ups" undermine all marriages

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

I want to get married, but I’m running into more and more people who just want to “shack up” without making that commitment. I am starting to think that the decline of marriage might be inspired by the many same-sex couples who have been forced to build their families without the safety and security of marriage, yet have done so with such success.

Many of our friends ask me and my permanent boyfriend for marital advice, which we happily supply, but I actually felt a bit guilty last week when a friend of mine from high school told me that he and his girlfriend decided to merely live together because of how well my ten-year relationship works without marriage.

Even public couples such as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie cite gay relationships as reasons for not getting married. It’s so popular that Senator Carol Migden introduced a bill that would give California couples the rights of marriage without the responsibilities. She calls it “Domestic Partnership.”

If you believe that couples in a relationship should get married instead of “living in sin” then you should sign AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, and change the gold standard for successful relationships from “domestic partnerships” to marriages.

Sincerely,

Share
Tags: ,
September 27th, 2007

Today’s letter – Domestic Partnerships are bad for Heterosexuals too

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger –

I’ve written to you in the past about AB 43 which would allow same-sex couples to choose between marriage and Domestic Partnership, but today I want to write to you about a reciprocal bill – SB 11 – which would give all opposite-sex couples the option to choose Domestic Partnership instead of marriage.

Heterosexuals couples over 62 years old can already choose Domestic Partnership instead of marriage but SB 11 would remove the age restriction and let anybody who can get married get Domestic Partnered instead.

I actually agree with Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) and an infamous Opponent of Equality, who said “Awarding marriage rights to people who shack up but refuse to get married is completely ridiculous. Why get married if you can get all the legal rights and benefits of marriage without being committed? This bad bill severely weakens the institution of marriage and will motivate unwed parents to remain uncommitted.”

SB 11 is a reciprocal bill to AB 43, and the reciprocal truth applies: why ban people who are “shacking up” from the commitment of marriage? Why would you motivate (or force) unwed parents to remain uncommitted? Just as SB 11 weakens marriage, AB 43 strengthens it by allowing committed couples to commit to each other.

My California Domestic Partner and I have been “shacked up” and “uncommitted” for way too long. I wish you would let us access the safety and security of marriage just like everybody else: please sign AB 43.

Sincerely,

Share