Two-fer Tuesday: Marriage by Deacon Blue

I don’t know how many among my readers are against the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage. But if there are any of you out there, with strongly held opinions that you can argue well, would you please tell me something?

What the hell is so wrong about legalizing same-sex marriages?

Please don’t give me biblical arguments, though, despite the fact I expound and ramble about spiritual issues around here a lot. Because frankly, marriage is a civil union, ultimately. That license comes from the state, the recognition of your rights as a married couple and the status of your inheritance, custody, etc. are defined by the state. You might get married in a church and say your vows to God, but the institution of marriage is not a religious or spiritual thing inherently.

So, again, what is wrong with same-sex marriage? How is it going to lead to the downfall of the family? How does it fly in the face of honest, wholesome values? What apocalyptic thing is it going to unleashed societally?

Two of my best friends where I live right now are a gay couple. They are raising a little girl. They raise her as well as the traditional married couples whom I count among my real friends. They raise her better than average married couples based on married folks with kids whom I’ve encountered. In every way, the model nuclear family.

Opposite-sex couples separate and divorce and remmary at alarming rates.

Same-sex couples pay the same taxes the rest of us do and follow the same laws and are equal citizens, so why are they denied—or why should they be denied—the right to get hitched?

I really want to know. I really want to see some defensible argument. Because so far, all I see among the people who protest against this and rail against the idea is a bunch of mean-hearted, closed-minded, ill-informed religious folks who are trying to bolster a civil debate using biblical arguments.


20 Responses to “Two-fer Tuesday: Marriage by Deacon Blue”

  1. April 21, 2009 at 9:06 am

    my brother’s comment on same sex marriage: you breeders want us to be as miserable as you are?

  2. 2 societyvs
    April 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    The legalization of gay marriage doesn’t bother me – thats up to the gov’t to determine in all opinion – if it’s lawful or what have you. In Canada, it is legal and no problems have arisen because of it (nothing serious if u ask me). Let people that are gay marry – I have no qualms with it…I have met some very great gay people to be perfectly honest.

  3. 3 Deacon Blue
    April 21, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Robyn…tell your brother that misery loves company.

    SocietyVs…Of course, I agree with you. It pains me that people have to keep falling back to one of two primary arguments against same-sex marriage.

    1. It’s against God (which has nothing to do with civil law)

    2. It’s a slippery slope to legalized incest, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. (which is, for the most part, ludicrous)

  4. April 22, 2009 at 8:16 am

    LOL-that was my response.

    sure deke, next time i speak to him, i’ll pass the message along.
    monday night when we talked, he said anytime i need a push, he has my back. then he got me clocking 24,25 mph.



  5. 5 Deacon Blue
    April 22, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Thanks for the links…haven’t checked out your blog recently. I am so behind on my blogs.


    Oh, and a sidenote to Thordaddy: No need to add extra stress to your fingers or keyboard. I banned you. Get used to it. Not that your comments were likely to add anything sane to this dicussion anyway.

  6. April 22, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Wow. I just wrote about this (well, as a mention in the whole cat fight between Miss California and Perez Hilton).

    This year, I will spend Mother’s Day with my fiance, my two sons, an engaged gay couple and their parents.

    I can’t help you much here because I also have no problem with gay couples getting the same rights as heterosexual couples. I agree that this is a civil issue. I could see the argument if the Holier Than Thou believed banning gay marriage would somehow “cure” the gay couples. (LOL) But dangit, you’re talking about two consenting adults who already made a decision to be together. Why not recognize such a civil union and leave the religious stuff where it belongs – in the privacy of folks’ homes?

    Call me a bad Christian if you want, but it makes me nervous to think my government would suddenly go all “Christian-centered” on us – because even Christians can’t agree on some basic stuff. Isn’t the Klu Klux Klan a self-proclaimed “Christian organization?” Case closed.

  7. 7 Deacon Blue
    April 22, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Hawa, I don’t know if you saw the Stephen Colbert bit about the commercial recently from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), but it’s hilarious. And sad. The commercial makes out like same-sex marriage is some kind of armageddon-style event.

  8. 8 Aro
    April 22, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Have a nice life, Deacon Blue.

  9. 9 Deacon Blue
    April 22, 2009 at 11:21 pm


  10. April 22, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    Let me say first, that I’m all for “marriage equality.” But to answer your question, as I have come to understand it–for some it’s “traditionalism” (marriage between a woman and a man) versus “non-traditionalism” (same-sex marriages). Even some traditionalists, championing MARRIAGE for heterosexual couples only, are not against “civil unions,” but believe that MARRIAGE should be reserved for those of the opposite sex, period, the way it has always been, and they see no need to change it.

  11. April 23, 2009 at 3:04 am

    the traditionalists i’ve met argue that the purpose of marriage is to produce children [calling the QUIVERFULS! and the OCTOMOM! and the greatest of all, the DUGGARS]

    so anyone like me, perimenopausal, should NOT be married. nor should my parents or grandparents [well, they’re all dead anyway, but you get my point]
    and couples who are infertile should be obligated to divorce adn try again with other partners. like Reb Schneerson did.

    oh wait. he DIDN’T divorce his wife. he followed the guide abraham set with sarah and stayed with the woman he loved EVEN THOUGH THEIR MARRIAGE DID NOT ADHERE TO TRADITIONAL GUIDELINES AND PRODUCE CHILDREN.


    between the sin of onan was wasting seed. the sin of sodom and gomorrah was RAPE, not homosexuality, the violation of the host/guest rule.

  12. April 23, 2009 at 4:14 am

    “…the traditionalists i’ve met argue that the purpose of marriage is to produce children….”

    The argument is patently absurd, and merely shows how far some are willing to go to support untenable positions.

  13. 13 Deacon Blue
    April 23, 2009 at 10:04 am

    Yeah, Black Diaspora and Robyn…the traditionalism argument is quite weak…and pretty much is just the “we’ve always done it that way, so…” I admit that for a time, I thought, “why not just have a separate civil union thing.” Then I realize, why create a whole new entity for consenting adults when we already have a perfectly good civil system in place for it?

    @ Robyn,

    I’ve always seen the sin of Onan as disobedience, not so much the wasting of seed. The spilling of his seed was a slap in the face to God regarding his obligations. He was supposed to give a child to the widow of his brother, and the undercurrent I get is that God made that very clear that he HAD to follow that tradition. I’ve always assumed that God has a plan in mind that Onan was to be part of, and Onan exercised his free will in a most blatant “fuck you” fashion, and that earned him death from God.

  14. April 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    yes, deke, you are spot on.

    onan broke a very clear law. he refused to provide an heir for his brother, and he did this wilth deliberate forethought, intent and more than once. he lay with his brother’s wife and did not fulfill the obligation of the levirate marriage. judaism is big on contract law.

    if he had refused to sleep with Tamar, a marriage would have been arranged with a cousin or other male of the line, but he broke a contract. he didn’t want to dilute his share of the family estate with her having children by him or anyone else.

    i’ve heard onan used as an example by traditionalists, that procreation is the only legitmate result of marrige, and contraception of any kind will result in death.

    no, failure to fulfil god’s law [go into your brother’s wife and get her with child] will result in death.

    there are other examples of levirate marriages and the avoidance of them.

  15. April 25, 2009 at 10:53 am

    “Same-sex couples pay the same taxes the rest of us do …”

    Well, not quite. My gay and lesbian friends in committed relationships typically pay some form of tax penalty, whether it’s complications that turn a simple filing into an accountant’s college fund or something more serious. I recently heard of a committed gay couple who ended up paying a $10,000 tax penalty because they couldn’t both file taxes claiming the mortgage exemption on the house they’d just purchased. Gay people ought to pay the same taxes, but in fact they pay more.

    I think most of the opposition to gay marriage is just simple homophobia. I haven’t yet run into someone who opposes it who doesn’t harbor animosity or judgment against gays, even when it’s carefully hidden and disguised by philosophy and rhetoric. Dig a bit deeper, and you find that animosity lying hidden in the depths of their psyches. I’ve seen some pretty good surface arguments, but they’re just that – specious justifications to prevent equality.

    I’ve got a book called “Slavery Defended: the views of the Old South.” It’s a collection of essays written by folks such as John Calhoun explaining why it’s really important to keep black people enslaved. The editor’s first words are, “Nothing is more susceptible to oblivioin than an argument, however ingenious, that has been discredited by events.” So keep looking, and when you find that ingenious argument, remember it, ’cause I’ve got a feeling it’s bound for oblivion.

  16. 16 Deacon Blue
    April 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    In my state, there are some rumblings about legalizing same-sex marriage…though it will be interesting to see if it actually gets off the ground.

    In some of the commentary on the web site of our main newspaper, one of the arguments that got trotted out against same-sex marraige was, “But the children of such partners may be subjected to ridicule or may just feel uncomfortable when they see they have two moms or two dads and everyone else has one of each.”

    By that logic, we shouldn’t allow annoying or embarrassing people to marry and/or have kids. We shouldn’t let losers and drug addicts marry or have children. And we damn sure shouldn’t allow divorce.

    Because, after all, such parents…or single parent homes…might make the kids be ridiculed by peers or feel uncomfortable… (shakes head).

    But in the end, those are the only arguments people have against the idea: half-baked notions, idiot theories and religion. And I’m all for religion (specifically Jesus) but that doesn’t change that fact that we’re not supposed to let religion drive policy and laws and government in the United States.

    Thordaddy, who insists on trying to engage me and bait me through the spam queue of this blog, likes now to call me a “false Christian” because I don’t want the Bible in this debate. Well, God doesn’t make public policy. He makes spiritual policy. It may be that gays and perhaps even more so gays who marry may pay a severe price with God…I just don’t know one way or the other…but I do know that it shouldn’t be why we forbid something by law.

    I know some people would argue that many laws come from a biblical base, but they’d be wrong. Laws against murder, stealing, etc. are like most laws in that the majority of laws are designed around protecting people from being harmed, preventing them from harming themselves, or discouraging us from harming others. Theft and assault and killing and the like are issues that involve harm or gross unfairness or exploitation, or whatever.

    And same-sex marraige doesn’t fit that bill at all.

    Two grown adults should be able to marry, regardless. It’s equitable, it’s fair and it’s respectful. And gays and lesbians being married in no way diminishes my own marriage, any more than people who abuse their spouses, divorce, or whatever diminish my marriage.

    Crazy stuff.

  17. 17 thordaddy
    April 25, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Deacon Blue,

    First, your main premise is FALSE. Once you acknowledge the falseness of your premise then you can procede to make a truthful attempt at pushing homosexual “marriage.”

    Your false premise is the notion that homosexuals can’t marry. In fact, there are liberal churches across the land that will and have “married” homosexuals for DECADES. Homosexuals are in no way prohibited from taking vows before God in order to “marry.” In addition, homosexuals in every State in the Union can marry by following the same laws that are required of ALL who want to marry. Now, your argument suggests that a new set of laws take effect that accounts for the couple’s homosexual disposition. These are special laws catered to a distinct minority. Lastly, many states have civil unions which are “marriage” in all but name. But because they are called civil unions and not marriage then they are not “equal” and we read another nod to liberalism.

    So now that your main premise has been shattered by REAL FACTS can you proceed to the real battle which is the battle to push another falsehood, namely, that homosexuality is the “equal” of heterosexuality?

  18. 18 Deacon Blue
    April 25, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    The only reason I am approving Thordaddy’s post here is as evidence of the idiocy of some folks.

    He professes that gays and lesbians can marry in every state. In fact, they cannot. Almost nowhere can they get a marriage license from the state of their residence and almost nowhere will their union be recognized in terms of being able to do things like file taxes jointly as a married couple, be fully recognized in terms of inheritance, be allowed to adopt without discrimination, get healt insurance for their partner, be able to make end of life decisions for their partner, etc.

    This is the kind of bald-face rejection of reality and lying that allowed our country to get in the mess it did over the past 8 years.

    And it pisses me off.

    This is your last time here, Thordaddy, and you’ve made yourself look like an idiot, for all your attempts to take some intellectual high ground and accuse me of being intellectually weak.

    I’m more convinced than ever that you are a teenager who thinks he knows everything but researches nothing.

  19. April 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm


    I’m going to leave you and Thor to do your thing.

    I just wanted to address Seda and say that I don’t think it’s always homophobia.

    I think that if you believe society should base it’s laws on the Bible, then you are going to oppose gay marriage

    The problem is that the same folks applying those standards to gay marriage don’t apply them to every other sin. It’s more a problem of hypocrisy than homophobia. You can think homosexuality is a sin, which I do, and still believe that gay marriage should be allowed.

    We live in a country that has not chosen to make the Bible it’s standard for behavior in all aspects of life. I wouldn’t support that change if it was proposed anyway. I think that following the Bible is free will choice for all adults, and any move to force everyone to live according to God’s Word is wrong.

  20. 20 Deacon Blue
    April 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    I’m done with Thorbaby. At this point, even if he wastes his time posting comments, I’m just gonna delete them from the span queue without even reading a single word of them, not even out of morbid curiosity. Every time I do, my IQ goes down a couple points from the stupidity leaking out of his commentary and my blood pressure goes up a tiny bit from his rampant ignorance.

Comments are currently closed.

Deacon Blue is the blogging persona of editor and writer Jeffrey Bouley. The opinions of Jeff himself on this blog, and those expressed as Deacon Blue, in NO WAY should be construed as the opinions of anyone with whom he has worked, currently works, or will work with in the future. They are personal opinions and views, and are sometimes, frankly, expressed in more outrageous terms than I truly feel most days.

Jeff Bouley


Jeff Bouley

To find out more about me professionally, click here. To find out more about me generally, click here.



You can reach Deacon Blue/Jeff Bouley at deaconbluemail@gmail.com.



For my public profile, click here.


Tales of the Whethermen

My superhero fiction blog, click here


Raising the Goddess

My parenting blog, click here

Copyright Info and Images

For more about images used on this site, and copyrights regarding them, as well as usage/copyright information about my own writing as posted here, click here.

Deac Tweets


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 834 other followers

April 2009
« Mar   May »

%d bloggers like this: