I’m thinking about divorce. Calling it quits. Ending my (nearly) ten-year marriage to my high-school sweetheart. I’m sure most of you are not surprised . . . how often is it that high-school love can weather the trials of adulthood – careers, mortgages, car payments, and in our case, three small children? If I go through with it, we will soon become only another tired cliché. Billy Joel’s Brenda and Eddie…. the naïve young couple who couldn’t make it through “real life”.
But stop singing the music for a minute. “Scenes From an Italian Restaurant” doesn’t quite cover it. I am more in love today with my sweetheart than I have been in the last ten years. The trials we have weathered thus far have been withstood, and I think we have emerged stronger, and more committed to each other. Yet recently, something changed. On May 15th of this year, the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 - the voter pushed initiative to define marriage as between a man and woman…. And made gay marriage legal in California. In response, several conservative groups, who have actually been at work collecting signatures long before the Supreme Court ruling, have succeeded in placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November, which would prohibit same sex marriage. That’s where divorce comes in…
My husband and I have decided that we do not want to belong to an inherently discriminatory institution. We don’t want to take advantage of laws which place our relationship in a preferred group, and other committed couple’s in a group clearly defined as “less-than”. Up until this point, we have been able to justify belonging to the institution of marriage, despite a lack of federal support of same-sex couples – because it felt like things were changing. Massachusetts has changed its stance on marriage, and the Proposition 22 was making its way through the courts. We live in the bay area (no surprise there given our stance I suppose) – so it even feels like we are pseudo-participants in San Francisco’s challenge to the Proposition.
However, should our state, decided by voters, determine to enshrine civil marriage discrimination in our Constitution – the document against which the legality of law is determined – we would feel compelled to protest – and would not want to continue to be part of such an exclusive club.
Hopefully for our parents, who generationally seem to attach a great sense of security to the fact that we are “married” - things in California will go our way. The fear-mongering tactics from the Prop 22 campaign in 2000, which warned that marriage was under attack, and would become meaningless and more likely to fail if same-sex relationships were allowed to infect the institution, seem to resonate less with voters this time around. As time has passed, more and more rational citizens seem to realize that separate but equal never truly is, and that the greatest predictor of their own marriage’s success or failure is the quality of their own actions, not actually whether same sex couples are allowed to join the club. Also, demographics appear to be in our favor, as more young voters who grew up during an era where homosexuality is more understood, instead of hidden and feared have come of age, and now get an opportunity to cast their vote – many of them propelled to the polls by the likely Obama candidacy. Nonetheless, all predictions are for a very tight contest.
Still, I want to assure our families…. Very little will have changed for us should we get divorced. We will still be the same committed couple we are today. Just as many same-sex couples do, I will still call my sweetheart my husband…. Our children will still know that Mommy and Daddy are going to be together forever – I still plan to wear my rings. And maybe we’ll celebrate our divorce with a new marriage ceremony – just minus the civil documents…. Brenda and Eddie revised.
Thank you.
I’m so happy to read something supportive of marriage equality. So much of what has been posted in the past few weeks has ranged from absolutely hateful, to so ill-informed as to be laughable were it not for the fact that these people plan on carrying their ignorance into the voting booth.
Funny how you’re considering divorce as a way to protest the discrimination, while my partner and I are planning our wedding which makes the statement that civil laws and religious oppression don’t really matter when two people love each other enough to make a commitment to one another. We’ll be married on August 9th, regardless of what the government, or religious fundamentalists think.
Comment by keltic — May 31, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
I think this is a very novel and powerful form of protest (getting divorced, even if you’re not actually planning on seperating, is not something that anyone would do lightly) and could actually be very effective if done on a large scale.
It’s heartening to see a heterosexual couple who are willing to do something like this, and I wish you the best of luck if you decide to go through with it. Keep us posted!
Comment by vitaminbook — May 31, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life!Shocking! More people should stand up for what they know is right! If you are foolish enough to get divorced to protest the failing of prop 8 than you deserve all the fall out you will feel if you go through with this. Sadly your children will suffer for your mistake. But isn’t that how it always is? I don’t even know what else to say. This really blows me away.
Comment by wendy — September 9, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Wendy,
I believe that should we end up choosing to divorce, our children will experience the exact same daily life that they do now. Our commitment to each other and our family will not change even if our marriage status does. In fact, I think our children are very lucky to have parents who WILL stand up for what they believe is right – even if it makes us unusual. Parenting should include teaching children about our value systems, and I think actions make a stronger statement than even words. I hope that they will learn from our actions that sometimes it is important to make an uncomfortable choice for what you believe is right. And I hope they will also learn that the bonds that tie us together as a family are much stronger than any legal document. If they take away those lessons, it will be hard for me to imagine how much “suffering” they have endured for our choice.
Thanks for commenting. I would actually love to hear an sound logical argument on why CIVIL marriage equality is such a terrible thing… but most people seem to come at the issue from a very emotional place instead.
Sara
Comment by saracallow — September 9, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
I am one person that believes that marriage is a sacred ordinance ordained of God between a man and a woman. If you do not believe in God then we can just agree to disagree. But, if you do believe in God and believe in prophets who speak on his behalf you would, through the witness of the spirit, know that this is his eternal plan for families. It’s actually so elementary that I find it so incredible that it is even a topic for discussion. Just the biology alone tells us that it takes a man and a woman to create life. Not two of the same. I am saddened that so many people have come to accept something so easily that is so contrary to the laws of nature or laws of God. I find it even more reprehensable that the people who are preaching tolerance have zero tolerance for people that don’t want to agree with them on this issue. And not only that they want to force it down our children’s throats without our permission. Do what you would like in the privacy of your own homes, but don’t go making others joining your cause by twisting their arms. I know that you would like to believe that the whole country feels the same way that you do, but you should remember that you do live in the most liberal city on the face of the planet and trust me the majority of the population are God fearing and do understand his laws. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to give my point of view because there are certainly two. And on your comment about people coming to you about this logically and not emotionally I would just like to say thank heavens for the spirit of God which can often times make us emotional. Because if we thought about everything in life logically we would be a bunch of cyborgs who thought that we evolved from pond scum!
Comment by Natalie — September 9, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
Thanks Natalie for commenting,
I want to point out that I am not advocating a position which would require any church to change their position on marriage, or on the types of marriages that they perform. Government should not dictate the beliefs / actions of churches or their members. That would clearly be in violation of the first ammendment allowing for religious freedom.
However, on the same point, if a person does not believe in the God often referenced in regard to the literal interpretation of Christian scripture on this issue, then I think it actually is the same situation. A government which dictates that marriages must be between a man and a woman because of an argument based on religion or God is also imposing on the religious freedom of those who disagree.
I am still unaware of an argument against CIVIL marriage. Very separate thing from the religious concept of a covenant between man, woman, and God. Opening up the legal definition of marriage to same sex couples would not in any way prevent a church from refusing to perform the marriage. Perhaps we could do away with the entire word “marriage” in legal terms, and everyone would legally be domestic partners – those who choose a church marriage could do so in a church that is willing to bless their particular union. The reverse would work as well, “marriage” could apply only to the legal partnership, and churches could coin a new term recognizing what they desire to bless in their own communities.
I think the reason that this is a topic for discussion is that we DO have religious freedom in the United States, and this issue clearly sits at the intersection of law and religion. Not everyone agrees on God’s plan or vision, and the law should allow for different beliefs. I really think people are having trouble separating the legal concept from the religious one. Yet,they really are different.
I agree that with you that emotions are important. I also feel emotionally about this issue or I wouldn’t be advocating my position. However I think when we talk about law making – it is important to think logically about what makes the most sense.
Thanks! Sara
Comment by saracallow — September 10, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
I am quite sure that my arguments against homosexual marriages will not resonate with you because I am certain that your mind is already made up. I only know that this great country, second to none, was founded on God given principles and values. “In God We Trust” is what our fore fathers fought, and bled, and died to preserve. It is my belief that God’s laws should be and are intertwined with the laws that govern this country. When man’s laws start to overrule or override the laws of God we have started down a slippery slope that I don’t want to go down. The blessings that our Father in Heaven have poured out on this country are because we have, for the most part, obeyed His laws.
Please read the story below and try to convince me that the rights of heterosexual couples are not going to be diminished for the rights of homosexuals.
——————————————————————————–
Posted: September 08, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
ROSEVILLE, Calif. – “Brides” and “grooms” are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.
That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called “Party A” and “Party B” on marriage licenses.
Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his firstmarriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.
The couple had written the words “bride” and “groom” next to “Party A” and “Party B” because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.
However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.
“I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license ‘does not comply with California State registration laws,’” Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.
It was an “unacceptable alteration,” the County Recorder’s Office claimed the State Office of Vital Records determined.
“What’s next?” Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. “Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms “Party A” and “Party B” in the ceremony itself?”
In a 4-3 decision, California’s high court declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations have been added to legal documents.
Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said voters must change the state constitution by voting on the marriage amendment in November if they wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.
“Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife.” He said in a statement. “This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage.”
Comment by Natalie — September 10, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Hi again Natalie…
In the name of the truth, there was a statement you made that I can’t let go unchallenged.
I would like to point out that actually, our forefathers did not create this as “one nation under God” – nor did they specifically place our trust in God. Please see my latest post (Separate States) for the facts. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that the founding fathers as a group were less religious than their time.
There is just a lot of rhetoric flying around in regards to this issue, and so much of it is incorrect – which is exactly why it’s important to use our heads on this one.
Also, does it really matter if the form says “Party A” or “Bride” – why let a form dictate the terms of your marriage? And how does this reduce your rights? I fail to see why using some different terms fundamentally changes your relationship. Again, there is NO TALK of forcing ministers to change what they do in their church. That is more inflammatory and incorrect speech. That would clearly violate the first ammendment, and I am sure you won’t find that as any part of the actual discussion from those advocating for civil marriage rights.
Comment by saracallow — September 10, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
In a rare speech to congress, the revered Benjamin Franklin recalled that when the Continental Congress sat in days of great danger, they had asked God’s help in prayer.”Have we forgotten our powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance?” Franklin said he had lived a long time-he was the oldest delegate-”And the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aide?” Franklin concluded quoting the Bible:”Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”
Thanks for this quote Natalie.
Comment by Adam — September 11, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Also attributed to Franklin:
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
[Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758]
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.” [Franklin's Autobiography]
“In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it.”
Just as people do with the Bible, you can find a quote to support almost any viewpoint.
Comment by saracallow — September 12, 2008 @ 7:18 am
HAHA. I really don’t think you have any idea what those quote mean.
Comment by Adam — September 12, 2008 @ 10:05 am
I really didn’t have an opinion about this article rather then “let people do and live their lives as they please” until… Ben Franklin got involved. I only comment because I took a year of American Lit. and so much to my surprise, while reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, this ‘statue example of classic-American man’ was a Player, Boozer, Party animal of his time, and many times over called a ‘heretic!!!’ He was quite the ladies man as well! I would reccommend this book to anyone. In reality, Franklin was a proponent of all religions, and claimed it needless to study “Jesus of Nazareth” intensely as he saw its foundations corrupting (refer to chapter 8). Sara is soo right- we can manipulate quotes all day long!
Comment by ashlie — September 23, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
[...] contemplation and research following the passage of Proposition 8, my husband and I elected not to officially divorce. Truthfully, it would have been our preference to end our participation in civil marriage while [...]
Pingback by Thanks to Dear Abby « Broken Corset — February 20, 2009 @ 3:53 pm