been awhile since i wrote out a political rant on here

My step mother recently began an argument with me on a few issues. Gay marriage came up, she and my dad feel they are just following their faith, not discriminating by being against marriage equality. She also brought up the Chick Fil A thing.  I hadn't really thought about the chick fil a thing until I read the article at the bottom. I guess sometimes my biases come out when I am arguing for things and I can't put my finger on why it is important to argue against say a random corporation getting involved. I don't think Chick Fil A is directly responsible for the deaths of lgbt kids... but they are not helping, and may in fact be hurting those children indirectly. 

Anyway here is what I sent her:

Hi Colleen, I guess I am still cooling off a little after that last one. I think this issue is particularly hard because so many of the people in my life are affected so personally by this issue, friends, family coworkers, even myself. I know the vague legal boundaries around same sex partners seem like a small issue, but I think its more about the larger issue that in the united states we use these institutions to block people from being recognized as equals. I cannot be okay with that, and I don't think you and my dad are actually okay with that either, but right now you don't see how it is discrimination. It is though because on a basic LEGAL and SOCIAL level, some people are given more rights than others. No different from racial discrimination, which I know you are not ok with. In fact some of these rights had to be fought for during the civil rights movements, women's rights movement, even in some states the Catholic's rights movements.

LGBT folks are not recognized as being equal, if you want to fight for their equality then vote No, or don't Vote on the amendment, OR fight for equal civil rights and try to get the state constitution to recognize civil unions as equal to your marriage.


Feel free to read the rest if you like, it is about discrimination of lgbt folks, and reactions to the common arguments against marriage equality.
______________________________________________
National Level:
It seems absurd to me that for 18 years of my life Gay people in the military were openly discriminated against for being themselves, even if they had "served their country" in combat, they were dismissed without benefits for being themselves. Imagine losing a limb for this country and then getting nothing. Did this happen to straight folks? It seems absurd to me that for the last 16 years a gay person's legal marriage in one state, wouldn't be recognize in another. Imagine going to South Dakota or Florida and not having your marriage recognized. If you and my dad were for some reason injured on a trip, its possible the hospital would deny you access to each other. Think about how horrifying that would be. Does this happen to straight folks?
In several states homosexual individuals and couples can't adopt children. Meaning thousands of kids go un-adopted but willing folks can't adopt them. Are straight couples ever ruled unfit, simply because of their sexuality?


Besides the DOMA stuff above, there are 515 statutes of Minnesota law that apply to Heterosexual couples and don't apply to Homosexual couples. 515 laws that create unequal treatment from the state of MN to same sex couples.

Why does it have to be "marriage" on a legal level?

This is something that a lot of people on all sides of the issue ask, in many ways progressives would rather change the law so that "marriage" was a word not used in any legal manner. They say let marriage be a religious thing, let civil unions be a legal term, this would basically mean the state would recognize that you were in a civil union, the church may or may not recognize that you were married. I myself don't care about this one, as many churches will marry lgbt folks, and the state could be changed to recognize civil unions, but this is not the argument conservatives fought for in the legislature. They chose to have an anti-marriage amendment thrown into the mn constitution for no reason ( I say no reason, because same sex marriage is already illegal in MN.)
This would mean (if it passes) lgbt partners could never have their "marriages" recognized by the state (forever). Making it very unlikely that same sex couples will ever have the same legal rights.

This means you will always be able to visit my dad in the hospital, but arguably another couple may not. This means you will be able to receive tax benefits that another couple does not. So on and so forth.

Why does it have to be "marriage" on a social level?
Would you give up your marriage even if you still had the legal rights?If you answer is no, that is the reason why it has to be marriage. Because the term marriage bestows a social, psychological and YES to some extent a religious understanding that says "this is important." James just got married and described the days after it as being the happiest he had been in a long time. Nothing had changed in any way, other than the legal, social and psychological impact of "marriage".


Religious rules: the laws that supposedly discuss homosexuality as evil are ludicrous and we ignore most of those these days anyway, so lets talk about "biblical marriage:"
Biblical marriage throughout the bible is almost always discussed as a business transaction. Women almost never have choice in the matter. Women are seen as property in the bible. Love is almost never mentioned, lust is more often the motive of the male protagonist when discussed for reasons to marry. Commitment is seen as secondary to the business transaction. Polygamy is celebrated in the heroic stories of the bible more often than marriage between two individuals. Most of the cultures of the bible tended to have separate spheres for males and females so the idea of our modern form of marriage for love and commitment was almost never possible. Many of the marriages in the bible are far from sacred, they routinely talk about marrying for diplomacy, for property and for power. Divorce, adultery and other obstacles to the "sacredness of marriage" were as common then as now, which is why they had so many strict rules to try to keep families intact.

New testament: First off is the new testament about inclusion or intolerance? Second, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Paul did, but he also said its better for all people to remain single rather than get married. He also said in Christ there is no male or female, all are one in Christ.

Freedom of Religion: The state legally shouldn't be able to uphold "religious rules" that create unequal treatment of people, if it cannot endorse a religion or inhibit the practice of a religion. If we keep people from legal marriage rights by using "religious" rules we are both endorsing one religious standpoint, and inhibiting other people from practicing their religious point of view. This amendment is against freedom of religion.

"Nature" arguments based on the idea that same sex couples cannot reproduce are ludicrous, You and my dad couldn't reproduce but it didn't keep you from wanting a "marriage."

Lastly why is it important to stand up for gay rights against those who speak against them? (Even if they are just speaking their mind?)
First off I think it is unfortunate that some people believe they or their beliefs are under attack if and when the state decides to change the law to recognize the equality of all people. In the south white people claimed their schools, businesses and churches were all under attack during the civil rights movement, meanwhile those same folks literally attacked black people and kept them from equal rights.

I think this article both attempts to be human, relational and speak to the reasons for standing up against institutional discrimination in whatever form, without attacking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conor-gaughan/chick-fil-a-homophobia_b_1711566.html