Defeat in New Jersey

The New Jersey Senate defeated a gay marriage bill, which is a symbolic defeat. The lion's share of marriage privileges derive from the Fed, rather than the state. I was not holding my breath for gay marriage in New Jersey. It would not be worth it to me to move to New Jersey in order to get a state-recognized, but not federally recognized marriage.

The absence of gay marriage doesn't mean that gays won't continue to form monogamous unions or that couples won't stay together. It just presents an obstacle in the legal sphere, an obstacle that must be overcome by future generations. The arguments put forth by both sides have been recorded for posterity. As far as I'm concerned, it is obvious that the side in favor of gay marriage is right. An end to the ghetto is envisioned. Assimilation, rather than separation. Openness and forthrightness. If a more productive work force is desired, then gay marriage should become law.

The opposition to gay marriage seems small-minded in every sense of the word. I was particularly amused at one legislator's observation that in this time of economic distress, we cannot envision making such a sweeping social change. What better time? In good times, people want things to remain the same.

Here's another quote from the article: "gay marriage would weaken the social fabric by redefining one of society’s bedrock institutions." You know, I'd like to wash my social fabric. Is it polyester or cotton? Does it respond best to warm, hot, or cold water? Marriage isn't a bedrock, Sir, although it may make the bed rock. Actually, gay marriage would strengthen the social fabric. We could go from, say, silk, to nylon, which can stretch and remain strong.

If I could marry and obtain the crucial privileges bestowed by marriage, then it would have a huge impact upon my life in a practical sense, because my partner is from another country. We would no longer have to wrestle with immigration. Tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees and government fees could go instead toward other things in life. I could work a corporate job and get coverage for my partner thereby.

I have explained this to my friends a hundred times, but here I go again. State recognition is insufficient. The Fed controls immigration rules. Today, the immigration privilege applies to heterosexual couples only. Former Sen. Bob Barr played a role in ensuring that that particular discrepancy remained when he defeated a measure that would have addressed it as far back as the Clinton administration. Bob Barr's singing a different tune on various issues, such as marijuana, so I don't know what he thinks now, but I would have preferred that he had not interfered with my life. I'm poorer today because of Bob Barr, an ironic Libertarian. The only thing I remember him being passionate about in his career was using Government to restrict the rights of the individual.

In the current environment, there is not just discrimination to contend with, but legal exclusion. The law itself is the problem, rather than just a handful of bigots here and there. I do not know of any easy solution, because the law is unyielding, and we are trapped in a systematic injustice. My current plan is to switch careers. I plan to enter the medical profession, where I can train as a skilled worker and hopefully one day immigrate to Canada, which does have gay marriage as well as universal health care. Canada is the Promised Land for gay Americans. If you are educated and experienced, it is the place to go.