Saving Marriage: A Review of the Documentary
Legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts created controversy
Oct 8, 2008
As Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.
Indeed, people are boundlessly ignorant and completely unaware of said ignorance. They live in deliberately constructed and entirely solipsistic worlds of oversimplifications and generic geographical signifiers, which help to quell the very annihilation anxieties that would (and in some cases will) cause so much existential and ideological grief that functioning on a basic and socially acceptable level would become a near impossibility. Life is far easier when purpose, fundamental values and core beliefs are adopted from others who themselves appear to be content within their confines and are ultimately able to feel superior and defensive in said constructed realities. The problem with these doctrines is their inherent fragility and the tendency of others to disagree. While this alone is not a problem, human insecurity and the very notion that what keeps us grounded might actually be a lie is utterly terrifying to most. While they would not understand—or in most cases even conceptualize—this on a conscious level, it is one of the main reasons that people dread difference and instinctively hate opposition. Some other reasons include the instinct to dominate and find superiority over another group, which is apparent in the animal kingdom through aggressive pack behaviour, but visible in humans through segregation.
This leads back to the words of Churchill, insomuch as having “the people” vote on an issue that they have essentially created through their own aforementioned hatred and stratification. The issue itself is that a moral majority is mentally incapable of perceiving personal fallibility and grasping the plight of those that their discriminatory behaviours and ideologies impact. So having them “vote” on a decision that exists only because of said discrimination is ultimately a redundancy, as it is their voice and collective delusion that created the issue in the first place. Important factors are overlooked for the sake personal preservation and dominant peer group beliefs that realistically can be said for far more an individual issue-based vote, which for the purpose of succinctness, will be left at bay.
All of this leads to the documentary at hand, Saving Marriage, which is about the issue of gay marriage in America. It specifically focuses on the events surrounding the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and subsequent constitutional amendment made due to public outcry from delusion religious fundamentalists and uneducated rednecks.
Since an amendment must withstand a second vote in the State Supreme Judicial court after eighteen months before it becomes law, gay marriage supporters waged battle against the decision and targeted legislator positions in an effort to gain more of a voice in a vote for equality.
As far as documentaries go, it is entirely manipulative and lop-sided and perhaps not as thorough as it could have been, but every moment is engaging and enjoyable. It is amusing to see misguided individuals step in front of a camera (like Mr. Tom Pellegino, a campaigner for legislator Vinnie Ciampa) and say things like “I don’t like lesbians, I don’t like fags. That’s the name of the game”, which essentially just makes them look like ignorant sociopaths. Not to mention the “family values” lobbyists whose arguments are little more than “gay marriage devalues my own marriage and status as a man”, which desperately begs the question “why?”
Given that marriage is an institution that stems from the human fear of dying alone rather than anything so prosaic or glib as “a union between a man and a woman”--not to mention the pathetic success rates of marriage and economic viability of these “unions”--it truly speaks to human insecurity that gay marriage would spark so many anxieties in so many ill-informed individuals. It is really a shame that the goings on of complete strangers should so negatively affect a “mature” adult, who realistically, should simply be content in their own union and values without concern of collective social validation and superiority. If individual purpose comes from something as basic as the right to be better than others who are different, than perhaps some personal reflection and growth is on the docket.
These are just some of the thoughts generated from viewing this topical and entirely relevant documentary, which truthfully looks at ignorance and hate and essentially says “are you f—ing kidding me?” Anyone interested in this topic will find this documentary interesting, despite the occasional structural folly and heavy-handed transition. It is well intentioned and its argument is clear.
 |
 |
