The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage...Yes, the need to defend marriage and family from people who are trying to establish monogamous relationships and stable families--i.e., "the gays"--has again superseded the importance of war in Iraq, global environmental disasters, marital infidelity, and divorce. Queers, ladies and gentlemen, are The Greatest Threat to Civilization! Or so it would seem, if you listen to the latest carefully prepared Presidential speeches.
-- White House spokesman Ken Lisaius
What a pickle for gay people! We're not allowed to get married, but we're off-handedly criticized for our sordid lifestyles. What's a guy to do...?
Focus on "Family"
But marriage is about families...children! Yes, those adorable little bundles of economic potential. From a social standpoint, they're what keeps civilizations going. It's no wonder that politicians are all in a fuss to make sure there are plenty of little ones to keep the economy going, at least until the current batch of politicians has served their terms.
I'm being unfair? One thing has been made very clear recently: Most of us are not planning for the long-term. Ten years from now? Barely on the radar. 100 years? Why give it a single thought? You'll be dead anyway. In about 150 years, you and (almost?) everyone on the planet today, will be dead. (And I'm an optimist!) Most politicians can barely see beyond the next election. It's hard to take seriously most of what they say or do.
I love kids. My niece is expecting, and I hope that there is plenty of healthy food and clean water and clean air and wild spaces for her child to grow. That's why I'm a progressive: It's not because I expect the world to coddle me. I keep hoping the current population of the country will become a little less selfish, take care of the world, and leave something for my grand-niece-or-nephew to enjoy. And for your children and grandchildren, too!
Anyway, this proposed amendment can't be about children. No one is insisting that married couples procreate. No one has to sign a contract saying "we will do our very best to have children so you can have your tax base in 20 years." I know plenty of people who were allowed to get married even though they couldn't (or wouldn't) have children.
So, what's a family? What exactly is this sacred union that we're trying to defend?
I remember thinking about writing something last time President Bush brought this up, but I was too busy, and the topic faded from sight. I suppose I should have known that I merely needed to wait for another election year.
Sacred Is As Sacred Does
In the quote at the top of this post, the emphasis is mine. Finally, someone is being honest about the real issue.
"Sacred..." we're told.
Of course! This debate is about religion.sacred
adj 1: concerned with religion or religious purposes... 2: worthy of respect or dedication... 3: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use...
-- The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition
This marriage issue has always been an issue of religion, and finally the administration has held out the cards for all to see.
It only becomes a political issue inasmuch as religion intrudes upon the political machine. We suspect Bush's heart isn't in it. Apparently a friend of his claims that he doesn't give "a s--t" about the gay-marriage issue. Unfortunately, he does care about pandering to the "religious right," and winning elections. Somewhere along the way, Bush squandered all of that good political capital, and is now trying to buy it back.
Have our ultra-conservative, ultra-wealthy citizens decided to declare a State Religion? Or could it be ordinary human nature, repeating itself as it has done throughout history: The need to be right?
Doctor, It Hurts When We Do This
The uber-conservatives are clearly arguing for their ideology. And they certainly have the right to do so. But they're not being forthright about their agenda. Legalized gay marriage is no real threat to the establishment of a family.
These folks need to focus their kindness and compassion on the psychological dysfunction that creeps into marriage. Let's face it, any relationship is tough work. The rewards don't simply appear, nor do the problems dissipate, just because a religious figure blesses the union. Marriage is where the hard work begins, if it hasn't started already.
Us gay people are really not trying to interfere with other folks' rights, or families. No, we're just trying to discourage the physical violence that killed Matthew Shephard and others. We, too, have the human need to survive.
We may not have suffered nearly 1/1000th as much as black folks have in this country, but wouldn't it be nice to avoid the suffering before it rips our country apart (again)? Just once, can't we circumvent the true evils of bigotry and hatred before we have to look back in shame and disbelief? I'm not suggesting that the conservatives are conspiring to cause harm. I doubt it's ever the wealthy-and-comfortable who directly promote violence. Violence seems to appear, rather, where and when minorities are not truly protected by equal rights and equal enforcement.
And no, I'm not being overdramatic. I have about 10,000 years of human history and pre-history backing me on this. Minorities don't actually have to cause trouble in order to attract the hatred of others. They merely have to be perceived as aberrant.
Did I mention that I'm an optimist? ;-) Well, I'm not trying to predict some doomsday scenario. Just trying to point out the subtle trends of civilizations in general.
God Bless the Pluralists
It's okay that President Bush allows his decisions to be informed by his faith. But this proposed amendment clearly crosses the line, and forces The People to agree with his beliefs (or those of his "base," if we're to believe he doesn't give "a s--t").
The Founding Fathers were apparently more forward-thinking than today's politicians. Fortunately, they gave us a simple amendment, the First Amendment, that protects us from the establishment of a state religion.
Marriage Proposals
Regarding the legal definition of marriage, we have only two legitimate choices available to us as a nation:
One: We broaden the definition of "marriage" to include any two non-blood-related consenting adults who choose to establish a family based on mutual love and caring. (Please, let's just keep the whole polygamy issue separate. It is a separate issue, and should be examined frequently. But I'm talking about gay marriage here, and I'd like to stay on-topic. Also, in case you're not following my argument, farm animals are not able to consent. And children are not adults. All these things are off the table. Are we clear? If you're into either of those, please seek professional help.)
Two: We acknowledge that "marriage" is a sacred religious bond, and allow only religious figures to perform marriages. A marriage also includes a civil union. I've heard it said that, currently, the legally and economically important part of the ceremony is the signing of certain legally binding documents after the ceremony. We can still let that be a part of the marriage ceremony, but let's call that a civil union license; separate from, or included within, a marriage license. And let's allow any two consenting adults to join in a civil union. A Justice of the Peace can perform civil unions. Religious leaders can perform civil unions or marriages.
Either one of these choices puts the question of whether or not to marry two people of the same sex onto the clergy, where it belongs. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, your clergy will decide if you can.
In other words, if we're going to make it an issue of religion, let's put all the cards on the table, and let each religious group decide what's right for them.
My Country, Right or Left
I recently heard Bill Bennett say (on the Daily Show) that all religions agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not true. Mine doesn't. Oh, and thanks for bolstering my argument that it's a religious debate, Bill.
If the marriage amendment were ever to pass, it would be in violation of the First Amendment. It isn't likely to pass, but it doesn't seem to want to die either. The fundamentalists in this country see themselves as answering to a higher authority than the United States Constitution. And, in some sense, they're correct: They are answering to their own human need to be right.
As adults, we need to get beyond that base need, and instead behave in ways that will cause the least amount of harm to all The People.
