Recent web stuff: Open thread

The debate over gay marriage, particularly the comments by the CFC spokesperson does show an enormous amount of change of attiitude towards gays. There is so much hatred on this subject that hearing a relatively right wing religious group sayings, in my interpretation, that gays ought to be treated like everyone else, is a sea change from when most people thought they should be discriminated against, murdered, etc, etc. Maybe there is something good that came out of the terrible deed we call 9/11, that is some religious people are beginning to understand the meaning of religious hatred - now that a maniacal subset of Islam has put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak.

So this is progress, no getting away from it. Now, the real problem with the marriage issue is that religious people see it as a religious thing, so they feel imposed on and worse when people advocate for gay "marriage". The problem is that marriage also has a secular meaning. It is a package of legal rights for people who have a marriage license and a civil marriage, even if the civil marriage is burried in the religious marriage ceremony. For my son, his marriage was three parts - first a private legal ceremony with the signing of state documents making him and his wife married in the eyes of the law. Then there was the religious marriage ceremony,with about 150 people attending, where he became married in the eyes of the religion. Then there was one hell of a party.

So I hope everyone sees the problem. Absolutely, gay couples should have the legal rights of marriage. Absolutely, no church should be forced to perform religious marriages that go against their theology. But the problem is the use of the same word to describe two different, though related situations, legal marrriage and religious marriage.

What bears this out is how there has been so little objection to state civil unions, e.g. in NJ, Conn, etc. Sure there are some die hards living in the past, often the same people who supported segregatiion and slavery. The problem with civil unions is that you don't get any federal benefits, your civil union isn't recognized in all of the USA, and you get into situations where company benefits for couples also use the word "marriage", so civil uniiomed couples may be denied benefits.

Probably the only solution is to have a national civil union law. It would state that same or opposite sex couples are to be granted all the legal rights and benefits of those who are legally married, period. I know it would sound like like 'separate but equal', the old cry of the segregationists, where separate meant blatently unequal, but it would be a big step forward.

Ultimately, we should abolish legal marraige, replacing this contractual arrangement with civil unions for all couples, and a blanket statement saying that under the law, civil unions are to be considered identical to the old "marriage" laws. The word "marriage " itself would no longer be a legal term, ti would be left to religiious groups to use as they see fit.

The only other thing missing is we need a change in our educational policy. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that we must be ever vigilant in watching and combating hatred, in whatever venue it is offered. Mandatory courses in good citizenship should include from early in ones schooling training how hatred has brought the world so much grief, of which religious hatred against Jews, slavery justified to some by the bible, hatred against gays which leads to murders, and thousands of suicides annually, and last but not least religious hatred of the style of 9/11 - all of these should have no place in our nation. We are talking cultural change, it is happening, but we need to focus more and more on it.

And I've got to add - Gay people can get married religiously in most states. The REform Jews, some Conservative Jews, some United Churches of Christ, the Unitarian - Universalists, and the Metropolitan Community Church will do gay marriages. They believe in it. The problem is that these aren't legal marriages unless the state grants a marriage license, so that is another part of the problem, of which I've tried to propose the solution above. Some other groups, e.g. the liberal wing of the US Episcopal church will do gay weddings, I've been to one of these for a couple friends. They however haven't quite gotten there re the religious portion of marriage, for they call them "committment ceremonies" . To me it was both a religious marriage in every sense of the word, with parents, grandparents, friends, etc attending. But it still doesn't grant these two gentlement the legal rights of marriage or civil uniion at this point.

So I hope everyone understands the issues.

Do not kid yourself about objections re: civil unions, or the acceptablity of "gay marriage" to the majority of people. What people may say to a pollster or a reporter is very, very different from what they will privately mark on a secret ballot. That' California's 'man and woman' only law passed with nearly a 2/3 vote is proof positive of that. And California is WHOLE lot more accepting of this nonsense than the vast majority of this country.

So called "gay marriage" is not 'just allowing' any two people to be married who choose to be. That talking point is a bald faced lie. "Gay marriage" is nothing less than rewriting the entire foundation of the social contract, for no earthly reason than a few squeaky wheels want to shove their private familial business in the public's collective face. I don't know anybody on the 'gay rights' side of this argument whose basic premise isn't rooted in a deep personal insecurity about his/her acceptance by some social group they perceive they've been shut out of. Men and women who are comfortable with themselves and in their lives aren't the ones agitating to rewrite the rules of our entire society just to satisfy their own egos--which is all this is, in my opinion.

People are allowed to live as they choose in their homes. Same-sex couples are as welcome to their choices about how they design their families as polyamorous atheists and religious polygamists are.

What none of them are allowed to do is expect the rest of us to put our collective stamp of LEGAL approval on their private behaviors or beliefs by issuing a state license for it.