Gay marriage debate

Now the social conservatives who want to take away our freedoms are looking at other religions to justify their opinion that homosexual marriage should be illegal. First, let us take every religious reference to marriage out of the discussion (you can argue that churches perform weddings and the state performs the marriage or whatever gets you through the night or at least this blog). Then tell me how this is any different then laws preventing blacks and whites from getting married a half century ago? It is not. It is bigotry no matter how you want to slice it and it is disgusting (the article also wanders into a discussion that says women belong back in the kitchen but I will skip that for now).

 

I don't care what the Koran says. I don't care what the Bible says. They aren't the laws of this land. I don't care how people want to live in their own private lives (and if that includes multiple wives then God bless that poor soul, one is enough for me). And I am tired of the red herring about procreation; widowed elderly couples marrying, for example, aren't going to have a baby at 65.Why are people so worried about what other people are doing with their bodies in their personal lives. Be a true conservative and get the government out of peoples' bedrooms. Life is too short to deny somebody else happiness.

The definition of marriage has constantly been evolving. The idea of marrying for love is relatively new, marriage used to be more political, with matchmakers (or whatever) pairing couples up based on dowries or other needs of the communities. My mother's parents met each other through friends in the very late 1920s, instead of through the Jewish community they lived in via their parents approval as was expected in those days (those darn trolleys that could take kids out of the 'hood). They eloped for love instead of entering relationships with people other people, such as their families, chose for them in 1933. That was almost as radical as gay marriage is today according to the stories I heard as a child.

You want to live like a social conservative? Go ahead. I'm not stopping you. However if your views infringe on the liberties of others that is YOUR problem, not theirs. You don't like abortion? Don't get an abortion. You don't like same sex marriages? Don't get married to a person of your own sex. How hard is that?

To much time is being taken over worrying about what other people in their private lives.This country has REAL problems, such as a run away deficit, infrastructure problems, an education system that is preventing talent from reaching their full potential due to cost or lack of funding and many others. Stop with this nonsense already.

To boldly go where few gay men have gone before

Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, George Takei, married his longtime partner over the weekend, with best lady Lt. (or whatever her rank is now) Uhura, Nichelle Nichols, and Pavel Chekov, aka Walter Koenig. Yep, another Star Trek wedding. Nothing unusual about that except for one thing -- Sulu's partner is also a man. Another gay marriage and, aside from the Mets bullpen blowing another lead, nothing disastrous happened. The world did not stop spinning. The sun didn't explode. That weird snow cone shaped planet eater from some second season episode of Star Trek did not come to Earth and go all "nom nom nom nom" on us. All was well, unless you worked for Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch, but that's another story.

However, there are those to whom this weekend's events spell the end of civilization as we know it (ignoring that civilization as we know it always seems to be evolving anyway), so they can force their views onto others. Hogwash. Why is it anyone's business what two consenting human adults who love each other do? If they want to get married, let them get married. Let them suffer all the joys and sorrows like the rest of us. No need for all the hate. If you don't want gay married couples in your life, you are perfectly free to exclude them from your day to day activities. Just as it is easy to find religious organizations that welcome diversity, it is even easier to find those that are much more traditional. No one is forcing you to play well with others who are different.

Still, even the hating is progress, to an extent. 40 - 50 years ago, the photo below, from Mr. Takei's wedding, of a "negro" woman, a "jap" and two other "white" men would have been blasted for the mixing of races in many parts of the country. And forget about the idea of an aisan and white marrying. Today, not a peep about their different backgrounds, aside from the homosexuality. It just doesn't seem to matter to most people these days. It is no one's business but the happy couple's. Perhaps one day we'll think nothing more than fun party where all had a good time when we hear the term "gay wedding."

Mr. Sulu. Set a course for marriage. Warp factor fabulous

With California's gay marriage ban over, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, George Takei, and his longtime partner Brad Altman, are planning on getting married this fall. Mazel Tov and congratulations.

As a Star Trek fan, I've been a fan of Mr. Takei for quite a few years. More recently, I've been listening to him as a semi-regular on Howard Stern's Sirius radio show, where, as tends to happens on Stern's show, he has been quite descriptive about his relationship with his partner. Although he only publicly came out of the closet a few years ago, he had been quietly out and I had heard he was gay some years ago (when I first read the online article where he came out I thought to myself "I didn't realize he was out;" a few days later the news hit the mainstream media).

I'm sure many of us saw California's first marriage on the news the other night between elderly lesbian partners who finally wed after being together for 50 years. Cities didn't fall. The earth didn't open. The planets didn't spin away. Instead we saw a nice elderly couple, who liked like my mother's elderly female relatives, expressing their love to each other in what looked to be a very nice celebration of their union. Go figure.

Of course there were the protesters standing around the building complaining sodomy is sin, in which case I know many people who have sinned according to the protesters, and the elderly couple will be spending eternity in hell, ignoring whether the gay marriage partners actually believe in those particular religious views (as if that should matter in a secular government). Then there are those who say our country was founded on certain beliefs of the eighteenth century and those foundations should be followed. Well, the morals and ethics of our forefathers included owning slaves and killing native Americans, things I strongly doubt they would advocate today. Times change and so do thoughts. We're not static beings.

I always wonder about the hate these people must have in their hearts for them to take time out of their day to protest people who love each other from getting married. I think there a lot more important things wrong with this country, such as the way we treat our war wounded soldiers, or some activists shaking down corporations, that they could be protesting against. I for one, despise the hypocrits who say they are looking to protect my soul while they seek to harm those who are actually living on this earth.

Inherit the Wind

The other evening I watched the old movie Inherit the Wind. If you don't remember or know the movie, it is based on the Scopes Monkey/ evolution trial of a teacher who tried to teach his students Darwin's theory of evolution (that man evolved from a lower life forms and wasn't just placed on Earth by God). As I watched the film, I was amazed how much of it still seems relevant in today's political climate. Except now, in addition to those trying to teach the Bible as fact in public schools, we also have intelligent design, with gay marriage thrown in for giggles. All this though leaves me to wonder why some people feel it is so important for them to project their religious views on others in the public.

I have no issue with those who want to live, believe or pray according to their religious beliefs in private. I also have no issue with those who want to live their lives based on their beliefs, such as the traditional lives the Amish lead or Jews keeping a kosher diet. However, living here in the United States, I'd be pretty upset if I was forced to give up my car and electricity, or forced to never eat a bacon cheeseburger, based on the beliefs of others. I'm pretty sure most Americans would be equally upset. Therefore, I fail to understand why some people feel that their time is best spent making sure that their religion requires them to discriminate against others.

The Government of the United States is not founded on any individual religion, such as Christianity. While it is true that many of the founding fathers were religious men who believed in a supreme being, they were not necessarily Christian. More importantly, God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet, such as in the time of the Scopes trial, there are still many laws in the United States based on religious views. While some, like kosher or halal dietary laws, have a purpose, in this case to aid those who want to follow their religion's dietary laws, and do not bother those who don't care about those laws, other laws are meant to force all to follow a certain religion's (or religions) laws and do not serve a purpose aside from forcing others to follow another religion's views.

The latest cause is gay marriage. New York's Governor set off a storm last week when he announced that the state would recognize gay marriages performed in other states. The Governor, who is blind and black, said he came to this decision because he felt that gays faced the same civil rights battles that blacks endured almost a half century ago. Now, I can understand opposition from the legislature, arguing, maybe correctly, that the Governor is violating the state's constitution by doing an end run around legislature, and that a lot of work would be involved to change 1,300 or so laws and regulations to make this legal in the time the Governor wants. Both of those are legitimate questions. However, what I don't understand is how those, in other states, feel it is their duty to import their values on New York.

In this issue, it is an Arizona group called Focus on the Family that insists that marriage is a religious institution and that the US and state governments should make sure all follow Christianity's version of it, despite what that silly 1st Amendment to Constitution says about Congress making no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of (maybe the trick is for all marrying homosexuals to join the "Church of Gay" whose religious requirements were simply all members must be married to each to worship freely in their own, particular fashion).

Of course, by their views, love isn't the most important part of marriage. Marriage is meant to provide children and to keep society whole. Well good for them. I'm glad that is their view but I chose to marry my wife for love, not economics. I know the concept of love is relatively new for some, I grew up hearing the scandalous story of how my grandparents eloped in the early 1930s in lieu of waiting for an arrangement to be made.

They also note that the purpose of marriage is procreation. That we chose to have children is besides the point. My sister chose to marry her husband for love but is unable to have children. Does that make their marriage invalid? My aunt and her current husband married after their previous spouses, the father and mother of their children, had died and they (well at least my aunt) were well past child bearing years. Does this mean their marriage is invalid? By this group's logic, perhaps it does. That we are not Christians seems to be besides the point. Taking this theory to its logical conclusion, it seems they won't be really happy until they have run all with differing views out of town.

There are plenty of issues affecting American families that need addressing; doesn't this group have better things to use their energy and resources on aside from whether homosexuals can marry? There are a lot of issues that affect families, especially children, that need addressing, Why don't they tackle all the broken marriage between heterosexuals, especially those with children? Why not tackle economic problems that cause both parents to work, sometimes more than one job each, just to make ends meet? How about guns in failing schools? I'm pretty sure that affects families.

I don't mean to belittle the Focus on Family group. I'm sure they do many fine things. However, it is their, and many other groups focus on discriminating against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs, that I find disturbing. Take religion out of and then you just have civilizations standards, standards which are constantly evolving (what is fine today, such as inter racial marriage, was illegal just a few decades ago). Will this group prevent my children being married by a rabbi because we are not Christian?

We are not our bothers' keepers. Sometimes I think the world would be a better place if we all just learned to mind our own business. Ignorance, bigotry and hate, especially against a minority, have no place in society. If two people who love each other want to get married, then the only proper response should be approval. Hopefully politics will stay away from continued prejudice. There is already enough hate in this world.

Voices of intolerance

Rising gas prices, jobs going overseas, rising food prices, terrorism fears, an unending war in Iraq. Yet, according to some, the most important thing for this nation to do is to Constitutionally take away the liberties of two consenting adults of the same sex from getting married because a court "foolishly" recognized that a state Constitution didn't explicitly ban homosexuals from getting married. The only positive thing I can say about those people are that they are at least more educated than the misguided souls who feel that just because the people want an unconstitional law that the courts should ignore "the law" (of which a Constitution is superior to statutes and the like) and allow an unconstitutional law to be legal. Just because voters pass a law that permits discrimination doesn't mean a court is obliged to ignore Constitution law, which is superior to a statute.

I can understand if your religion says homosexual marriage is wrong, and I don't have any issue with a church or religious figure refusing to perform in such a ceremony. That is part of their religious liberty and I would be against any law that would somehow force them to perform such a ceremony that went against their religious beliefs. That is their right. But to try to enforce "your" religious values on others and work to deny people to even marry in a civil ceremony is not a denial of "your" religious rights.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Some people seem to be confusing this with a perceived right to force others to live by their religion's values. Not so. Despite what some politicians want people to believe, working to prevent a non-religious, secular government, which is what the United States' government is supposed to be, from providing certain rights to people based on who they are due to your religious beliefs is un-Constitutional.

But lets take away God from the mix. Now we simply have people upset that two people of the same sex want to get married. What is the big deal? Why is it anyone's concern, aside from friends and family of the couple, if they want to get married? Is it the term marriage they find objectionable or is it something else? Why do the opponents hate the idea of gays in love getting married like straight people?

I just don't understand how people can be so full of hate that they feel it is vitally important to prevent two people who love each other from being married, even civilly (as opposed to by religion -- at least that I can understand, to an extent). Maybe it's because I was raised at a time when many of our nation's racial and sexual fights were history that gay marriage feels like a non-issue to me. I was born in the late 1960s. By time I was in school, Martin Luther King, Jr. day was already being celebrated in NYC. Like the Vietnam War and Martin Luther King, Jr, the sexual revolution was already in the past for me. Just as it seems incomprehensible for a business to refuse to serve a customer due to their skin color, it feels equally incomprehensible to deny people certain rights based on their sexuality. It is not the role of "looney liberals" to do the right thing and tell the people that their will is illegal; it is the role of those who seek justice for all.

Gay secular marriage is not about what some people think some God may have said. It is about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We don't have a national religion in this country. People should be free to live as they wish with whatever beliefs or non-beliefs is in their heart. If there is a God angry at them for disobeying His laws (and lets face it, almost every religion says that non-believers are dammed so, to an extent, we've all been dammed by somebody), then that is their problem, not mine or yours. Free will works both ways.

How is banning gay marriage different from older laws preventing blacks and whites or Jews and Christians from marrying? How about those who did not plan, or were unable to, have children from marrying? How about single parents who are raising children in a non-traditional family due to death or divorce? Should they be discriminated against too? How much hate must such a person have in their hearts to endorse the notion that it should be constitutional to discriminate?

And that's what all this anti-gay marriage talk is about: hate. Though the haters will be the first ones to deny it, there must be, in my opinion, some hatred of gays that they are letting poison their souls. That's not to say I never heard, or laughed at, racial and gay jokes growing up or was never exposed to those attitudes: far from it (as a side note, some of the best Jew jokes are told by my rabbi at temple). I grew up in a neighborhood well known for its racial intolerance (and knew many of the intolerant). I've seen hate up close and that is what this is. Hatred is the only reason I can think of as to why is it so hard for them to accept two consenting adults do what their hearts tell them and why they feel it is their role to prevent gays from marrying.

Some people will defend their hatred by noting that marriage is for people to raise a family. Then, by that logic, a couple who choose or unable to have children are in an illegal marriage. Too bad for my aunt and her current husband, who were in in their 50s and 60s when they married a few years after their spouses, the father and mother of their grown up children, had passed away.

Why is it the problem of homosexuals that some straight people feel their being married threatens heterosexual marriages? I for one do not feel my marriage is threatened because my gay friends want to get married. More power to them. And, if I did feel threatened, that would be my problem, not their's.

Just because you or I may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean we have the right to force others to follow our views. No one is forcing anybody to associate with gay married couples. No one is forcing religious leaders to go against their beliefs. The intolerant would do well to remember that before they advocate forcing others to follow their beliefs. You worship your God your way, I'll worship my God my way. I won't force my values on you or your children and you don't force that on me or my children, which includes any prayer to any God at a public event.

In any event, this country has much bigger problems than whether gays can marry or a person can pray in school or at other public events. Better to focus our energies on what is really important instead of this false issue that politicians like to promote to take away our attention from our real problems: high taxes, high energy costs, Iraq, corruption etc.