I saw the oddest appeal on Town Hall.com today. The words stuck out like a sore thumb: “Marriage needs your help.” I asked myself, “Now, why would marriage need my help? I’m certainly no expert at saving marriages and if I tried to fix my neighbors’, they’d probably tell me to butt out and mind my own business.”
“Marriage matters,” they say, and I can’t argue with that. Marriage is, in my opinion, a sacred institution. It’s a shame so many heterosexual couples don’t share the same fervor about their own unions — at least 50% of their marriages crumble like last week’s crackers. Marriage is a privileged state to which committed people are admitted when they meet certain conditions, and it confers upon those individuals certain privileges and responsibilities. That said, the people at TownHall.com seem to think that, if we care about marriage, we’d best sign their petition to “save it.”
I’ve listened to the voice of fundamentalist right-wing leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family saying, "Marriage is under vicious attack from the forces of hell itself." I've heard him give strong voice to his personal fear of Western civilization coming to an end. Who is going to cause all of this, you ask? The answer, according to Dr. Dobson, is "same-sex couples." (There is a brief MP3.) While I must respect Dr. Dobson's personal views based on his religious beliefs, I feel that he is a very irresponsible public leader, and I certainly do not agree with his extremist views.
There are many voices coming from many individuals, each coming to the table with their own set of personal values opining on the topic of “marriage.” There is no one person or religious representative with the “right moral answer.” A diverse group of clergy and religious leaders met on Capitol Hill last week to speak against passage of the so-called “Federal Marriage Amendment”. Dr. Kenneth L. Samuel was present, and he said:
If we want to protect marriage the answer is not in discriminating against a class of people. The answer is in putting our energy, our resources, and our effort at ensuring a decent public education for all citizens, decent health care for all citizens, and economic opportunities for all citizens. To discriminate against a class of people is wrong because a threat to justice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere.”Columnist David Waters of Scripps Howard News Service states that he believes that marriage between a man and a woman is not under attack by homosexuality, but instead by heterosexuals. He also comments on the timing of the proposal for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to specify that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
We're pouring hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of troops, into the quicksand that is Iraq.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - chancelucky
Am I the only one who notices that the folk who wander around in t-shirts that say "What would Jesus do?" never seem to notice that Jesus didn't marry.
(unless you're into the Da Vinci Code).
There are days when I wonder if we would all be better off if large numbers of those who want to legislate private morality in our country, simply would follow the advice on the t-shirts and not marry and not have biological children, thus following Christ's example.
2 - JP
Chance--I hadn't noticed THAT, but I do notice that these divisive "moral" issues only come up in even-numbered years....
3 - Wright
I applaud the sentiments of this article; I share them.
However, don't be so quick to label all Republican politicians as wanting to use the Constitution to define and "defend" marriage. It's my experience that would-be moralists span the entire political spectrum. Especially, as you note, during an even-numbered year.
4 - Baronius
David Waters' editorial is cheap. He says that people aren't focusing on the things that matter to him, so those people must be posing. He might realize that the federal government has about 2 million civilians and 2 million military personnel. If only half the civilian workers do anything, and half the military are reserves, that's still 2 million people working full-time. Can't we spare a few to consider problems that don't interest Waters?
As for Waters' "more important" issues, there's hardly agreement that the government should be doing anything about gas prices or Mother Nature. Government has recently enacted a huge health care program for seniors, which Waters fails to mention. When he complains about lying White House oil barons, he does no service to his position on marriage. Implicit in his criticism of election year politics is the assumption that he himself is above it, but he certainly doesn't seem above any cheap shot.
Ultimately, Waters not only insists that government should be working on the things he cares about, but acting in the way he prescribes. Any other action is unforgivable in his eyes.
---
'There is no one person or religious representative with the “right moral answer.”' On the contrary. This article clearly takes a moral stand against the amendment.
'I don’t think the debate about the definition of marriage should be turned into a food-fight where the worst of heterosexuality is compared to the worst of homosexuality.' Yet this article uses divorce statistics to highlight the worst of heterosexuality. That hardly seems fair.
P.S. The Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The election-cycle theory doesn't work.
5 - anonyMoses
When Gurdjieff came to the United States, one of the things he noted was that Americans are profoundly immature when it comes to sex and sex education. It hasn't changed with his passing.
And, as you say, the Mediocre use sex, marriage, and its paraphernalia as a way to ironically disguise the fact that:
1) They are sex-obsessed
and
2) They are devoid of better ideas, and the ability to prioritize.
And this is why they should be shot.
(Metaphorically speaking, of course.)
Being fruitful and multiplying was a useful strategy back when it was first penned. It is no longer the case. Heterosexuality is obsolescent. But so is, of course, homosexuality.
Metrosexuals and Rurosexuals are the only ones who survive the cataclysm, OR the dogaclysm, for that matter. And speaking of which...what is up with dogs? Have you noticed their yowls becoming mere yaps? Are they going soft on us too?
But seriously...this is about the weight such matter should be given. Marriage should be fun and goofy and free for all to enjoy. Not a pretense of somehow having God on your side, with nothing more than saying "I do" to get you there.
Sure...Paul Stookey was right. Wherever two are more are gathered in his name there is love. Unless it is the battlefield. And sometimes marriage is a battlefield. Sometimes one wonders why gays would want to go into the military OR marriage.
"What we need is a new language. A language of the heart." - Andre Gregory
The old frames are used to divide. Love seeks to unite.
Be a lover. Not a divider.
This marriage amendment is going to paint an indelible face on Republicans that will be hard to wash off. It's their hole to step in.
-anonyMoses
Charlotte
6 - Jude
Baronius,
I agree that Mr. Waters' editorial leaves much to be desired. For a while, I thought he was employing sarcasm, but I am afraid he might actually serious about some of his suggestions.
Some of Mr. Waters' alternative suggestions sound like mad ravings equal to the ravings of those who want to tinker wantonly with our Constitution.
I wonder - in which decade is Mr. Waters choosing to lag - the 40s? 50s? From where we stand in our society today, I don't see how he could possibly believe these recommendations will morally serve justice in our nation.
I see nothing wrong with supporting pregnancy prevention programs and nonprofit organizations that help young women to finish school and go to college rather than becoming single mothers.
While we should help single people in America understand that they (and their children) are almost always economically better off in a responsible two-parent home, especially when the couple is married, I believe we CERTAINLY should not punish them for their free choices.
Because of the state of our own society and a clear majority public opinion accepting divorce as a routine matter of course, we certainly should not threaten men or women with legal prosecution for a refusal to marry or to stay in a destructive marriage.
A law that would run against the accepted moral order in our society today would be an unjust legal burden upon citizens. (Talk about tying the courts with frivolous activity!) Taking any child away from his or her single mother or father, in my book, should always be a worst-case scenario and surely never a legal requirement. Making that kind of law would pre-suppose that all single parents are irresponsible, even to the point of criminality. Frankly, I would not choose to live in a society where this extremist philosophy, which I see as immoral and unjust, would come into legal reality.
How about you?
7 - Jude
However, don't be so quick to label all Republican politicians as wanting to use the Constitution to define and "defend" marriage.
While I did not intend label each and every Republican leader with the tag of Constitution-abuser, it's pretty clear that this move is not being pushed by Democrats, Independents, or Greens, etc.
Look at the opinion of the leader of the Republican party today - doesn't that speak volumes?
8 - Jude
I thought readers might be interested in this Carpetbagger Report post from today.
Excerpt:
9 - Jude
For all of my disagreements with VP Dick Cheney, I believe he has a good hold, privately, on the pulse of today's society and he has stated that he believes this matter should be left to the States. I hope he doesn't act like a "girlie-man" and cave in ... not if he's thinking of his own daughter this week...
he should come out with a rip-roaring statement against these shenanigans. I'd respect him for it.
Too many Americans, Red-state and Blue, have gay/lesbian friends and family members today and they have witnessed their struggle in a political world wrought with barriers to their civil rights.
We surely should not stand for the making of bad Constitutional law that would put a lock on public discrimination against a legally alienated class of Americans by a bunch of homophobes for decades to come.
The fact that Bill Frist and too many other of his fellow Republicans would pander to the point of risking abuse to our sacred Constitution is showing you that they are a party of the past. Progress quickly dies under their watch. Watch next week....it will be interesting to see who falls in line with Bush, Frist, and Co... and who doesn't.
I've written my Congressmen and women. I hope you'll do the same.
10 - Silas Kain
The divorce industry is a major source of revenue for those in the legal profession. Imagine, for a moment, that any marriage solemnized by a member of the clergy was declared Unconstitutional. What a mess we'd have. Americans have no respect for the vows of marriage. Spouses dump each other hourly rather than work at saving what "God hath joined together". Americans are hypocrites of the first order. God, Country, and Puritanism. It's no wonder we have sunk so low in stature around the globe. One wonders what's more immoral. A person who marries 6 times in their life or a monogamous homosexual couple who remains together for 50 years? It's a no-brainer in my book. But, come to think of it, most Americans these days don't use their brains.
11 - gonzo marx
the Original Poster sez...
*So, naturally, some of our political and religious leaders have something more important on their minds: Gay marriage.
Must be an election year.*
Quoted for Truth
this is nothing more that pure political cynicism as the Rovians try to rally the base
and it should make any american sick that the leadership of our Nation, with all the problems going on, is going to waste time on this pointless piece of shit grandstanding
Excelsior?
12 - Silas Kain
Were I to believe the Prophets of Doom in Scripture who talk of the Beast or the AntiChrist, then I could reasonably deduce that Karl Rove is that person. On the other hand, however, I just believe that he's the reincarnation of Hitler.
13 - Ray Ellis
Very simply, the gay marriage debate is just another vain attempt to divert attention from a miserable failure of an Administration. Prohibition proved that Americans, regardless of their personal habits, do not like to be told what to do. That is not to say that one should not vigorously voice their opinion, solong as they don't try to use it as God's final word. I think God won several copyright cases eons ago.
14 - Ron Hudson
Alexis de Toqueville, when touring America in the early 1800's described the US as a "tyranny of opinion." This is a very good example where a majority view that a group in the minority is morally inferior could lead to just such tyranny. It seems to me that the Constitution is the only thing standing between the fate of minority groups and those who would condemn them/us. Eventually, we will all find ourselves in some minority status and who will defend us?
As a gay man, I am convinced that I was born gay. I hear the words "lifestyle choice" with a shudder. Who would choose to be put in a place to be made a second-class citizen? Marriage is a lifestyle choice. Being gay, I believe, is not...it is an open act of living genuinely (or not).
I am not interested in marriage, per se, but would like to know that if I ever do find my lifemate, I can provide him the same protections for inheritance, hospital visitation, immigration, Fifth Amendment protection and the other 1000 or more rights that people get for living the easier, straight lifestyle and simply saying "I do."
I applaud and thank those of you who would defend my rights as you would defend your own. In fact, you are doing so. Today it is gay marriage, but there will be a new scapegoat someday if this succeeds.
15 - Erin Monahan
It's ridiculous to me that this should even be such a huge political issue. My bisexuality, Ron's homosexuality, and the sexual practices of everyone here, whatever they may be, don't affect "the institution of marriage" in any way shape or form.
The real problem here is a lack of respect - in and out of marriage - along with a huge helping of hypocrisy, that exists (and is largely accepted) in society, particularly in politics, and religion.
16 - Dave Nalle
Were I to believe the Prophets of Doom in Scripture who talk of the Beast or the AntiChrist, then I could reasonably deduce that Karl Rove is that person.
Not to mention that Rove is widely believed to be gay, as is Ken Mehlman the chairman of the GOP, with substantial evidence in both cases.
Dave
17 - Jet in Columbus
When you down in the polls, there's only one sure way to raise back up, find someone that everyone loathes and is afraid of, and emphasize how much you hate them, that way everyone will "suddenly" agree with you. Distract how much you've screwed up by diverting everyone's attention.
It's an old trick that unfortunately works every time.
Support us or the fags will take over, molest our children, and teach everyone that the Bible is wrong.
The sky is falling
The sky is falling!!!!
18 - Jude
Greensmile sent me a link to a post by Toad734 at the Progressive blog Alliance.It exposes the hypocrisy of those who come to the public debate screaming about "moral values."
In a post titled "Bible Belt Values," Toad734 says:
For me, there are two streams of thought at work here as I've shaped my own opinion.
The first is the sole legal aspect - the case of civil rights and the protection of the fragile line between church and state - along with the dangerous political abuse of the U.S. Constitution by the party wich temporarily enjoys majority status, which was my main point here.
Then there's the second and very important factor, which is the definition of "moral values." The media has a warped view of "values" issues, thanks to their mind-melding with Washington, D.C. rather than offering common-sense objectivity.
Think of the well-told tale of the old boy who gets a pat on the back and a wink of the eye from his pals for having a girl in every port. The he-man sailor walks into a bar and screws the first woman who'll have him. It happens again and again. Social disease is spread and morality is not even a question. The sailor's wife sits at home and waits for him to return.
Then those same old boys take a tire iron to two men minding their own business.
We need to widen the debate about "morality" and insist on brutal honesty in that debate. I know it's tough for a politician to tackle, but WE should talk about it and lead by our example.
SOMEONE needs to do the right thing - and let's not be afraid to say it's the spritually correct thing...the right moral choice from where we stand today - June 4, 2006.
We are the leaders we've waited for. I joined the Network of Spiritual Progressives because I see the hypocrisy in the mainstream and the public debate about "moral values" is confined to a public space I compare to the width of a friggen bowling alley. What is SACRED about each individual soul is effectively and quickly silenced.
We can no longer allow what is ethical, decent, and sacred about or very humanity to be ignored and MOCKED by a media that only gives voice to the chicanery of D.C. politics.
19 - Jude
Typo -
We can no longer allow what is ethical, decent, and sacred about our very humanity to be ignored and/or MOCKED by a media that only gives voice to the chicanery of D.C. politics.
20 - Dave Nalle
But Jet, I'm not at all sure that gays are seen by most of the public as the boogeymen you think they are. Going after them is a very weak strategy when there are so many better targets out there.
Dave
21 - Jet in Columbus
With all due respect Dave, you'd have to live in my skin for a day to understand it, my friend... something I wouldn't wish on anyone.
22 - Jude
I'm not at all sure that gays are seen by most of the public as the boogeymen you think they are.
Judging from the comments here, I tend to agree, and that's what is so perplexing about the nerve some of these Republicans have in raising such a politically abusive issue and putting up our Constitution as the "big stake!" Have they no shame?
Your comment got me thinking. Have you seen that unfortunate episode of the Sopranos where gay Vito gets it? Did you see Brokeback Mountain? I know these are pure drama, but art has a way of imitating life - and vice versa. And if Oscar Wilde was right, we're in trouble because he said that "Life imitates art far more than art imitates life." Messages have been sent from media straight through to the heart of America - saying "we take tire irons to the noggins of those who dare to make too public a reality of their same-sex love and caring."
The real boogeymen aren't the gays and lesbians, the real boogeymen are the ones who denigrate them; the TV producers that see fit to make ignorant public jokes about them for the benefit of a cheap public laugh; the ones who walk into bars and shoot people for looking different.
That said, I DO have a sense of humor.
Have you seen this?
23 - SteveS
As a gay parent, this amendment scares me.
Recently, we (gay family bloggers) held a Blogging for LGBT Families Day. Over 130 bloggers consisting of different nations, different orientations, kids of gay parents, gay parents themselves, tolerant heterosexuals, etc. blogged on behalf of full equality for all families.
I hope some of you visit these blogs (accessible at link) and get to know exactly what is at stake with this amendment. Families will be torn apart, the recognition that parents have had with children for many years will possibly be thrown into legal limbo, many types of benefits that we've worked hard to secure for our children will be null and void. Many things in society like judgements based on 'common law marriages' will become suspect and open to legal challenge as the definition of marriage is concreted down to a specific narrow definition. This amendment will adversely affect millions of Americans and their families. Please don't write discrimination into the Constitution. Too many families and children will suffer.
24 - Jet in Columbus
The Top Gun one is funnier
Solus mei sententia
Jet
25 - Dave Nalle
Jude, I saw Vito as a very sympathetic character. The guy who killed him - his brother in law whose name I can't remember - is an overreaching psycho and I guarantee he's going to die in the final episode. Tony is going to have to kill him for various reasons, and that will be justice for Vito.
And BTW, real Republicans have nothing against the gay population. At worst most standard GOP types want to preserve the tradition of marriage as a heterosexual institution and would be fine with granting gays a legally equivalent status under a civil union law. The tiny minority of religious nutcases like Fred Phelps could just as easily be democrats - and many of them are. And those religious extremists who are active in the GOP are mostly former southern democrats who are in the party for convenience. They're religious fanatics first and Republicans a distant second.
Dave