What does the future hold?

I fear that the future holds more of the same. People are terrified of change. I adore quotations, so I present you with a morsel for thought: “The key to change... is to let go of fear.” (Rosanne Cash) Something needs to be done about the public divide on gay marriage, and there are so many other issues worth fighting for and over. So many... War, money. Things America has come to stand for. Enough that it seems that equal marriage rights for ALL should be simple common sense.

Until death does them part, marriage is a bond. A social contract in the most areligious terms. Why is this denied to same sex couples? Does their getting wed infringe on your constitutional rights? No, although you may disagree. While allowing homosexual couples to marry may alter the our conception of the institution of marriage, it would have a minimal effect on the nature of said institution. Even the fact of calling it an institution leads us to think of a civic or social element. I can understand that it may be against your own individual beliefs, but when should those come into play when discussing a nation and its citizens? All that is personal or individual should have a little or no impact on public policy. This issue regards “we, the people”. All of us. America has always enjoyed having numerous and numerable minorities, and they have eventually been given equal rights. In name, if not reality.

I know that in the future, same sex couples will be allow to be married. I believe it is only a question of time. The institution itself has already been changed, modified beyond its original meaning (case in point). Why not take one more step in the right direction, towards a modern marriage?

Theorizing...

I always think best when I ask questions... So:

Why is gay marriage an important issue?

There is a significant portion of the population that identifies itself as gay, and they deserve equal rights, much like any other citizen. Discrimination is discrimination and it is still rampant.

How has this become an issue?

The Bible and traditional Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is a sin. And yet...?

Homophobia? Fear of what is different?

Seeing as a radical change often disgruntles one or more of the involved parties, a gradual route should be opted for, and taken. Starting today. Envision the implementation of a nation-wide civil union in the next 2 years, simply as a starting point towards further equality. One could hope for federally approved same-sex marriages within the next 5 years.

This issue is dividing two social groups that are already quite separated and, quite frankly, the issues that modern society should be worried about are others. Humans are noted for their adaptability, several more changes and we may reach tolerance.

Out with the New, and In with the Old

Previously I mentioned how Europe has approached the increasing demand for gay rights, specifically those regarding marriage and civil union. Now if the Old Country, the birthplace of Western civilization as we know it and the cradle of Christian faith, can successfully deal with the issue, what is stopping the traditionally more advanced and diverse United States from following suit? While Europe has not eliminated the presence of discrimination (and honestly, how does one go about this?), many countries now allow gay marriage or, at the very least, some form of civil unions. The most progressive nations, such as Holland and Belgium, went so far as to strike any reference to gender from the laws regarding gender. Spain, in stark contrast with its rich Catholic heritage, now allows gays the right to a civil marriage. France implemented the PACS ("pacte civil de solidarite'"), one of the first forms of civil union, in 1999. Italy still supports the Vatican's policy, but remains one of the few without some form of union for their gay citizens. So often we consider ourselves the "civilized world", and yet an almost barbaric form of discrimination still lingers here, in our society. Homosexuality is still illegal in much of Africa. And it was only recently taken off a list of mental illnesses in Japan (sources). Paladins of democracy as we are, shall we not show the world the light of a free society?

Closer to our own shores, nay, dare I say our neighbors to the North allow gay marriage as well. Many US citizens have traveled to Canada to marry, even if their marriage may not be recognized in their states of residence. A matter of principle? Or maybe everyone enjoys sticking it to the Man occasionally.

Marriage is marriage, the gender means far less. Gay marriage ends in exactly the same way as heterosexual marriage: death... or divorce. The first gay divorce took place only 7 months after marriages were allowed in the state of Massachusetts. Then the institution of gay marriage is just as fragile as that of "traditional" marriage... no, the very institution is feeble, shaking under the weight of modernity. Divorce, of any form, would have been unfathomable a mere 100 years ago. People would sigh and shake their heads. I am somewhat comforted by the prospects of future gay divorce however: perhaps we can all be together, apart?

I like commas, I truly do.

An overview: here

Analysis

A brief analysis of my views on the issue at hand would look somewhat like the following:

In my own humble opinion, the issue of gay marriage is far more than it seems. I support gay rights, and yet I believe the current political situation regarding gay marriage is simply not about simple gay rights. It is about rights themselves. There are an estimated 2 to 10% of the American population that, should they wish to, would not be allowed to marry a partner of their same gender. As of October 17^th, the population of the United States is placed at 303,142,494, meaning gays could comprise anywhere from 6 million to 30 million of the nation’s people. Now put aside your own personal beliefs for a split second. Hopefully that number registers as quite a large number... and these people are forbidden to marry. The existence of civil unions does alleviate the symptoms slightly, yet I ask what is the difference between these pacts and a full-blown civil marriage? A first apparent difference is the name. Union... and not marriage. The difference that sticks out like a sore thumb is the fact that civil unions do not offer a handful of fundamental rights, such as those regarding the succession of possessions including property ownership and the custody of children. As much as I would love to see two people of the same sex walking out into the spring air amid crying and rice-throwing, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. And while I do have hope for the future, there is still much to be done in the present than can pave the road to equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Europe has proven that same-sex marriage can work. In the cases of Holland, Belgium and more recently in Spain, it was met with approval from a majority of policy-makers. Many other European nations support civil unions (see France avec le PACS). And while many view these civil agreements as an attempt to placate demands for true gay marriage, I believe they serve a very important purpose. Rome was not built in a day. So this band-aid remedy may not seem like much, I invite anyone supportive of gay rights to view it as a stepping stone, not a definitive solution. The US seem to be on the beginning of this path. The State of Vermont has allowed civil unions and California has twice (2 times) sent Governor Schwarzenegger a bill endorsing gay marriage and twice he has used his power of veto.

I believe that the key factor preventing the increasing spread of gay rights from the Old Country to our very own nation is a question of tolerance. This may seem overdone, yet I feel this is ultimately true. More appropriately, it may be labeled even as a question of intolerance. It seems as if many people feel their stance has to represent all or nothing, yes or no. This has always led to distance, has always bred division. I read blogs such as this and cringe; I hear people such as the illustrious campus preachers (such as Gary) and remain somewhat comforted that many regard them as a form of entertainment in between class. And yet the presence of this extreme opposition is quite significant. I am not Bible-bashing, I believe it to be an amazing book of unsurpassed importance to Western man. Yet a line needs to be drawn between church and state, the private and the public. I fully respect any person’s personal beliefs and anyone is free to express their own beliefs in public. But in a respectful way, that respects others’ beliefs.

I have one dollar that says I did not stay on topic. It is late to do much, but I tried.

“I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn't have to get one.”

This is coming from one of Bill Clinton’s senior political advisers, James Carville. Carville is largely regarded as the driving force on Clinton’s 1994 campaign against Republican George Bush. And I feel this quote, regardless of Carville's party affiliation, sums up much of the resolution this social issue needs. As mentioned in the comments of the previous entry, no one’s rights are being violated. You do not have to get married... I have also heard a man on the bus mention that “the country would be overrun by homosexuals”. This was on a bus in Italy, miles from the Vatican City. So religious sentiment there is quite strong, although wildly inconsistent. And absurd and childish as this statement may seem, I somehow doubt that this man stands alone in his views. However this has not proven true in Holland. I dare even to say that the opposite have been proven: since gay marriage was allowed in 2001, the yearly number of marriages has decreased year by year (source).

It is my honest, and hopelessly optimistic, opinion that people should be able to put aside their beliefs on homosexuality and allow gays to marry. They are not asking for a ceremony in your local church. They simply want to live their lives together, in a state recognized by society.

Promising first steps were taken in the state of Vermont, where civil unions were implemented. A court decided that the lack of marriage for same-sex couples was discriminatory.

Introductory Introduction

The title you may or may not see above is taken from a relatively recent film of Barry Levinson, starring Robin Williams. This film is entitled "Man of the Year" and narrates the tale of a satirical nightly news anchor that miraculously becomes President of the USA. But that is not relevant at this point. What Robin Williams' character says at a presidential debate is, however, relevant: "You want an amendment against same sex marriage? Anyone who's ever been married knows it's always the same sex!"

And while this quip may or may not make you laugh, it made me think. As I walked out of the cinema that evening, I found myself pondering this question again and again in my head. It is funny how a joke can make you think. And think hard. Why is it that same-sex couples are not allowed the right to marry? I speak solely of civil marriage, carried out in a city hall or municipal building of some sort. To be honest, I find it ridiculous that two adults should not be allowed to make their own decisions in life. Someone may say that if two people of the same sex wanted to get married, they don't necessarily need a certificate or any of that official bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. And yet they do. Perhaps it may seem only a matter of principle. Yet do they, as a married couple, not deserve the same rights as any other married couple? These rights may regard the filing of taxes, the name on a lease or even the validity of a will. It's more than a simple matter of principle. It is a complicated matter of principle.