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.