Posted: Oct 10, 07 11:51am
As we turn the corner in the political season from a time when only the candidate staffers are listening to the candidates to the time when half of the people, listen with half of an ear of what half of the candidates are saying; we will soon hear the cattle call of faux-issues.
Certainly the replay of "gay marriage" will be prodded out to capture the attention of the entrenched ardent supporters and the homophobic while the rest of us wait for something compelling to be talked about.
In a small attempt to preempt this diversion from the meat and potatoes and due to a small curiosity as to the TBD audience, let's toss this ball about a bit.
Is it fair to say that most of us agree that any two people brave enough to make a lifelong public commitment should enjoy equal legal rights?
Is it also fair to bifurcate that legal status issue from the religious adornments? (Does not the separation of church and state work both ways)?
If we concede that the legal issues are moot and what is left are the emotions surrounding cultural, religious and social norm debates; then does it not follow that each religious organization can decide for themselves whether such unions are to be recognized and "rite"-fully ordained?
I guess the real hang up is language. Civil unions seems to be seen as shortchanging the relationship to many Gay advocates.
I suggest that we call all two-adult lifelong (or as long as you can until your life is in danger) relationships be recognized by government entities as "civil unions". Then the various orders of social structure (churches etc) can decide for themselves what constitutes a "marriage". The rest of us can decide for oursleves.
Is it not more important what the couple themselves views their relationship as (after the legal considerations are rendered moot)?
Frankly, I think the term Gay Marriage is an oxymoron and those promoting the concept should be careful what they wish for. Marriage has it's burdens and there are many non-gay moments.
To thine own self be true
