This week, President Bush has re-emphasized the importance of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Obviously, there are many people saying this is a political stunt during an election year, designed to draw attention away from Iraq and other concerns. Of course this hasn+óGé¼Gäót prevented the press from taking the bait, and jumping all over the issue like a good little lap dog. Conveniently, as usual, the press tends to leave out the fact that gay couples are prevented from adoption or child custody in many states, still have no protection from job discrimination in over half of U.S. states, and that states were still allowed to arrest people for practicing homosexuality as recently as 2003. As a result, this issue enters the public sphere without any substance, forcing the discussion to be vitriolic and causing nothing but division.
As many of you know, the Virginia legislature is pulling the same charade to get a gay marriage ban in the Virginia Constitution in the upcoming election. But one question I rarely hear asked (either by the local or national press) is what +óGé¼+ôpolicy problem+óGé¼-¥ do these gay marriage bans actually solve?
For example, compare the gay marriage issue to illegal immigration. While both issues are often used to stir up emotional debates, at least illegal immigration clearly presents a +óGé¼+ôpolicy problem+óGé¼-¥. Wherever people fall on the political spectrum, most would agree that the reality of illegal immigration poses some kind of measurable impact on society that could be mediated by government reform. But, what problem does gay marriage create? What impact does it have on our communities? Why is this so important that the U.S. Congress and the Virginia legislature believe they should be spending their time on it?
How has gay marriage affected Virginia anyway? Last I heard, gays are prohibited from marriage in Virginia. Last I heard, there are no impending cases in Virginia courts that question the constitutionality of refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.
Of course, people may bring up Massachusetts, which apparently was going to feel the wrath of God or fall into the ocean when it was legalized in that state (under the leadership of a Mormon Governor, by the way). And when considering Massachusetts, we must ask if Massachusetts+óGé¼Gäó citizens are suffering as a result? For instance, when they are stuck in traffic, is it because people are flocking to gay weddings? When they pay their state taxes, do they experience an increased tax burden because gays have used their power to reap all the tax benefits? When they pay $3.00 a gallon for gas, is it because gay married couples are jacking up the price to pay for their wedding ceremonies? When they breathe dirty air or drink unsafe water, it is because of emissions or chemicals released by gay weddings? When they see increased crime rates, is it because married gay couples are selling drugs or starting street gangs?
If gay marriage causes no recognizable problems in that state, (or in any country for that matter where the practice has been legalized) then what is the policy problem we are trying to solve?
To be absolutely clear, when I discuss this issue, I am not saying that gay marriage is a distraction from other problems, I am saying that gay marriage is not actually a problem. It never was a problem and it never will be a problem. The only way it could become a problem is if the government bans it, and uses that as a precedent to meddle even more into our personal lives. In that way I agree with James Webb when he says, +óGé¼+ôgovernment ends at my front door+óGé¼-¥. But once you step outside your front door, no matter who you are, and no matter where you live, you will face problems that our government needs to address. However, I defy anyone, anywhere to give me a good reason why banning gay marriage would solve anyone+óGé¼Gäós problems. Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
(from www.religioustolerance.org)
So, the born agains have the highest divorce problem.
Area % are or have been divorced
South 27%
Midwest 27%
West 26%
Northeast 19%
The "Red States" tend to have the higher divorce rates
Where's Pastor John when you need him?
What the ReTheoCons have collapsed into is a party of fear -- the paranoia of "They." As in "They can't take that away (from you)," the refrain often heard in songs popular at their events. Because "they" are lurking just now right around the corner waiting for the most opportune moment to "launch an attack on God, take away your guns and let loose the homosexuals to warp your children and destroy the family and foundations of America. Oh, and burn the American flag and raise your taxes to pay for abortions. This I know because Jesus loves ME; not "them!"
Facts, rationality or intellect are void in this shameless triad of divisive and meritless fear.
This vapidity is reminiscent of the beginnings of the welfare debate in the late '70s. At that time, the Republidoodles everywhere told the story of how they had personally had to wait in a long line at the grocery store while "some big Black lady unloaded her overflowing basket full of steaks and all the goodies, pay for them with food stamps and then drive off in a big Cadillac."
George Will commented in a speech once that he, too, had heard these stories everywhere he went. And he had a solution to the debate on welfare costs: "FIND THAT WOMAN; she's obviously driving all over America wasting food stamps."
At 10(+9) in meters, this wonderful blue/green home we call Earth is barely visible in a sea of near-void with an ordinary star. And, for any of us to be here and read this, everything in our personal histories had to go just perfect genetically -- thorugh evolution, ice ages, migration, wars, inquisitions, expansion, across lands and seas, through famine and disease.
And yet some one, some group, wants to argue about, and amend constitutions over, the ability of human beings to form family units. We should make them the new "they."
The three greatest dangers we face are negligence in protecting the environment on which we depend for life, fear and the professing of knoweldge of absolute truth.
Which takes me back to the original point: there is no policy problem.