The Gay ‘Marriage’ Debate

March 26, 2012

I’ve decided to make a new sub-section of this blog – a dedicated “Solutions” tag.  It’s an extension of the awkward solutions tab.  If that tab is no longer there, I  have migrated everything to the solutions tag and deleted it.

So, the first one I’m going to address is gay marriage.  I think it’s an easy fix so that the national discourse can stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth and move on.  We as a freedom-loving people and the government have other fish to fry.

The simple solution:  A compromise.  Allow full rights of the ‘marriage’ of gay couples, just like a heterosexual couple…but it isn’t and can’t be called ‘marriage’.  Call it something else.  ‘Civil Union’ is already in the legal lexicon of an alternative, so why can’t there be another?  My suggestion is a ‘Rainbow Union’.  I don’t care.  Call it “bathysxenophil”  I DON’T care.  Yes, it may be semantics of calling it something and it being the same that it always was pre-solution, but I am attacking the heart of the matter.

The religious right’s main contention is that ‘marriage’ is defined as between a man and woman.  That is what DOMA was for.  So be it.  ‘Bathysxenophil” legally, by title, and by definition is not ‘marrige’ as it is a joining, either spiritual and/or legal between members of the same-sex.

All the gay community has to give up is calling what they want ‘marriage’.

You see the disconnect and why it is so ridiculous to have the ongoing culture war?  It’s merely the use of definitions and language that take away the main arguments of both sides and yet give the other side what it wants at the same time.  It’s not hard.

The implementation doesn’t even have to be top down with a Supreme Court ruling.  Let the states adopt this policy – one by one.  Obviously, the more progressive states would adopt this first, but just like inter-racial marriage that was illegal in the 60’s and is common-place today…times change.  Society is far more accepting of being gay than they were even 10 years ago.

Lastly, I want to call a spade a spade.  The real disconnect and one that is TOTALLY invalid is that some religious organizations contend that gay marriage or being gay is a sin.  Fine, no one is going to change that opinion/conviction.  You are also not going to change people from being gay by calling them a sinner.  They don’t believe they are.  Unless they want to not be gay, which generally comes from this religious conflict – this is not going to change. (and whether a gay person can become straight is a completely separate issue).

To judge people by your own personal faith convictions in a country that was founded in part because of freedom from religious persecution is patently un-American.  I don’t judge you for being baptist…you shouldn’t judge me for being a catholic..and same should apply for being gay.  I personally believe that the act of homo sexuality is a sin, but that is my moral call and I see how other’s would disagree with me.  As long as I’m not forced to be gay, I’m fine.

Faith is always a personal matter and to unwantingly push your beliefs on others is again, un-American.  It’s not your call to make and you do not have the right to do so – your freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment is just that – speech, not action.  Its not your call to make…its God’s; no matter if you think you are acting on his behalf or not.  Nothing gives me the right to impose my personal religious belief structure on others ‘to protect them from themselves’ or because its evil or its a sin.  As long as you aren’t breaking any laws (think Satanists and human sacrifice or other equally horrible atrocities done in the name of religion), your belief in what is sinful or not should not impede others pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

It is for these reasons that we have a proud history of the separation of church and state…and why it is a good practice to continue.  Otherwise you have needless and easily solved problems like this.