Gay Marriage..my thoughts

Much has been made lately about who has come out in support or against gay marriage. I too have some thoughts on this issue, of course.


Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change. 


It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.

If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else? 


The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well. 


When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine. 


Time does change things.


So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it. 

After Iowa

The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.

If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.

It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.

What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?

Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?

So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.

As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.

The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.

I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?

Don't Ask Don't Tell. DADT

I am not sure what the big deal is with DADT. A little history here. Prior to DADT, the Military would ask you if you were a homosexual and if you told the truth, they would reject you. DADT made an accommodation in this area by eliminating the question. If you were gay and were willing to follow the rules, in other words not engage in homosexual activity while on duty and kept your sexual orientation quiet, you could serve.

From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.

This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.

The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.