Holy Cow. Not to really drag you through the mud again, but this issue is serious enough to warrant a closer look. If it's NOT a serious issue to you, then life must be nice to watch it whiz by without touching your senses deeply. So, after writing my previous article regarding Bush as a preacher and not a President on the issue of Gay Marriage, I really started to do some homework. And, being a resident of California (see: San Francisco licenses), as well as integrated with close friends in the gay community, as well as a religious thinker, my mind has been totally saturated with garbage, serious thought, scripture, compassion, and confusion. It must be nice to be so cut and dry and say, "Yeah for Gay Marriage!" or "You are ruining the social foundation of this country, homo-swine", or even "I have compassion for gays, but I cannot accept the thought of homosexual marriage". I'm literally torn by the overload.
But I'm thankful. By being analytical and by listening to ALL groups, I've learned a lot that I never would have learned before, and I'm a better person for it. And my conclusion is: it doesn't matter. Not because I'm giving up thinking, but because for a long time to come, things are going to be so caught up in a legal tangle that straight lawyers and gay lawyers are going to have a money orgy with themselves. Check out some of these political messes:
1. San Francisco's mayor allows gay marriages without consent of the judicial system. Family Advocacy groups, as well as other prominent watchdogs try to put a stop to the rushed madness, and are denied an injunction by a judge for one week. Meanwhile hundreds of same-sex couples are getting their marriage licenses as well as their vows witnessed by a legal representative. And now, the city of San Francisco is suing the state of California over the argument that marriage cannot be defined by man/woman, merely person/person. Whatever happens, the licenses were still granted. Are they illegal, or binding?
2. There are lawsuits in progress by other countries, nations, or territories that legally grant marriage licenses (now or in the future) to same-sex couples, challenging that the United States of America is to grant them the same right or priveledge.
3. There are lawsuits already being talked about in case one state allows the marriages, and another doesn't. Let's say Hawai'i or California performs a marriage for two women, and those two women decide to move to Texas, who happens to be heavily opposed to the notion. Hypothetically, Texas passes state laws denying marital rights to the two women. What are their legal rights as CITIZENS of the United States?
4. Meanwhile, the nation continues to talk about drafting amendments or bills concerning the processes and rights of a 'traditional marriage' (which happens to be in a religious domain). The ACLU or somebody would be all over that one.
5. Some large church organizations have been actively looking into financial ways of impeding this process, whether it be through lawsuit, lobbying, or propaganda. Some OTHER church organizations, albeit a bit smaller, liberal, and quite frequently made of gay congregations, have proposed the same methods - primarily through lawsuit. Will this be a matter of money-power? or perhaps of legal wrangling? maybe both?
6. The military and other government institutions are taking an interest on how this issue will affect the rights given to same-sex marriages of two soldiers or sailors, and their potential for lawsuit when the military denies them. "Don't ask, don't tell" is about to get a serious challenge.
These are just a couple of chocolates in the Hershey factory of the major issues facing us now or in the coming days, and when one delves deeper into the social impact of what we're dealing with, only headaches are to be found. To be frank, I don't see anyone winning this on a battleground. It is an issue which will be fought socially and door-to-door, church-to-church, business-to-business. I'd say it would be a lot simpler if the U.S. Legislature identified the social standing of marriage, but they can't. They can try, but to have politics and religion conflict in such a brutish way smacks of the Pontificate and King in the days of old. Unless some huge corners are cut, our nation is going to be faced with the prospect of a nickel-and-dime attrition of social rights vs. tradition, and with our given record, I'd place my bet on social rights. I mean, in 50 years we've come a long way in everything from censorship, to sexuality, liberal issues, gender issues, politics, race, media, and in some cases, religion.
But as you ponder the outcome of this particular issue, the lawyers are giving each other high-fives, and there is nothing you can do to stop them.
In a parting note, I give my respects to those who have taken a stand for what they believe in, whether it be the gay man overcoming significant challenges and hatred, standing in the face of sheer opposition to claim his stake in life in the U.S., or even the woman preacher, observing love and compassion, yet challenging those in her congregation to apply their faith and scripture to their own lives in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage. And I give my respects for those in between, who have the courage to explore deeper at the roots of what makes us human, and what makes us a community, and to add to the great debates and actions of this world, because as hard as we try, nothing this important is solved in a day.
Oh, and please don't sue me for writing this.