Pride on display in San Francisco
This past weekend San Francisco hosted the 36th annual Pride Parade and Celebration. The parade was a cadre of dykes on bikes, clogging cowboys, pirates in pink and anything else that could bend the spectrum of gender in society. They even invited the log cabin Republicans, which was quite surprising considering the nature of SF politics.
I didn't attend the event because I was catching up on sleep after getting about two hours the night before. But I was able to catch some of it on TV and enjoy the variety of costumes and characters making their way up Market Street. The overall theme of the parade was clearly to send a message of diversity and openly promote the idea of gay marriage. It was not only a celebration, but a massive open protest of the current political movement opposing same-sex marriage.
But while watching the broadcast, I wondered how much diversity was really being celebrated. One person interviewed from the Bay Area American Indian Two-Spirits went right into an attack on Christianity. In her/or his words, "everything was fine until the Christians arrived." Clearly diversity didn't apply to those with opposing religious or political views.
As some of you know with me, I'm quite an open person. I've always been willing to listen to both sides of a debate and be realistic about my beliefs. I've long been a supporter of gay rights, which blows away the typical Republican stereotype. I have many gay friends and believe they are just as capable and just as deserving to exchange vows of eternal love with their partner. In my honest opinion, love is not only color-blind, but gender-blind as well.
But I've also taken a long and hard look at this debate and learned some very interesting aspects of why some oppose gay marriage. I find this debate quite amusing when I go into the depths of the Castro and openly gay men bash the Bush administration for their stance on gay marriage, but say nothing of every Democratic President and politician who has also opposed the concept. I find the debate amusing when liberals stake claim to "supporting" the gay movement, but have rarely stepped to the plate to actually help.
Take Clinton for example. This guy says he helped gays by enacting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy with the U.S. military. He campaigned on the topic, saying he broke down the barrier of inequality in our military. To which I ask what exactly did he do to help? There are gay men and women all over the military and they don't need Clinton or anyone else helping them remain true to themselves. All government intervention did was use taxpayer dollars to put something in writing that was already in place.
But here is the kicker on the don't ask, don't tell policy. Most of the propaganda floating around the parade was placing this policy at the hands of Republicans and using it as an example of how Republicans discriminate against gay men and women. Excuse me? Since when did Clinton become a Republican?
The point is gay men and women deserve equal rights. They deserve to marry just like they deserve to raise a child and have a family. Our world has real problems out there and letting two loving individuals share their feelings openly is not one of them. But openly lying about a political stance for votes is a problem. Democrats pandering to the gay and lesbian population while treating them as another special interest group is not equality. As my friends back east would say, they're just getting played.
Opposition to gay marriage explanation :While we're on the topic of gay rights and marriage, I thought I should explain one of the reasons many oppose it. Like I said, I support gay marriage and hope our society will learn to treat everyone as equals. But before you rip the other side, it wouldn't hurt to learn something about why they have their belief.
Most of those who oppose gay marriage do so because of their religion. But religion is open to interpretation. And so this belief is something that could go either way. But if you stand for diversity and free thinking, you have to be willing to accept someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage. You don't have to agree, but accepting would be of the true diverse mind-set.
Others who oppose gay marriage do so because they don't believe the government has a right to interpret or invade religion. In fact, the 1st amendment, which protects you and I from the government establishing one religion, also protects religion from the government.
You have to understand, marriage in our society comes from religion. Sure, its mainstream today and most people don't make the connection. But if you've ever been to a catholic wedding, you see the vast connection the church has to the sanctity of marriage. When my wife and I got married, we were counseled by a priest and attended several programs sponsored by the church. The true beginnings of the sanctity of marriage are held deep in the history of the church and as Catholics, we learned that connection before we said our vows.
And so with the deep roots of marriage held by the church, you can see why those true to their religion have a problem with the government interpreting their ideology. It would be the same as if the government decided Muslims couldn't fast during Ramadan because someone decided it could be dangerous and needs to be stopped. Like I said, I don't agree with the stance against gay marriage, but as a Real Republican I think it's important to understand both sides. And that my friends, is today's soapbox moment.
|
7 Old Comments:
I happen to agree, marriage is a function of religion so it should never be a part of politics. However it is such a great scare tactic. Politicians all over the land get to use it to scare middle Americans into electing them again.
It was nice to see someone else starting up the debate on the don't ask, don't tell policy again. the policy was a political stunt then and it has turned into a way for people to yet again put someone who is different than you are into a box and say this is where you belong.
Nice blog.
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Though, if you don't mind me interjecting a point here, the second amendment is the right to bear arms. The First Amendment is the protection from the government establishing religion. It's probably a typo....just thought I would put it out there.
Also, you are VERY right about everything. In the past few days, I have done a LOT of thinking about this. I will keep this blog in mind. I look forward to reading more of your blogging.
If it is to become legal, acceptable, and "normal" for gays and lesbians to marry, then why have legal marriage at all? Or, why not legalize marriage between three or more of any gender, or any form of life? Can a cowboy marry his horse? Can a hunter marry his dog? Can I marry my cat? Children? Why have any minimum age restriction at all? Your position, then, is for the destruction of the fundamental purposes of "marriage." Thus, the final result is marriage for all, or marriage for no one.
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Raegan, good catch on the amendment. It wasn't a typo, just a brain-fart in the middle of my soapbox like rant. I had talked about the second amendment not long ago and I guess I didn't pay attention to what I was actually writing.
Anonymous...let's stick to the argument at hand here; two humans who love each other getting married. Bringing up polygamy, bestiality, sodomy and any other rare and rather odd form of relations is simply trying to turn the argument from what it really is. I imagine the same spin argument was used when we started letting blacks and women have equal rights. I can almost hear it now...if we let women vote, why not let kids vote or birds vote, or... you get the point.
As I said, the concept of marriage is of a religious nature. So I understand why those with strong religious convictions oppose gay marriage. But in my opinion, as I said, religion is open to interpretation. And marriage between a man and a woman is something society has interpreted to be right, much like segregation.
But society has proven to realize when something of this nature is wrong. We've pushed for equality between races for many decades and now is the time to push for equality in sexual preference.
I'll leave you with this idea...if your son or daughter came to you and said they were gay, would you be able to look them in the eye and tell them they don't deserve the right to get married in front of their family?
Dear Real:
Although marriage between a man and a woman is certainly a religious bond sanctified by all faiths, it also has foundations in practicality and common sense. You have fallen for the liberal line that two people in love, regardless of gender, should be able to marry. While you ridiculed the rhetorical questions regarding three or more people of any gender, birds, horses, and children, they are, in fact, legitmate. Why not marry? Following the flower child "If it feels good do it" philosophy then literally anything goes. Anybody and everybody should be permitted to marry. Age and numbers are arbitrary so strike them down. But even gays and lesbians who reject the traditional marriage of man and woman reject polygamy claiming to embrace the traditional two. "Selective tradition?" Why? Because, even though they present marriage as a "two people in love" arrangement that you endorse, it's all about money. What do you hear as the primary goal of the same-sexers? Access to benefits. They want their employers to provide health insurance to their lover. They want whatever practical and legal benefits accrue to marrieds. If two homosexuals wish to live and bundle together they, like heterosexuals, can do so. But marriage is something special, a man and a woman, a family line, and that "tradition." Yes, marriage discriminates, just as age and licensing laws pertaining to drinking, driving, voting, and even marriage discriminate. They were created for a specific purpose and in the case of marriage it has worked well for ages. I do not want to see it demeaned by diminishing its meaning and its underlying strength: family.
We disagree on this one, but I commend your adherence to the conservative principles of individual thought and acceptance of all. The libs talk it, we do it.
A.
I ridiculed the rhetorical questions because they aren't of the subject we are talking about. If the topic was polygamy, then we can address the idea of multiple spouses. But right now I'm addressing the idea of marriage, between a man and a woman or between two people who love each other.
You're right, marriage does have foundations in practicality and common sense. And you are right, it is the principal of our bloodlines. But I guess I am of the belief that the special bond you speak of also has ties to something other than our needs to procreate; it has ties to our hearts.
When I stood in front of my family and got married, raising a family was certainly on my mind. But it was the love I share with my wife that made that day so special. And it was love that bonded the two of us in holy matrimony.
You see, while my wife and I share the values to raise a family, many do not. Are we to deny marriage to the husband and wife who never want kids? What about the couple who'd love kids but their bodies, for one reason or another, won't allow a pregnancy? If the principal foundation of marriage is family, at what length do we go to maintain that?
The point is, we live in an age of choice that is far different from the beginnings of our society. People got married and raised families long ago to maintain their survival...through labor and bloodlines. But we're a long way from those days. And my point comes from understanding that while we have moved away from those necessities, one thing remains...love.
TRR:
We could go on but neither of us will be moved. It is difficult for me to fully or convincingly explain my view, just as it is difficult to criticize current accepted social mores such as incivility, rudeness, crudeness, profanity, and promiscuity. Practitioners would reply "Hey, who are you to tell me how to act?" Two people in love is all that matters. Love should be the only prerequisite to marriage.
O.K., then again I ask, why not three? You say that's not the issue. It is the issue. Open the gates. Tear down the old fashioned way of the accepted normal order of the species and society. No one is saying barren or aged couples cannot marry. A man and a woman is the prerequisite for the life commitment, emotionally and physically. Old fashioned? Yes. And before long us old fashioned guys will be gone and forgotten, and our backward views will be expunged.
My world is passing, but yours is blossoming. And neither of us will convince the other. Hold on to your opinions - you have time to effect change - but forgive me if I hold onto mine.