Good As You

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/10/2007

***NOTE: The below was written for Logo's official Visible Vote '08 website, in response to that network's Aug. 9 presidential forum. The piece can be found over there as well.

When one wishes to pick up a drivers license, there are not an array of choices from where they can obtain such a permit. While some teenagers surely wish that faith in their own abilities and a quick bedtime prayer were enough to put them behind the wheel, such is simply not the case. Even if you, like Carrie Underwood, have given Jesus the wheel to your automobile, your human self is still gonna need a license, the likes of which can only be purloined at a DMV or similar government office.

The same goes for voter registration. You can’t choose to sign up for that particular right at either an official government-affiliated entity or your local Dairy Queen. Although Blizzards would surely entice some apathetic couch potatoes, the valued DQ employees of this great nation simply do not posses the power to dish up such polling participation privileges (no matter how skilled they may be at dipping the cone in the yummy chocolate).

There are also certain truths about life in general. For example, a boy who wishes to turn 13 years old and move on into becoming a man — while in the Jewish faith such typically happens at a bar mitzvah, a young boy who doesn’t dance the horah with his nearest and dearest will still continue to grown into adulthood. Taking that concept back even further, one who receives their moniker at some sort of religious naming ceremony is no more prescribed in the hall of government records than is the the child whose name came from the back of a beer can.

One would be viewed as nutty if they were to contest any of the simple truths outlined above. That’s because regardless of personal opinion or faith subscription plan, certain facts are simply factual. So with that established, let me put another two facts out into the ether:

(1) Marriage is a civil matter that exists independently of religion. An atheist couple hitched at their local mayor is just as legally bound as those blessed at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

(2) Barack Obama has been muddying the waters between civil and religious marriage at every single opportunity, and the bullsh*t is REALLY getting old!!

Why do I say this? Well, let’s look at some quotes from last night’s 'Visible Vote' forum:

OBAMA: “…I’m a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of a same-sex union are compatible. Now, as a consequence, I don’t think that the church should be making these determinations, when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same-sex couples”

OBAMA: “Part of keeping a separation of church and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.”

OBAMA: “We should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word ‘marriage,’ which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples”

OBAMA: “I would have supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits thats are available for a legally-sanctioned marriage, and it is then…up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.”

Yes, just like he’s done so many times before, Sen. Obama continued last night to foster the idea that religious marriage is a concept that exists independently of and equal to civil marriage, rather than an optional component that tax-paying citizens can or cannot choose to layer upon their government-granted permit. He once again suggested an alternate route for gay and lesbian couples to take in order to seize their rightful protections and benefits, and gave houses of worship ownership to the word that is universally understood to mean “legally-bound partnership.” He basically told gay couples that while he is 100% behind their equality, he is not willing to ruffle the feathers of the percentage of American citizens who think their church attendance gives them more right to lawfully-recognized love and commitment.

If done under any circumstances, such would be insulting. However, when these comments are made to a crowd full of LGBT leaders and allies, such duplicitous testimonial is just downright offensive!

But as already mentioned, last night was nothing new for Obama. Virtually every time he has been confronted with this very straightforward rights issue, Sen. Obama forfeits the opportunity to show the American public the truth behind gay activists’ marriage endeavors. And what is so intensely frustrating is that by holding the stances that he does, Obama is playing right into the hands of the LGBT community’s staunchest opposition. The common “pro-family” talking point on marriage and other rights issues has been that if progressive measures advance the cause of equality, then they will see their religious freedoms stripped away. So propagating the idea that Rev. GaysNoLike’s opinion on this matter trumps the ACTUAL FACTS is not only a negative in the marriage-denying sense, but it also sets a frightening precedent in terms of “religious freedom”s ability to thwart constitutional fairness!

Towards the latter part of his appearance last night, Mr. O said of the word “marriage”:

“Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I’m interested in is making sure those legal rights are available to people”

But what I, for one, wish to see from future incarnations of this White House-seeking candidate is a man who shows the public at large how this debate is one that goes far beyond mere semantics. If semantics are not important, I want him to show people how and why they need to get over their feeling that “marriage” is synonymous with “only if you tithed to the collection plate.” I want him to do as Melissa Etheridge suggested and “be the first one.” But mostly I want him to help everyone see why we cannot and should not even for a second consider creating new and separate vehicles as an alternative to marriage, when mere inclusion into the existing one would save much time, energy, and heartache (while preserving the meaning of the word fairness). As I’ve said before on Good As You:

“The 'Whites Only' fountain once dispensed the same water as the 'Coloreds' one did; but the implications of having to walk the alternate line to obtain the H20 spoke volumes. While a separate civil unions system may not be quite as ugly as the brutal injustice that was racial segregation, the idea that one sect of the population must walk an alternate path in order to achieve the same objective is a notion that will always be wrong!"

We’ve already got a perfectly adequate “civil unions” system in place, Mr. Obama. It’s called civil marriage!

::writer hops off his soapbox so he can go grab that Blizzard that he’s been craving since paragraph 2::

***On a related note: Bravo (if I can use that word on a Logo site) to the entire panel for pressing Sen. Obama on this in ways that we haven't seen in other debates.

***On a second related note: Barack is far from alone in the “civil unions” camp. His particular set of talking points are just the ones I’ve chosen to address.

Your thoughts

Posted by: James | Nov 22, 2007 5:02:29 PM

Talk to us

*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy