Why I support gay marriage

This past Monday was my one-year wedding anniversary.

While I am thrilled to embark upon Year Two with my lovely bride, I have been more anxious than joyful about marriage these days.  No, not my marriage (though there are joyful and anxious moments there among many others), but the marriage rights of thousands presently under siege in California via Proposition 8.

Prop 8 is the effort in California to institute an amendment to the state constitution that will prohibit gay and lesbian people from being allowed to legally marry.  Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court overturned existing prohibitions against gay marriage and effectively legalized gay marriage.  Now, there is conservative backlash in the form of this proposed constitutional amendment that defines marriage in California as being between a man and a woman.

I believe that to deny LGBT people the right to marry is discriminatory, immoral, and anti-Christian.  (I’m sure it goes against tenets of the faiths of many others as well, as well as those who have no faith, but I personally write from a Christian perspective.)  I support equal marriage rights conferred without regard for the sex, gender, or sexual orientation of those involved, for the following reasons:

1. LGBT people are created as such in the image of God. Thus, they are entitled to the the same religious and civil opportunities as anybody else.
2. Christian marriage is a religious sacrament, while civil marriage a secular means of securing certain economic opportunities. Religious groups can disagree on whether or not to marry LGBT folk in their religious communities, but equal protection under the law cannot be compromised.
3. What makes marriage “God-ordained” is the Godliness of the relationship, above all else. Couples of all persuasions can fully meet any criteria for marriage that is based on a holistic view of marital relations – rather than simply sex organs, which is insufficient for securing God’s blessing on a marriage.

Advertisement

"That one" double-standard

Just imagine if Barack Obama had referred to John McCain as “that one”.  What would the response have been, on TV, here and elsewhere?  They would have made another “Obama…Disrespectful” commercial.

From where I sit, the fact that there’s any wiggle-room here for people to argue that McCain didn’t mean that is a function of white privilege.  If Barack Obama had said it in reference to his distinguished colleague, he would’ve been drawn and quartered.

I have no idea what McCain meant here, but it’s definitely weird.  He’s not helping himself combat the “racially tinged” meme with crap like this.

In which I help the "guilt by association" smear-mongers

There’s a post over at my favorite conservative blog* calling on the McCain campaign to run “guilt by association” ads against Barack Obama in the swing states.  One at a time, 30 seconds each:  Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.

Frankly, I believe the subtext of such ads is absurd: Obama knows people who are crazy!  Ergo, he would be a bad president. In my comment, I remarked that it’s a shame that this poster apparently doesn’t believe that John McCain can win simply on issues that are legitimate.

Nonetheless, I’m ashamed to admit that this idea did get my creative juices flowing.  Therefore, here’s my suggestion for the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers “guilt by association” ad.  It would be called “TERRORIST LOVER”:

(Ominous Music)

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama knows a guy who is a real bastard.

ON SCREEN: Obama...a real bastard.

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama and aging-hippie terrorist Bill Ayers once served on the board of a charity…AT THE SAME TIME.

ON SCREEN: HOLY F**KING SH*T

NARRATOR: Terrorist Ayers even donated $200 to one of Barack Hussein Obama’s political campaigns once.

ON SCREEN: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist-lover.

ON SCREEN: Believe it, b*tches.

NARRATOR: It’s time to ask the question: who is the real Barack Hussein Obama?

ON SCREEN: ANSWER: somebody who wants to bomb your house.

* patterico.com really is my favorite conservative blog.  It’s the only one I ever read.  It takes a non-religious, reason-based, conservative approach to the issues.  Patterico and I disagree on basically everything (though he actually does support same-sex marriage, which is cool).  Nonetheless, as a rule, the front-page posters are reasonable, respectful, and (somewhat) post-partisan, which is commendable.  Also, they practice free speech over there, allowing and encouraging dissenting opinions to be expressed in good faith dialogue (though such will be roundly challenged by the regulars).  Suffice to say it’s a good site for another view.

Since you brought it up, Governor…

Gov. Palin is throwing around the line that Sen. Obama has been “palling around with terrorists.”  This is in reference to two facts:  (1) Obama sat on the board of a charity with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and (2) Ayers once donated $200 bucks to a former campaign of Obama’s.

“Palling around with terrorists” indeed.  That’s shameful.

Remember when we were being told that there was a “working relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda?  One that, well, never materialized?  Interesting how some of the same Bushies are now working for Palin.  Maybe tha’s where this is coming from.

Nonetheless, if guilt-by-association is the governor’s game, that’s fine by me:

So tell me why again does Palin think she has any moral ground to stand on?  This brings to my mind a certain Christian teaching (Mat 7:1-5):

[Jesus said,] “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”

Question for the Moral Absolutists

Why does it need to be true for all people in order for it to be true for you?

Seriously, what's going on here?

I noticed this last night, at several points during the debate.  I don’t know how to read this.  It seems a little…self-demeaning.  An attempt to substitute “feminine charm” for substance.  Perhaps a personal signal for God in which she acknowledges her false witness?

Could you imagine Hillary (or for that matter, Barack, John, or Joe) getting away with the same?  Yeah, me neither.