Gay Marriage Decision

As a former teacher (and now openly-liberal gentleman), I would like to comment on the U. S. Supreme Court decision today.

First, the Declaration of Independence is clear: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It has taken much time to bring principle and practice into line—to end slavery in 1865, to determine that “men” includes both sexes and grant females the vote in 1920, and now to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

I think it was Justice Hugo Black who once explained his position in regard to the Bill of Rights this way: “Your rights end where the other person’s nose begins.” So: if gays and lesbians marry, my marriage is not harmed.

My nose is in no way bloodied.

As for Justice Thomas, one of the four members of the Supreme Court in the minority, I wonder that he did not recall a time in 1967, when his very own marriage (to a white woman) would have been illegal and criminal in many states.

(Anti-miscegenation laws were overturned that year, in Loving v. Virginia.)

Who, with even a rudimentary understanding of the U. S. Constitution, would uphold such laws today?

Nor is the decision today to be construed as an attack on freedom of religion, I don’t think. All good people of faith may still attend the churches of their choice. They may take communion as they wish. They may study the Bible, Koran or Torah as they please.

So should it be.

If some preacher wants to warn his congregation that the Sodomites are now irrevocably bound for Hell, that’s freedom of religion, too. If some ministers, priests or rabbis don’t want to marry gay couples, that is still a protected decision—and if it were ever to be taken as far as the U. S. Supreme Court, I would bet that the right to refuse would be protected by a 9-0 vote.

There are, however, limits to all rights, including freedom of religion. An old-fashioned Christian, Muslim or Jew, for example, could not say, “We claim the right the right to stone adulterers who belong to our church, temple or mosque.”

Freedom of religion and personal liberty do not always perfectly correspond.

That’s my thinking, anyway. And to all, I say, have a nice day.

Forget the Terrible Towels: NFL Players Voice Support for Gay Marriage

IF YOU MISSED IT THERE'S SUDDENLY renewed hope for those who favor legalization of gay marriage. No, no. Mitt Romney is still against it. And Paul Ryan is still opposed. He's all about Catholic teachings and he's sure that unmarried priests are a great idea. After all, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Well, now, who cares what Mitt and Paul think?

So what if Pat Robertson says we're going to bring down the wrath of God around our ears if we accept gay people as equal? You know:  humans?

Don't worry right-wingers!
If gay marriage is legalized
you won't stop ogling cheerleaders.

Suddenly, players in the NFL are coming "out" in favor of gay marriage. This game day morning, Cheeseheads in Wisconsin awoke, rubbed their eyes in disbelief, and found themselves asking, "Does it really matter if same-sex couples marry?" Who Dat Nation stopped worrying about player suspensions and Steelers fans quit waving their yellow towels and had to carefully consider the issues.

If you missed the story, Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has been supporting gay marriage for some time. This support finally caught the eye of Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Maryland lawmaker; and a riled up Burns fired off an angry letter to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti. Basically, he asked the owner to see that his linebacker shut up.

Burns' letter angered Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, in turn, and the kicker responded brilliantly, in a scathing missive. First, Kluwe wondered if Burns had ever read the U. S. Constitution, with its First Amendment protection of free speech.

Second, he reminded Burns (an African American and sadly a Democrat, too) that brave stands taken by sports figures can matter.

Jackie Robinson was mentioned.

Finally, he assured Burns (and here we might offer the same assurances to the men at the top of the GOP ticket) that even if gay marriage were to become a reality, he (they) would still be perfectly safe:

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?
 

The standard response from the right is entirely predictable. Marriage is a holy institution. You can't mess with God's plan. It has ever been so:  marriage is between one man and one woman. You can almost hear Burns and his type saying, "And...perhaps most importantly, gay marriage gives me the creeps."

So, let's add a little to what Mr. Kluwe has already said so eloquently. First, Mr. Burns should be ashamed of himself not only for failing to read the U. S. Constitution but also for failing to grasp the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. He might also kick himself for forgetting about the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Loving et Ux. v. Virginia. You don't have to go too far back in history to discover that, well, marriage hasn't always been just a matter of one man and one woman. Hardly. In 1924 Virginia lawmakers passed what became known as the Racial Integrity Act, limiting marriage to one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman, and that rule remained in effect until a unanimous Supreme Court struck it down in 1967.

TODAY, THE RIGHT-WING HATERS will tell you that it must remain the same way. They will insist they have thousands of years of tradition on their side, not to mention the Bible and Founding Fathers. Yet, we know societies evolve. (Sorry, right-wingers:  we know how much you hate that word.) For centuries, of course, arranged marriages were the rule. In the time of Shakespeare, for example, Frances Coke was offered in marriage, along with £ 10,000, to a wealthy nobleman. When the fourteen-year-old girl tried to resist she was "tied to the Bedposts and whipped" (more than once), according to eyewitnesses.

As late as 1753, the age of consent in England was twelve for a girl. And in the Thirteen Colonies, in the days when the Founding Fathers were born, marriage customs and attitudes still had a long way to go before you could say they matched today's mores and values. Call it the "good old days," if you're Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan--but Puritan lawmakers in New England required all those found to have engaged in premarital sex to marry. Sex, itself, was forbidden on Sunday; and homosexuals caught in the act at any time could be punished by hanging. The law was also clear when it came to adultery and male masturbation--in places like New Haven, Connecticut, capital offenses. But we grew. Don't you see?

In the end, Burns and Romney and Ryan might be wise to read the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.
 

Back in 1776, a new nation had a long way to go before anyone could argue that we had lived up to Thomas Jefferson's ringing ideals. Still, the cause of liberty grew. Slavery was ended. Women won the right to vote. In 1924, Native Americans officially became U. S. citizens. Meanwhile, states raised the minimum age at which a girl could marry, with parental consent, to sixteen, or eighteen without a mother or father's approval. And, yes, The Racial Integrity Act was finally declared unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is coming, sooner or later. Romney and Ryan and Burns can only temporarily stand in the way. They can stare at the Declaration of Independence as long as they want and hope to see some kind of optical illusion. But stare as long as they will:  the words "homosexuals not included" are not ever going to pop out of the background.

History shows that when gay marriage does become law our great Republic will survive. History acknowledges human progress.