Reply #39: Mucking up the waters... [View All]

Let me defuse a little by saying the I entirely support gay marriages. Whether they're called "civil unions," "holy matrimony," or just plain "getting hitched," I support the rights of any group or individual to live a life that's meaningful, and to live that life with whomever satisfies their soul.

If a particular denomination (or congregation within a denomination) is opposed to gay marriages, that's their right to interpret the scripture as they want. There are other congregations and denominations that fully welcome gay congregants, and I applaud those congregations for welcoming all people in God's name.

What I don't like is the federal government getting involved in what's essentially a religious ceremony -- deciding that marriage needs "defense" by determining that only straight couples can be considered married under the law. To do so denies a whole class of persons from due process because certain members of Congress do not agree with their religion (because their religion recognizes gay marriage).

Imagine if the Bush Administration decided that it wouldn't recognize marriages condoned by black churches. I know, I know. It's not that hard to imagine, is it?

Now let me rephrase my initial point: gay marriages might have a better chance of being legalized if it went under the name of "civil union" and were bestowed with the same rights now recognized by common law marriage. People who suffer from milder forms of homophobia might be willing to go along with a dull, boring and legalistic definition that leaves their religion out of it.

I have no use for moral victories. I want gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples, and I don't care what semantics we have to use to get there.