Something has occured to me lateley regarding marriage rights, and it gives me hope for the future.

It occurs to me that the way things are progressing politically is reflecting not only public sentiment, but governmental priority. People vote for striaght marriage, the court turns it down on fairness grounds. People vote more strongly for striaght marriage only, and now there is a process by which our own constitution is being examined to see if we have broken our own laws by allowing the vote to proceed. Again, this is an exercise in fairness on the part of the government.

Regardless of religion, the government is charged with creating an environment where religions can get along peacefully. Part of that is treating them equally. The Constitution of the U.S. states that laws cannot be written that favor one religion over another. So if one church is allowed to conduct marriages, all must be free to do so. There are also laws concerning the equal protection of people based on other factors such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. Racial groups are no longer prohibited from marriage in this country, thank God.

The governement cannot allow a law to exist that explicitly contradicts another. It is the height of hypocrisy, creates any number of confusions and double-standards, and above all is just plain bad leadership. If for no other reason, the fact that the basic ability to lead is undermined should be enough to reverse hypocrisy.

But about my glimmer of hope; We have had two votes in this state on the subject of gay marriage rights. Both have shown the will of the majority. Most people don't agree that homosexuality is a good idea, and are willing to vote to limit the rights of that group. The courts, however, recognize homosexuals as a legitimate segment of the population. That means they should be granted the same protection that every other group enjoys. This is civil rights at its most basic.

The current legal action to overturn Prop 8 is based on the fact that the state constitution already has a section preventing this kind of targeted rights removal. This is not the slippery slope that I like to talk about, this is simple conflict of rules. Let's call them rule #1 and rule #2 for short.
Rule #1 says that rights cannot be removed from a single group without equal treatment for other groups.
Rule #2 say to remove a right from a single group.

In order for rule #2 to stand, rule #1 has to be repealed first. That takes the slippery slope and turns it into a vertical drainpipe, the kind that ordered society would be flushed through if equal protection laws were repealed.

And so Prop 8 creates a situation that can't last. When it is finally repealed and equal protection is re-established, something else may start happening. We may see similar laws in other states begin to be repealed. It may be that California will set the standard for reform on this issue not by having a unified and tolerant population, but by recognizing and purging its own hypocrisy. Very hopeful indeed.



As an afterthought, let me make clear my personal positions on this issue.

I am Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is a detrimental behavior when considering eternal issues. Basically, when it comes to heaven, being gay doesn't help. This should not come as a shock, and is a generally understood Church position.

I also am an American, and I recognize that my Church is not the only one allowed to practice in this country. No matter how much I may think that my Church is right, I have to allow other churches who disagree to pursue their ideas of what they think is right. I have to allow people who disagree with me the right to pursue their own ideals.

I also believe in hard facts. The fact is that a community of people who by their very nature are not disposed to reproduce, well that community will not be long for this world. I won't live to see the day when the Gay Rights movement literally dies out, but it may happen. The only way to maintian a viable population would be through recruitment. This can take many forms, but the two that come to mind are accepting outcasts, and active efforts to conversion.

Outcasts coming together is how the modern Gay Community was created in the first place. So many people being individually persecuted across the board for one unifying reason, and they created a community to support each other against it. It just so happens that churches and their members have historically been the ones spurring this opression, and so we have two groups at odds with each other. This kind of conflict is good for no one.

If we do the easy thing and continue to deny gay rights, continue to allow discrimination to be swept under the rug, we have simply continued to oppress a group that is only galvanized by oppression. We will continue to be wrong.

If we do the most progressive thing I can think of at this moment and go so far as to create a "Church of Homosexuality" for lack of a better term, and give it all the rights and protections of a church in this country, we may end up making the conflict bigger.

I have seen talk on the internet from people who predict another civil war. They are so adamant about their position, and so convinced that the other side has their destruction in mind. Will it take Abe Lincoln revisited to enforce tolerance by force of arms? Is it tolerance that is needed, or simply an absence of outright opression?

Slave owners in this country used direct fear and force to keep slaves in line. Later, White Southern Extremists used public lynchings and burnings to acheive similar opression over free men in general. Similar extremists today have beaten, killed, and discriminated against gays. Our ancestors granted freedom to their slaves only when staring down the long barrel of defeat in the Civil War. Will we truly have to again kill our neighbors before we can make a place where people can live without fear of reaction to sexuality?

When I think about these topics I am reminded of my own code of behavior. It is specific and pretty easy to understand, but difficult to practice. I find no need to demonize homosexuals. Within my Church there is work being done on positive ways to integrate homosexual tendencies into the Christian behavior model that prohibits acting on it. Concerning those who are not members of my Faith, I find no need to pass extra legislation at all. The current laws already prohibit sexual misdeeds against people. If two people already committed to a homosexual life want to spend their lives together as a family, who am I to judge them wrong under the law? Who am I to forbid secular bonds to secular people? What real harm can come from the example they set?

Well, it's getting late, and I think I've taken you on a winding path with all these thoughts. But if it made you think, then it was worth the trip. Wasn't it?