I am in favor of gay marriage as long as
it's state legislation, as opposed to court order. Further, I think that all 50
(57?) states should have to recognize marriages performed in other states,
whether or not the marriage could be legally performed in the state that
the couple moved into. That said, I find the hounding of people out of
their jobs on this issue to be appalling and Un-American. (Harry Reid
said it first.) These black listings go much farther than Joe McCarthy
ever thought of doing, because the targets this time are much more numerous,
and the alleged actions so minor. A $1000 contribution in 2008 to a group
advocating marriage be limited to one man with one woman should not be an
offence that gets you fired. The only way the gay marriage issue will be
worked out is if both sides play by the traditional American rules for
political disagreements, and avoid retaliation for opposing viewpoints. I
don't understand how zealots like the Washington Blade editorial staff think
this kind of behavior helps their cause. It doesn't. It makes
opponents dig in and resist. It seems clear to me that gay marriage is
going to be enacted in most states in the next 15 years. Civil
recognition of marriages performed in other states has traditionally been the
law. Harassing people for small political contributions will only make it take
longer and leave a deep residue of bitter distrust. The whole point
should be that this change is not a big deal that's going to revolutionize
America. Gay couples that I know just want the house with a white picket
fence and legal rights equivalent to straight couples. The contractual
obligations and benefits of marriage are desirable, and are well defined in
law. This change requires only that magistrates can legally marry gay
couples. It does not and should not require religious institutions to
marry gay couples against their faith. Marriage is a civil contract upon
which inheritance is based. The true American way is for everyone to be
as tolerant as possible. Gay couples should not force themselves on
churches who do not want to marry them. Conservative churches should
allow as how civil marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, is not really
their business from a legal point of view. They can talk against it and
don't have to recognize it religiously, but once it's the law they have to
render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
The article I reacted to:
The ghost of Senator Joseph McCarthy is green with envy.
Being anti-gay marriage gets you fired almost as quickly as being labeled a
communist did back in McCarthy's day. I can imagine the questions Leftists will
be asking soon in Senate hearings. "Are you now, or have you ever been,
opposed to gay marriage?" It was only 2 years ago that the Community
Organizer in Chief made the change in his position on gay marriage that we all
were waiting for. Should our Dear Leader be censored for his position back
then? I think Mr. Capehart was right in his original off-the-cuff position on
the air. I wonder if his change in opinion was due to management threats to
fire Mr. Capehart if he didn't correct his statements to the new, intolerant
orthodoxy. Personally, my view of gay marriage has evolved over time. I would
vote in favor of it on any referendum now. Twenty years ago, I don't think I
would have. However, I have been publicly in favor of it longer than the Chicago
Prodigy in Chief. At this point, I think it would be wise for the gay community
to take yes for an answer. Once the opposition to gay marriage sees that not
much has changed after it's legal, the opposition will lose strength based on
experience. Right now, they just have fears that are being reinforced by the
McCarthyism of militant gay marriage supporters. I think their fears are summed
up by an old Bob Hope joke. In 1975, Hope said, “I’ve just flown in from
California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out
before they make it compulsory.” Give the opposition time to work through the
fact that they have lost and then discover that not all that much has
changed.
The article I reacted to: