Irresistible

I had nothing in particular on the agenda one day, so I considered watching paint dry. It’s the definition of boring, because I know I can’t see it happening. I may even get a little impatient with the time it takes, but I trust the process, at the end of which I can move on to use the thing that was once wet.

Life’s processes often take much longer. I drove through L.A. this past week, and noticed that I could see the surrounding mountains. This used to be a rarity years ago because of the smog. But now, generations of cleaner-burning cars have filled the roads. There are so many of them – it’s Southern California – that I didn’t get anywhere fast, but at least the scenery was nicer than it used to be. The clearer skies seemed like a sudden event, because I don’t live in L.A.

The past couple of weeks in this country have been dazzling indeed. “Sea change” doesn’t begin to do it all justice. Same-sex marriage is now legal, and Confederate flags are being erased from view. The U.S. and Cuba have agreed to open embassies on their respective soils. Those still alive in future decades will be telling grandchildren where they were when the news of these things broke.

But unless we live with a process daily, we forget that it took an enormous struggle for these things to happen. In the case of gay marriage, it started with Stonewall in New York almost half a century ago, followed by hundreds of legal and social battles. It was just plain time for the Supreme Court to do what it did.

Since the end of the Civil War, the Confederate flag has been a symbol that most Americans have tolerated as a quirky Southern historical symbol, one that many Southerners still embrace. Now it is a symbol of racial oppression. The Civil War was a necessary event, but of course, it didn’t settle everything. We often forget that the process seemed to begin with the Abolitionist movement that started decades before in New England -- all of this leading up to 2015.

And Americans will soon be traveling to Cuba in large numbers, and vice versa. It seems like yesterday that Cuba was a mortal enemy, once a direct threat to our survival. But the thawing of hostility was a half-century process, and people actually had to get old or die off to allow it to happen.

Evolution is a logical and methodical process, but it’s usually long, sometimes invisible, and almost always painful, even on an individual level. Someone we thought of as a close friend evolves into a different person. It may be time for a connection to end, but we may resist the process, not recognizing that we have changed too. Evolution is inevitable, and resisting it often results in pain. Not everyone is pleased with the outcome, at least for the moment.

But if you are allowed to stay on this planet long enough, the threads become more and more visible. You begin to see how the dots connect. A little knowledge of history helps you accept, and hopefully appreciate, the process when it involves positive movement. And you realize that a milestone is just a marker on what is a very long path.

So You Think You Know This Court

We can’t be blamed if our heads are spinning – even though it may not be in the same direction for everyone.

Not 24 hours ago, the U.S. Supreme Court was being panned for its decision to throw out key provisions of the Voting Rights Act – a move interpreted by many as a blow to equality. Now today, the Court majority has thrown out key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), declaring it unconstitutional. In addition, the Court left standing a lower court opinion blocking Proposition 8, though only on what amounts to a technicality. The decisions open the door to same-sex marriage in states that have approved it.

Fittingly, both of these Supreme Court rulings have the biggest impact in California. Like that state, the Court has a major fault running through it, and occasionally, it shakes big-time – and we try to predict that tectonic shift at our peril. Maybe it’s all about Justice Anthony Kennedy, the traditional swing vote – but no matter. Personally, I think we’re better off having a fractured Court. A monolithic one would seem more stable, but this way, none of us can stay happy – or unhappy – for very long.

With regard to the rulings themselves, they’re a hint that we have either evolved (like the President) to a higher spiritual plane, or we’re heading to the other place in a handbasket -- you pick. But as I have said often in this space, if a certain percentage of all mammals have homosexual preferences, why should human beings be any different? And isn’t making quick judgments about the rightness or wrongness of human sexual proclivities -- or who is entitled to love whom -- a little silly anyway? We shouldn't need a court to tell us that.

Sexuality and Reality

 The U.S. Supreme Court has opened arguments on California’s Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex marriage. Proposition 8, as we remember, was heavily backed by the Mormon Church. Religious institutions have been at the core of the opposition to gay marriage. But what's really the subject here?

Homosexuality is not normal, some may say. But what does “normal” actually mean? It really was never intended to mean “right” or “correct.” It means “common.” And homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, no question – but that’s all you can say about it.

I would submit that there is no basis for throwing around the word “normal” when you talk about human sexuality, when there are entire websites and magazines devoted to FEET, to offer just one example. Did not Dr. Kinsey establish a long time ago that there are almost as many strokes as there are folks?

Sexuality is by no means a static target. People can have one kind of persuasion at one age and a different kind as they grow up. Or not! What governs sexuality – genes? Experience? Does it matter, as long as consenting adults are involved?

Can homosexuality be “cured”? If you’re trying to tell me that those who practice this therapy are experts in brain wiring, which is what is required, I would beg to differ.

If a certain percentage of non-human mammals, supposedly governed strictly by instinct, practice homosexuality, then what is “natural”?

Is a loving homosexual relationship that lasts for decades any less valid than a heterosexual marriage that lasts for six months?

There would seem to be too many easy answers for moralists to too many big questions.

The M Word (Again!)

Some day, the long fistfight over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry will be over. Both sides will have punched themselves out.

If I could write the law, it would come out something like this. For the purpose of rights and responsibilities, there would be no such thing as “marriage” in our legal codes. All willing couples, regardless of gender, would get some kind of certificate of union, with all the rights and privileges –- and I mean all -- currently afforded couples whom we now call married. But issuing that certificate would be all that government could do, and the spiritual and emotional components would be the province of some other entity.

This way, the county clerks wouldn’t be in the position of having to perform any ceremonies, and their sensibilities, or their biases, if you prefer, would not be part of the equation. If a couple wanted to find a church or some other party to perform a ceremony so they could call themselves “married,” that, in effect, would be none of government’s business. The person administering the ceremony would not be able to say, “By the power vested in me…”, because no power (at least no LEGAL power) would be vested in that individual.

We could avoid the insoluble arguments over the definition of marriage, which kinds of couples are more capable of raising children, or whether a same-sex union lasting 20 years is more valid or justified than a heterosexual union lasting only three years. Clearly, if two people of any sex want to make a long-standing or even a till-death-do-us-part commitment to each other, that’s something that society should encourage. And it appears that a certain percentage of human beings, indeed, mammals in general, are gay. They can’t “fight” it; why should others waste time trying?

I know this horse left the barn a few thousand years ago; I’ll leave it to the interpreters of the Bible or other books to tell me how many thousand. But I’m hoping that evolution (whoops, I mean SOCIAL evolution) takes us past this discussion eventually and that we can focus on other issues. How about curing cancer or ending war? Well, those are horses that may never leave the barn, but we can hope, can’t we?

The M Word (repeat)

To paraphrase the old Universal Pictures slogan from the 1930s, "A Good Blog Is Worth Repeating." This one goes back to Oct. 13, 2008, before the passage of California's Proposition 8. Reposting is about not having anything new to say -- but on this subject, I don't:

The M Word

The debate over same-sex marriage could be ended very easily by rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, if you don’t mind the Biblical reference. Just remove the word “marriage” from the law.

You may or may not accept the premise that a certain percentage of human beings are just wired gay, which I do, seeing as how that seems to be the case in mammals generally. But in the end, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a hardware or software issue, or even what Miss California thinks.

Your local county clerk would issue licenses for domestic partnership (or whatever you want to call it) ONLY, and these would have the full legal status that marriage has now. There would be no government-performed ceremonies (including judicial ones), so the religious or philosophical objections of clerk’s personnel or other officials would have no bearing – it simply would be none of their business.

In many religions, marriage is a sacrament, and that is its proper status. Churches and other religious or quasi-religious institutions should be free to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or not, and if marriage had no legal status, there would be no opportunity for lawsuits over this issue.

This all comes under the heading of my impossible solutions to modern problems, although I heard that someone is mounting a California initiative with very similar provisions. But frankly, I’m tired of listening to this debate. Boycotting a business that supported Proposition 8, in the middle of a recession, makes no sense. And is a straight marriage that lasts six months “better” than a gay marriage between two committed partners that lasts 20 years? Will gay unions really undermine the family unit as we know it? We should be celebrating and reinforcing the commitment, not the ceremony.

If we’re really committed to the separation of church and state, removing the word “marriage,” with all its emotional and spiritual accoutrements, from our legal codes would be a great place to start.

There, now I've said it.

The M Word

Some day, the long fistfight over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry will be over. Both sides will have punched themselves out.

I don’t mean to trivialize this, but if I could write the law, it would come out something like this. For the purpose of rights and responsibilities, there would be no such thing as “marriage” in our legal codes. All couples, regardless of gender, seeking what we now call marriage would get some kind of certificate of union, with all the rights and privileges –- and I mean all -- currently afforded couples whom we now call married. But issuing that certificate would be all that government could do, and the spiritual and emotional components would be the province of some other entity. 

This way, the county clerks wouldn’t be in the position of having to perform any ceremonies, and their sensibilities, or their biases, if you prefer, would not be part of the equation. If a couple wanted to find a church or some other party to perform a ceremony so they could call themselves “married,” that, in effect, would be none of government’s business.

We could avoid the insoluble arguments over which kinds of couples are more capable of raising children, or whether a same-sex union lasting 20 years is more valid or justified than a heterosexual union lasting only three years. etc. Clearly, if two people of any sex want to make a long-standing or even a till-death-do-us-part commitment to each other, that’s something that society should encourage. And it appears that a certain percentage of human beings, indeed, mammals in general, are gay. They can’t “fight” it; why should others waste time trying?

I know this horse left the barn a few thousand years ago; I’ll leave it to the interpreters of the Bible or other books to tell me how many thousand. Just so you know, I will vote against California’s Proposition 8. But I’m hoping that evolution takes us past this discussion eventually and that we can focus on other issues. How about ending war?  Well, there’s a horse that may never leave the barn, but we can hope, can’t we?

There, now I’ve said it.