Ya freakin’ cow! This is March…MARCH!!! Snow is NOT supposed to fall on me after Daylight Savings Time. Yeah, yeah, yeah…technically it started BEFORE 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, but STILL.

What’s that? You say it’s OUR fault that the weather is screwing up all over the place? Because of something called global warming?

Shows what you know! If it were global “warming”, then why is it colder than usual? HUH???

It’s time for you to take responsibility for your own actions, lady. It’s your fault that we’ve become addicted to the oil that YOU produce. It is YOUR fault that you made the ore that we turn into steel to make big cars and trucks to use that oil. It is YOUR fault for making coal so dirty to burn for electricity. Why can’t you make more trees to filter out all this stuff? Get your shit together, for cryin’ out loud!

Oh, blah blah blah…we HAVE to cut the trees because we have to build stuff, and stock our giant “do it yourself” warehouses full of potential building materials which we may never ever use. I don’t want to be told I have to wait for wood if I have a project that I want to do right now! It can’t wait! I’m too busy.

Buck up, little lady Earth. Time for YOU to step up for a change. We can’t do it all, ya know.

I’m off to Costco to buy bulk packages of pens and tooth paste. I’ll take the Super SUV today, since I might need the room for a Costco-sized tub of “I Can’t Believe it’s Not Butter.” I have a coupon.

I just have to rant a bit about our Best Buy - Cascade Station experience yesterday. In all the years of shopping at Best Buy in several states, I have never seen this happen.

My hubby had purchased an HDTV antenna so we can view our local stations through our satellite receiver. It was crap. He took it back, and exchanged it for a better one. As we were walking out of the store, bag in hand and receipt clearly visible in the bag, the woman working the exit door tries to stop us as we got to the sliding glass door (past her current location). She says wants to see the receipt. Bob says “no”. She claims that she needs to check the receipt. Bob asks her why? She says “store policy.” Bob says that he didn’t sign any agreements or contracts giving them permission to inspect his merchandise. She then said, “Well, you shopped here.”

It is rare for me to be left speechless. I think my jaw quite literally hit the floor at that point.

At that point, we just turned around and walked out, daring her to try to stop us. She didn’t. We went to eat, then decided that we didn’t appreciate being treated like criminals. So, we took the antenna right back. No one in the entire store cared that we had a horrible experience. Bob mentioned it to three different employees, all of whom seemed more concerned about who was on break or not.

So, just be warned. Best Buy now has a magic policy which is binding on anyone by merely walking through the doors. You are guilty of stealing things until otherwise proven innocent.

Needless to say, we won’t be walking through their doors again.

Maybe…

KATU’s website tells us today that Oregon lawmakers want to ban smoking in privately owned vehicles carrying passengers under 16 years of age.

Are you kidding me? I am not a smoker, and I support fully the efforts to ban smoking in public places. However, I’m not about to get into a smoker’s car and tell them that they can’t smoke just because I don’t like it.

I can understand putting limits on cell phone usage in a vehicle for safety reasons. I can understand seat belt requirements - it saves lives. However, telling someone that they cannot smoke a cigarette in their own vehicle in the presence of anyone under 16 is outrageous. This simply goes too far.

Back in my home state of Georgia, you were able to carry a handgun in your car on the front passenger seat without need for a concealed weapon permit. A person’s vehicle was considered an extension of their home. As long as the handgun was not stuffed in some compartment then it wasn’t considered concealed. Oregon seems to have a similar definition, although a state appeals court has recently ruled that a person’s vehicle, while not public itself, utilizes a public street and acts as a container for a handgun whether visible on the seat or stuffed in a compartment.

This ruling is contrary to the common interpretation of Oregon law, according to the Oregon Firearms Federation: “It has always been our position that open carry in a vehicle was clearly protected by Oregon law. ORS 166.250 clearly states that except for CHL holders, it is concealed carry in a vehicle that is prohibited. It further states that the prohibition against concealed, loaded carry in a vehicle does not apply to ‘a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.’”

Is your vehicle an extension of your home? Should you be limited to when you can smoke in your vehicle?

The bigger question is, are we going too far with this drive to ban smoking? Can this be considered an invasion of some sort?

In the fall of 2008, Portland Community College initiated phase one of a two-phase plan to ban smoking on all campuses. Phase one moved previous smoking areas off the common campus grounds away from high traffic areas. Phase two set for fall 2009 will complete ban smoking anywhere on any campus. I have to assume this also includes while sitting in your parked car on their property.

I feel that the steps taken by PCC are extreme, an effort to ride the anti-smoking wave that has now hit Oregon. It seems that our state legislators also want to capitalize on the negative public sentiment of smoking.

So, what do you think?

It baffles my mind…

President Obama (I LOVE SAYING THAT) had a cocktail party last night at the White House to celebrate passage of the stimulus package in the House of Representatives. What blows my mind is that he invited a handfull of repooblicans - NONE of which voted for the stimulus bill. In fact, there was not a single repooblican who voted in favor of it. Yet President Obama decided to invite them to his house for a party. I suppose if you have a repooblican anywhere around you, booze is in order.

Do we really need the republican party any more? I mean, really…

They all love the Guantanamo, let’s send ‘em there. I hear they serve Orange Glazed Chicken and Rice Pilaf.

It is awful just how much I have forgotten over the last eight years. For example, I had forgotten that the President of the United States can actually say to a megahonkin’ bank like Citigroup that it isn’t in the interest of the country that is giving you $45,000,000,000 as a bailout to have you go and buy a brand new shiny $50,000,000 jet for your corporate fat-asses.

This reveals so much about the corporate view of our government. They’ve had their way for the last eight years with zero regulation or oversight. Those days are over, dear friends, and that is coming right from the top.

Do not pass go, do NOT collect any more corporate jets.

Quick intro. I’m Jason Evans, wannabe snarkster columnist for whoever thinks they’d want to hire me, as well as full-time student in a sign language interpreting program.

I’m not new to the blogosphere. I was blogging originally back in 2003/2004 with a site called “What in the Blue Hell?” which I used to kvetch and complain about a number things political and local.

I also used the site to chronicle my battle for marriage equality, including the trip my partner and I took to San Francisco on Valentine’s Day, 2004, to get married.

Thanks to the very generous invitation of Kari Chisholm back in the day, I was one of the original contributors to BlueOregon.com, a site which has grown and become one of the leading sources of information and discussion for Oregon progressives and liberals (and a few grumpy conservatives and neocons - just for flavor).

I really want to get back into the swing of things so hopefully this will be a great start.

Thanks to ALL of you who’ve worked your tail-feathers off to get Oregon Blogs back! I am so incredibly appreciative of your efforts. I don’t have the skills to help, so I have to rely on you good folks.

Take care,
Jason
Portland, OR

The great marriage debate rages on.  In the time since we went to San Francisco on 2/14/04 to get married, the religious right has been infused with new energy and a clear mission:  Stop gays and lesbians from getting married or “marriage” as an institution will be destroyed forever.  The Defense of Marriage Coalition, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family have risen to power in the name of keeping their ideal of marriage as law.  They claim that the Christian god made a sacred institution between a man and a woman, starting with Adam and Eve.  But, is that what the bible says?  What is the real tradition of marriage according to the book that they’d use to hit us over the head with?

What follows is research I’ve done, taking right out of the bible.  I’ve shown how the bible records marriage, and how different those records are from the claims of modern-day zealots interested in protecting the “sanctity of marriage.”

Let’s start with the first book and the first couple, Adam and Eve.

As Genesis 2:24 claims a man and a woman cleave to one another and are faithful to each other with god’s blessing, until death do they part, when married.  Therein begins the theoretical long-standing history of marriage as we know it today.  According to Christian interpretations and claims today, God made Adam and Eve to wed as one man and one woman, and that was the first marriage.

It is important to note that the first mention of “marriage” is in Genesis chapter 34.  The term “married” doesn’t appear until Genesis chapter 38.  The first mention of the term “marry” is from Genesis chapter 19, where Lot was giving warning to his sons and their brides-to-be when Sodom and Gomorrah were to be destroyed.

However, the first mention of a “wife” shows up in the above-mentioned Genesis 2:24.

Remember that Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, was trying to recall the history of the creation of mankind and the earth, as well as the fall to disgrace that human kind took, when he was writing the book of Genesis.  Moses was from a culture that had already established traditions of coupling between members of the opposite sex.  He infused this tradition into his description of history as he interpreted it.  Naturally, as a man raised and schooled in the household of the Pharaoh of Egypt, would try to slant his writings in the most positive manner.  Egyptian writers, when recounting histories, battles, and family lineages, often left out things that would have reflected badly on the Pharaoh or his family.  Moses, in recounting the history of creation and the “first couple”, would have presented them in the most wholesome and positive fashion for his followers and believers.

Some of the most famous characters in the bible got married.  Here is how the bible records their marriages:
Genesis 4:19-22
:

And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Genesis 28:9:

Esau went to Ish’mael and took to wife, besides the wives he had, Ma’halath the daughter of Ish’mael Abraham’s son, the sister of Neba’ioth.

Genesis chapter 30: 25, 26

25 When Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, “Send me away, that I may go to my own home and country.  26 Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me go; for you know the service which I have given you.”

Genesis 36:2, 3

2 Esau took his wives from the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholiba’mah the daughter of Anah the son of Zib’eon the Hivite,  3  and Bas’emath, Ish’mael’s daughter, the sister of Neba’ioth.

Judges 8: 30, 31

30 Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives.  31 And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abim’elech

1 Samuel 1: 1, 2

1 There was a certain man of Ramatha’im-zo’phim of the hill country of E’phraim, whose name was Elka’nah the son of Jero’ham, son of Eli’hu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an E’phraimite.  2 He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Penin’nah. And Penin’nah had children, but Hannah had no children.

Let’s not forget about good ol’ King David, who seemingly was blessed by God to get his wives Abigail and Ahin’o-am, then scorned by “the lord” to get his umpteenth wife Bathshe’ba (don’t get me started on why the innocent child of David and Bath-sheeba was put to death by god for the sins of his parents):

1 Samuel 25:
39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the LORD who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from evil; the LORD has returned the evil-doing of Nabal upon his own head.” Then David sent and wooed Ab’igail, to make her his wife.   40 And when the servants of David came to Ab’igail at Carmel, they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.”  41 And she rose and bowed with her face to the ground, and said, “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”  42 And Ab’igail made haste and rose and mounted on an ass, and her five maidens attended her; she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.  43 David also took Ahin’o-am of Jezreel; and both of them became his wives.

2 Samuel 5:
12:  And David perceived that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.  13 And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David.

2 Samuel 12:
7-14, 24:  Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul;  8 and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.  9 Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uri’ah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites.  10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uri’ah the Hittite to be your wife.’  11 Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.   12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’”  13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.  14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.”  24 Then David comforted his wife, Bathshe’ba, and went in to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the LORD loved him…

The bible, when examined, clearly shows that there is a strong and “blessed” history of bigamy and incest.  Genesis 19:37 shows that Moab (father of the Moabites) and Ben-ammi (father of the Ammonites) were born by the union of Lot and his daughters when, as the story goes, Lot’s daughters got him drunk and slept with him because they feared that there were no men left in the world since Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed.

Regarding the treatment of wives and children, the Law of that period had very specific instructions on dealing with disobedient women and children:

Deut 21:
10-23:  10  “When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive,  11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife,  12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails.  13 And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.  14 Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
15 “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked,  16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born,  17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them,  19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives,  20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’  21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.  22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,  23 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

So, if the Mormons, the Christian Coalition and various Defense of Marriage groups have things right, the history of marriages in the bible are far different than the ideal that they’re using to measure the validity of same-sex unions.  The history of marriage in the bible is anything BUT the story of wholesome unions between A MAN AND A WOMAN.  “Family values” were far different in the bible than they are today.  Just try to stone your children for disobedience.

This is something I wrote back in 2004 in reaction to this battle of same sex marriages in Oregon.  Marriage is not so sanct, and has never been when it comes to our history in America.  What follows is research I did on the history of marriage in America.

This is long, so please feel free to skip through and read later if you wish.

Affirming Traditional Marriages

At the center of the debate over same-sex marriage is the ideal “traditional marriage”.  Opponents have said repeatedly (to me and to others) that same-sex marriage will undermine a long-established ideal role of a union between a man and a woman.
On the subject of “traditional family”, Encarta says:
There has never been a typical or single traditional family form in the United States. In the early 21st century, the ideal family is a vehicle for self-fulfillment and emotional satisfaction. The family in early America had different functions as producers of food, clothing, and shelter. There has always been a gap between the ideal family and the more complicated reality of family relationships. While Americans value their families and resent outside interference, they have also been willing to intervene in the family lives of those who seem outside the American ideal.
The Early Days of Marriage in America

American history reveals a long and ever-changing view of marriage, starting in the 17th and 18th century.  Families from European backgrounds living in the new land viewed their families as “households” – people who happened to live together.  These units were formed, not out of love, but out of a primitive need for what the man and woman could provide for survival.  Men who could care for livestock, fields and merchant duties paired well with women who could produce basics such as dairy products, meats, or even services such as midwifery.  Such unions promised individual survival.  Children were created to help work the farm and perform household duties, not out of a sense of parental longing or love.  The household was run much like a business.  Disobedience by children was met with harsh punishment, often times mandated by law.  If one child died, there was no great familial loss.  Often, another child would be born and given the same name as the deceased.  Children were sold to other families as early as age 12 for servant duties.

All Aboard the Love Train

It wasn’t until the late 18th and early 19th century that the concept of marrying for love entered our society.  The familiar view of children was becoming more sentimental and less labor-driven.  The initial shifts occurred in wealthy, educated urban families.  Later, the concept spread to the rural and poorer Americans.  The reason for this shift was due to an economic boom, which meant that families didn’t have to work as hard for themselves when others could work for them.  The production of the necessities of life shifted outside the home, providing more leisure time to spend with family, as well as providing opportunities to reflect on the meaning of family and happiness.  A new philosophy by John Locke promoting the idea that children were blank slates that in which goodness can be instilled by showering them with kindness and love and by shielding them from the bad things in this world.  In contrast, “traditional” Christian values dictated that children were born “sinners” and needed constant supervision and correction.

Enter the 19th Century

New ideas about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” invaded the upper and lower culture of the 19th century.  Romantic desires to have it all wrapped up in one neat little family package became the new view of marriage.  Wifely obedience to her husband switched from an obligation of house law to an act of love for him.  Men ruled their households still, but were encouraged to do so with the delicacy of their wife’s heart in mind.  Inequality and abuse never fully disappeared, however.

Instead of milking cows to provide for the household, raising children became the main focus of a wife in America.  The harsh punishments of the “old days” for children were replaced with less severe consequences, rewards and love.  During this time fiction and religion took major strides toward promoting the ideal family picture.  Magazine articles, novels and religious publications all did their best to promote the new perfect family.

As the Industrial Revolution took shape, men were taken to work outside the home, often in other towns.  Women were left with the duties of caring for the children by themselves, as they were considered “too delicate” to conduct themselves in the working world (note:  it is interesting to see the shift from a “hard working woman” to a “delicate” woman in just 100 years).  Interestingly, according to Encarta:

It was also common in middle- and working-class families for sons to be sent to school, while their teenage sisters supported this schooling by working in a factory, teaching in elementary schools, or taking in sewing. Such work was considered acceptable as long as it was either done in the house or by unmarried young women.

However, due to severe poverty associated with the low wages of the Industrial Revolution and increased housing costs, the old “tradition” of family crept back into every day life.  Children were sent off to factories to work for the family, and women and men again married simply for the sake of survival.

The 20th Century Family

As the Progressive Moment grew, Social Workers played vital roles in helping families through the new difficulties of maintaining the new family, such as drug use, physical abuse, or abandonment.  Social Workers often held to the “traditional” roles for wives, and advised women that they should stay with their abusive husbands, because that was their role.

In an effort to hide “sins” from social view, single white girls who were not married and pregnant were carried off to undisclosed locations, where their children were taken from them.  The girls were returned to their families and their “real lives”, traumatized by this horrible experience.  When “black” unmarried girls and women were found to be pregnant they were classified as immoral and racially inferior.  They were held up in public derision, and forced to go home and raise their children alone.

World War II saw the blossoming of “girl power” and Rosie the Riveter.  After the war ended, divorce rates climbed to astonishing levels.  From Encarta:

The marriage rate went from 12.2 per 1,000 people in 1945 to 16.4 in 1946. The divorce rate, which had been slowly increasing during the century, leaped from 3.5 to 4.3 per 1,000 people. One reason for the extraordinarily large number of divorces in 1946 was that couples who had married in haste before they were shipped overseas for the war found that they had little in common after three to five years apart.

Suddenly, the concept that a marriage could be so easily dissolved entered our society.  Even the presence of children in a relationship did not diminish the numbers significantly.

Grizzly Adams, meet Ozzie and Harriet

The 50’s and 60’s brought the ultimate in denial for mainstream America.  Television was all the rage, and families sat themselves in front of the tube regularly.  In an effort to present the ideal image of America to the rest of the world, shows such as Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best were created.  The whole world, including many Americans, thought that every single household was cut out of the same mold as these fictional families.  The “traditional marriage” was now idealized, fictionalized, and fantasized about.  The reality, however, was much different.  According to Encarta:

This idealized middle-class American family began to show cracks during the late 1950s and early 1960s. In response to the demands on men to create and support expensive domestic paradises, a mythical world of adventure and freedom eventually arose in popular culture. Movies about secret agents and Western gunslingers contrasted with the regimented suburban, corporate lifestyle of many men. The demands on women to be all things to all people—a sexy wife, a caring, selfless mother, a budget-minded shopper, a creative cook, and a neighborhood volunteer—and to find satisfaction in a shining kitchen floor often produced anxious feelings of dissatisfaction.

As “concern” over music, sexuality, and morals grew in the 60’s, suddenly the “traditional marriage” was touted as the only savior for the family.  People were not willing to admit that the pressure associated with maintaining a “picture perfect family” resulted in long hours at work, bored wives and unmotivated children.  Children grew and rebelled at the notion that they had to fit into little suburban cut-outs of behavior, thereby creating their own culture.

The 60’s and 70’s

Traditional roles of family and child-rearing were turned upside down.  Men began taking an interest in raising their children, and women took it upon themselves to earn a living and provide for their futures.  The times of church and state looking into the bedrooms of the American family had come to and end.  The Sexual Revolution had begun.  At the same time, gays and lesbians were asserting their rights to equal recognition of relationships.  Sometimes these relationships were based on the traditional model of marriage, and other times they were based on newer ideas.  Communal living became a popular alternative to traditional families, providing a community of like-minded individuals who could share the duties and enjoy more of life’s freedoms.

As the roles in family shifted, men felt inadequate because the demands of the new “traditional marriage” couldn’t be met by one person.  The picture perfect marriage and family were expensive and difficult to maintain.  Women became “working moms”, trying to balance all the household duties with a full-time job.  The amount of stress in trying to maintain this façade caused many couples to break up.  It also forced new couples to reconsider their fantasies of marriage and what it really meant.

Today’s Trends

According to Encarta:

In 1998 there were 2,256,000 marriages in the United States, a marriage rate of 8.4 per 1,000 people. This rate was down from 10.6 per 1,000 in 1980. The year 1998 also saw 1,135,000 divorces in the United States, a rate of 4.2 per thousand people. One estimate is that 50.3 percent of marriages will end in divorce. Divorce rates have been rising since 1920, when records were first kept and when the divorce rate was about a third of the 1995 rate. Although the divorce rate has been declining since it peaked in the early 1980s, America still has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. The majority of divorced people eventually remarry.

The strict roles of man and woman in a marriage are no longer relevant.  The “traditional marriage” has been replaced with working moms and dads who SHARE the household burdens.  Women are increasingly making sure that they are provided for, as well as their families.  Men are increasingly bonding with their own children in ways that would have been considered “feminine” a century before.

The term “family values” appeals in our modern-day because people want to relate to the old ideals of communication, Sunday dinners at Grandma’s house, and tradition that accompanies the dream.

We are working toward better communication and understanding within our families.  However, children still seem to be suffering.  Anxiety, depression, and loneliness are common in two-parent households, and even more common in single parent situations.  These are often acted out in violence toward others.  It is not uncommon for children to see psychiatrists, social workers, or even doctors for treatment.  Interestingly, Encarta says this phenomena is “peculiar” to the United States:

The safety net for families and community support for parents and children have been rolled back at the end of the 20th century. The United States lags behind other developed nations in educational standards, social welfare programs, infant mortality rates, marriage rates, legitimacy rates, public safety, and other measures of family well-being. Crime, violence, drug abuse, and homelessness are problems that arise from these situations and also weaken existing families. Some of the problems with family life come not from a rejection of the family or from stresses on the family, but from the high and idealistic expectations that Americans place on their marriages, sexual relationships, and parent-child relationships. Many Americans hope for a perfect spouse and a perfect family and will experiment until they find satisfying lives for themselves. The cost may be tenuous relationships (emphasis is mine).   Although there is concern about these social changes, few would want to return to the days when women were expected to stay in abusive marriages or fathers were routinely denied custody of their children. The majority of Americans accept new attitudes on sexual expression, birth control, abortion, divorce, and child custody, although many personally view homosexuality as immoral, have mixed feelings about abortion, and want to make divorce more difficult to obtain. Both liberals and conservatives agree there are hopeful and troubling aspects of the American family at the end of the 20th century. The family is not dead, but it exhibits the plurality of interests, hopes, and troubles that the American people face at the end of the century.

Having noted the preceding history of “traditional marriage”, it seems that the only thing consistent with the tradition is that of change.  The very meaning of marriage has evolved over the last 300 years, even in the last 50.  The pressure to maintain a socio-religious ideal has caused families to crumble and children to suffer.  Those who would put forth a moral responsibility by the United States to reinforce “traditional marriage” legally may want to consider the social consequences based on the results of recent history.  Marriage, as we know it today, is completely different than it was 30, 50, 100, 200 and 300 years ago.  It has to be able to adapt in order to survive.

Those who preach “traditional marriage” the loudest can not claim to live it practically in their lives.  President Bush has not successfully raised his family in the manner which he would hold the rest of the country accountable.  Ministers and conservatives who seek to push legal restrictions on marriage cannot themselves claim to have successfully met all the challenges that they would mandate to others.

Efforts to “preserve the institution of marriage” are efforts to push an entire belief system upon a nation, a belief system that is driven by a base hatred for homosexuals.  Simply put, those who seek to ban same-sex unions feel that the “scriptures” condemn homosexuality, and based on what the bible says we are “sinners” and do not deserve to live in happiness.  This concept of God-ordained “sin” allows conservative Christians to easily justify condemnation and judgment against anyone they wish.  Some have even carried out their judgments with murder.

I close with this question:  Are these extreme reactions a just foundation for the preservation of “traditional marriage”, or are their condemnations and judgments the real threat to the very fabric of our American society?

I was born and raised in the northeast corner of Georgia.  The county that i was born in, Forsyth County, had an unofficial rule that forbade black people from living there.  Any who ignored the signs (yes, actual signs) at the county line and crossed into county borders to drive through the state were harassed by county inhabitants.  In 1987, a black civil rights activist named Hosea Williams - a Georgia native - led a march of 75 people through Forsyth county.  He and his group were pelted by locals and numerous KKK members with bricks and stones (sounds like something out of the old testament).  A week later, undaunted, Mr. Williams returned to Forsyth County with 20,000 people and an impressive security detail.  Soon after, Oprah brought her show to Forsyth County for a revealing episode on the motivations for this extreme racism.  In the end, as a result of the exposure brought to this little county by Williams, Forsyth County began to integrate.

Hosea Williams was born in 1926.  He was once beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized - because he drank out of the “white” water fountain.  When I heard the people at Palin rallies, I was spirited back to those times.  It was an absolutely horrible feeling, exposing the darkness that still resides in a minority of people in this nation.

The idea of racism is familiar to me.  The motivations and justifications for racism are also familiar to me.  As has been proven throughout history, the most effective way to conquer racism is to bring into the light the reasons people have to justify hate.  When shown to be publicly unpopular, the hate doesn’t go away, but it becomes less and less active and vocal.  In small groups, hate has power.  On larger stages, hate has no power.

America has, on the large stage, drawn the final line and said that we will not tolerate this type of thinking any longer.  We did not allow old traditional thinking cloud our judgement.  The old white guy, the the war hero, may have looked familiar and safe in comparison to the young, unfamiliar face of a man with roots in both Kenya and Kansas.  The desire for truth, for adulthood, for a recognition of our international nature and power, and for accountability saw through the racial fog that has hung over this nation for far too long.  Our nation saw the best man for the job.  Period.  There is a lot to do, but the American People have resoundingly said, “Yes, we can, and will!”

I know that my friends, and myself, are disappointed about Prop 8 in California.  I take a look back at people like Hosea Williams, who fought literally their entire lives and only saw some victory toward the end of their journey.  It will be the same with gay rights.  We won’t win this battle in a decade.  It will take a generation, and even then there will be those who always harbor ill will toward us.  We will have to be patient, keep fighting, don’t let them tell us “you can’t”.  After over 100 years, African Americans can finally say, “oh, hell yes we can.”  And so will we as gay and lesbian Americans.

I’m ordering these even though I don’t have a dog.

Newer Posts »