I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.
A while back on my Twitter page (yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds), I mentioned that, if I believed in the devil, Pat Robertson might be him.
Being a fairly liberal-leaning guy with either liberal friends or Republican and Christian friends who don't believe that being one has anything to do with the other, I was surprised at how many people took offense to what I had to say.
These people weren't friends of Mr. Robertson but friends, apparently, of God. They had "spoken" with him and he had assured them that he was no friend of the gays. He also told them that he loved America more than any other country and was a huge fan of Dancing With the Stars.
The small controversy or "Twitter-versy" (patent on phrase pending) all started when I had made the mistake of asking why two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to make the same life-long commitment and (more importantly) under the same god, as straight people. Why can't my gay friends be as happily married as my wife and I? It seemed simple to me, but let me start off by telling you a series of things that I believe to be true:
I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don't think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you're attracted. That's why it's called an attraction and not a choice.
I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says "one nation under god" in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It's not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)
I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn't believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn't live their life according to the King James Bible isn't protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I've seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.
I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, "this god is not your god and he doesn't love you." There isn't one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn't be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I'm amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn't it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone's basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?
But this isn't a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I'm writing about basic civil rights. We've been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.
I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?
A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.
The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don't affect someone else's ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.
Loading comments… 
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protection
responsibi
derive from statutes, administra
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
That's right folks CA law says rdp is the equal to marriage in every way but the name. So why all the fuss over one word? (I tried to post the law in it's entirety but it was too many words- feel free to go and look it up yourself so you can see the whole thing.)
So since the gay community already has the rights...i
"So why all the fuss over one word?"
I would pose the same question right back...if it's just a word...why cant the gay community have it too?
please before you ask what the big deal is....lear
http://www
Congratula
No, it sounds like a bunch of *Deists* who said differentl
To say the founders weren't Christians is indeed the truly revisionis
Alexander Hamilton - "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constituti
Thomas Jefferson - Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observatio
James Madison - “We have staked the whole future of American civilizati
George Washington - “ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
Does any of that sound like these people were atheists? Of course not, it is just a silly narrative conjourned up by a bunch of people who despise religion.
-- George Washington
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombi
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christiani
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson
"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washingto
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitariani
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson
"George Washington
-- George Washington
Facts are a good way to bolster your cred.
Just sayin'
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitariani
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson
You do realize that this sort of "logic" was once used by racists to claim that anti-misce
but you don't really want to do that, do you? Forcing you to do it would not feel right to you, would it?
How's this for logic: think of every miserable marriage where a homosexual married a heterosexu
and then...
let us marry each other so that we DON'T MARRY YOU!!!!!!!
there's equality for oyu. that is adding to the sum of human happiness.
I find it absolutely fascinatin
Well said, sir. The heterosexu
Thanks for having the guts to print your thoughts.