Hiding in the Backwaters Just one more blog on the net.

To err is human.

In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that it is contrary to the state's constitution to deny civil marriage licenses to same sex couples, there has been some backlash from social conservatives. The governor of Massachusetts has encouraged an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as "a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman." (gay.com)

There are some who think that gay Americans should back down from marriage and accept a "separate but equal" solution in the name of fostering better relations with our adversaries. While it sounds logical on the surface, I think such a move would be a mistake. Making that kind of concession would send the wrong message to society, and would only make future advances more difficult by setting a precedent of separate but equal. I, for one, am opposed to anything that is tantamount to an admission that my love, my life and my relationships are inferior to anyone else's.

I'm sure there are some who will find my next comment unbelievable and un-homosexual, but so what if an amendment is passed? How long to do think it will really stand? It wouldn't be the first time social conservatives managed to pass an amendment to the Constitution only to have it repealed a few years later because it was a stupid idea to begin with. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should take this lying down. The religious wrong are fighting a losing war and they know it. This push for a Consitutional amenedment is an absurd act of desperation. What I am saying it won't be the end of the world if they actually win this one battle. I'm saying backing down from our expectation of full equality is the wrong tactic to employ in our defense.

Do as I say, not as I do.

I grow weary of the same tired rhetoric by opponents of gay marriage wherein ideals are held up as truth and fact. Recently USA Today made some rather dubious declarations in its Op/Ed column.

A large and growing body of social science research has shown that husbands and wives and their children are happier, healthier and more prosperous than adults or children in any other living arrangement.

Social science seems something of an oxymoron to me. It's like predicting the weather. The number of variables involved is so vast and the relationships so complex that not even the most powerful computer we know how to make can deal with them all and make accurate weather forecasts. All one can do is make educated guesses, but there are no guarantees. This also assumes people are telling the truth when they answer questionnaires, and that they are even cognizant enough of their own issues to give a realistic evaluation. For example, someone please explain to me why Utah, the Official State of Traditional Families Inc., is also the highest consumer of antidepressant medication. Doesn't sound like a lot of happiness going around to me.

I'd be willing to concede a greater percentage of mother-father-children families are happier than those in "other living arrangements," but does that mean all mother-father-children families are happy? Only a fool would make that claim. Does that mean everyone in "other living arrangements" is unhappy? Not likely. I would also venture to guess that a good deal of the malcontent found in individuals in "other living arrangements" comes from the condescension of society, religion and family. US Today can't even call a single mom and her children a family. They are people with "other living arrangements."

Other research has shown that same-sex relationships lack permanence and fidelity. Therefore, if such unions are recognized as "marriage," those values will be further stripped from the ideal of marriage that is held up to our children.

OK. You've got to be kidding me. For one thing, where do you find homosexuals for your research? A club, bar or clinic probably isn't best the place to find to homosexuals in stable, monogamous relationships. You probably wouldn't find too many heterosexuals in stable, monogamous relationships in any of those places either. And with the divorce rate above 50% are you seriously trying to tell me that heterosexual relationships are permanent? Everyone knows someone on their third, fourth, fifth husband or wife. A man and a woman who get married and spend the rest of the lives together through thick and thin, maintaining completely fidelity, is an ideal. The hard reality is it doesn't happen all that often. Many marriages end in divorce. Still others don't end, but one or both parties are miserable. Still others arrive at some sort of "arrangement" where the marriage is maintained for political/economoic/social/religious reasons (appearances) but fidelity is not required or even expected. Let's not mention the "dirty little secret" of America's swinging clubs. And never mind that swinging doesn't seem to prevent many of them from living happy, stable home lives with 2.5 children and a white picket fence. It would be interesting to see exactly what percentage of marriages actually conform to the ideal. I'm sure it is quite small indeed.

Admitting homosexuals into the Marriage Club isn't going to change the ideal. It isn't going to prevent parents, family, or religions from teaching and encouraging that ideal. How dumb do you think your children are, anyway? Do you think they don't see that many of their friends have single parents or step-parents? Do you think they can't tell when their parents merely tolerate each other and don't love each other? What kind of effect does have on children who live in a home where their mother and father's disdain for each other is barely contained? Is that what you want children to learn? That marriage is something to be suffered through and endured?

One of the topics of discussion when my wife and I divorced was we did absolutely didn't not want our children to learn that marriage is an endurance trial; worked at, yes, but not suffered through. We wanted them to see that marriage is something that should bring joy into your life. It was not a decision that was made lightly. I hope my children never have to deal with the pain of divorce (again). Better that, however, than spending the rest of their lives in a marriage that is tedious and unfulfilling. It seems to me that it doesn't really matter if people who achieve that ideal—to be seen as role models for our children—are a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.