Gay Marriage

Missouri votes to ban gay marriage

In a world where 'Will & Grace' is fun prime-time fare and 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' is adding to our national vocabulary, this might seem to be surprising.

It isn't.

Americans are, by and large, not ready to accept a re-definition of marriage. 60%, including a fair number who otherwise support gay and lesbian rights, oppose gay marriage*.

Instead, activists are trying to force the issue. It should not be a surprise that, when you force an issue that the public at large is not ready for, you aren't going to get the result you want.

If it were still a matter that could be handled in state legislatures, by the voters, when social mores change sufficiently, they wouldn't feel the need to put it in their constituion. But, since it has become a judicial issue, over which the voters have no control and cannot hold judges accountable, they have to become proactive (the same reason why Congress tried to make an amendment).

But I understand where many of these people are coming from. I think they are wrong, but I understand them. And there is some overlap with horrible, disgusting homophobes like Fred Phelps.

But forcing this issue bands the people who just aren't ready together with homophobes. And that's a shame, because we can convince the people who aren't ready.

This was a setback, but it is one that activists should have anticipated. And that's too bad. But I don't expect it to be a permanent one.

Look, I fully expect to see the day when the fact that two men or two women got married will barely raise eyebrows. I mean, look at how far we've come in 10 years. In 20. In 30. It's a matter of time before society changes sufficiently that gay marriage is not considered to be materially different than straight marriage...

...and I have a number of wedding to which I expect to be invited. ;-)



*Marriage should be a social issue, it should be a religious issue, it should be a personal issue. Instead it is a government issue.

If it were up to me, I would keep government firmly out of marriage altogether. Civil unions, as a way to formalize certain legal rights (such as care of children, rights to make medical decisions for each other, the right to automatically be one another's heir) is the only thing that the government should offer and that should not necessarily be tied to religious ceremonies.

There is no reason why civil unions would or should be limited to heterosexual couples...and let religious organizations, groups of people and families argue about what constitutes a real marriage. That's the way it should be.