Let’s talk marriage

by Bob Henline in The Straight Line | 0 comments

While Congress and the White House continue to ignore the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the GOP field of presidential wannabes has done an admirable job of keeping this issue in the mainstream media spotlight. For this week’s fun, we turn the spotlight to Mitt “I’ll Say Anything To Win” Romney and his three-tiered approach to marriage.

Romney is proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that has three primary elements so simple and so stupid that perhaps Rick Perry could even remember them.

1. Reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a woman;
2. Legally recognize all existing marriages, even same-sex ones;
3. Ban any future same-sex marriages

What I can’t wrap my head around here is how we have fallen so far from our stated principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Apparently, America’s GOP feels that those fundamental freedoms apply only to those that think and act as they do.

How is it that we live in a nation that feels the need to impose its version of freedom on other sovereign nations, but we refuse to honor those very principles at home? People are entitled to equal treatment under law, yet we have laws that expressly separate people and create a secondary class of citizens.

Marriage is a simple issue, it isn’t a “gay” issue, it isn’t a “straight” issue. It just is. Any two consenting adults that wish to enter into this social contract with one another should have the legal right to do so. End of story.

Enter the religious nutters. But Bob, they say, marriage is a religious institution, ordained by God. If that is truly the case, then under the separation of church and state clause of the First Amendment, no marriage should be recognized by government and no benefits of such should be conferred under law.

I sincerely doubt, however, that our society is ready to go to that extreme. So, why not just leave the religious piece of marriage in the purview of religion and leave the legal side in the realm of government? Religious institutions and individuals are currently entitled to their bigotry. Allowing people to marry under law will in no way require that religious institutions participate in or even recognize that union – it’s strictly a legal measure.

So again, I’m forced to ask: Where is the harm in allowing two people of the same gender who love one another to enjoy the same legal status as two people of different genders? How does a loving homosexual couple being married cause more damage to the institution of marriage than say Newt Gingrich and his abuses of the institution, or the philandering Herman Cain?

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I just don’t understand the dilemma here. What impact does the marriage of two people have on the marriage of someone else? I’m a straight male, married to a straight female. We have homosexual friends in various types of relationships, some married (in states that recognize such), some living together, some monogamous, some not. Exactly the same types of relationships that exist among our heterosexual friends and family. And none of that has any bearing on our relationship or commitment to one another.

So, to Mitt and the rest of this GOP field of pretentious hypocrites I give the following advice: if you truly wish to be president, perhaps you should spend your time addressing the real concerns of this nation: jobs, the economy, the end of war, etc. It’s time to put your obsession with other people’s relationships on a leash.