While we're talking about discrimination ...

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy posted a video where every reference to "same-sex" was changed to "interracial" in an appeal against Prop 8 in California. For those of you who might be living under a rock, that's the amendment being proposed that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California. Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal. A bunch of folks, many NOT Californians, have decided to weigh in on this decision by supporting the amendment. Yes, it's stupidly framed, but voting "Yes" here means voting "No" for same-sex marriage. "Yes" means you are against it. Got that? (Me, either.)

Here's my background on this: Some time ago I was opposed to same-sex marriage because I felt it would be extending certain benefits under law in situations where they should not be applied. Yes, it was a very naive perspective. So I got educated. Turns out (to no one's surprise) that many same-sex couples have children. Perhaps they're from a previous heterosexual arrangement, or perhaps from some other arrangement. For me, I would want the children to be taken care of, and that means that both partners absolutely MUST have the same rights with respect to the kids. I don't care what their sexual orientation is, you just don't take children from their parents (or their families, if 'parents' is too restrictive a term for you), and you don't deny the rights of any parent to care for their children.

OK, here's the logic I had to use to get from A) no same-sex marriage, to B) same-sex marriage permitted. I'm going to construct some straw men just to knock them down.

"Marriage is only between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else."

Good one! But now we have to define procreation, because my wife isn't capable (anymore) of having children. And I knew that before I married her. Oh, and yes, I did marry her legally. Just ask the State of Ohio, County of Franklin. Procreation is the creation of more human beings. But beyond simply getting pregnant and having a rugrat or two, it's about providing for the optimal care of the younguns. It's about having help raising your kids. From your partner.

We can't decide that men and women can't marry each other if they don't intend to have kids. No one can predict the future, and even if you marry someone with the intent to raise a family, you can't then go back and declare them unmarried if they fail in that regard. Maybe men used to divorce their wives because those wives couldn't bear pups (I'm looking at you, Henry VIII), but these days that's not going to hold up. So clearly it's not practical to deny marriage between heterosexual couples on the arbitrary basis that they can't or won't have children. The law has to be permissive, here, because no one can predict the future. Case in point: I have a grandson. If something terrible happened to his parents, then I would want to be there to care for him. And so would my wife. Having us married means we both have the same necessary rights to provide the best care for him. He may not be blood-relation to me, but he is family. I'm his "grandpa."

"Same-sex marriage will force us to do things against our will/belief/etc."

Ah, this is a subtle argument that says churches will have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Bottom line, it's an argument that because someone doesn't happen to like same-sex couples, they don't want to be exposed to them, see them, talk to them, interact with them, etc. OK, fine. That's the exact same argument Christians use against atheists. They don't like them around, so they want them to just shut up and go away. "If you don't like America, then get the hell out." Of course, who gets to define what America really means? Is it you? (Methinks not.) Ironically, opponents of same-sex marriage frame this as a First Amendment argument, claiming same-sex marriage threatens their rights of free speech or freedom of religion or choice. Huh. Odd way to think of it.

Let's play a quick analogy game. Let's say a new religion is starting up, and has strange beliefs that many Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Wiccans) find offensive. Not too hard to do, under the circumstances. So, if we see people subscribing to this new religion, the established religions start saying that it's somehow going to force them to acquiesce to these strange beliefs, thus robbing them of their rights to have whatever church services they want. But that's absurd, isn't it? You can do whatever you want in YOUR church, including throwing people out who don't fit your idea of suitable church attendees. No one is going to force you to admit these strange folk, if you don't want them. And that even includes interracial wedding ceremonies, too. Don't want them? You don't have to have them. I really cannot see same-sex weddings being any different. If you don't want to host them, you won't have to. Just don't do it.

But let's attack the "I don't want them in my face" argument. I've heard this argument many times from Christians in reference to atheists. Leaving my beliefs out of it, for the moment, I want to substitute "bricklayers" for "atheists" and repose the argument. I don't like bricklayers. Damned filthy men standing on scaffolds all day, getting their hands in all that muck and goo. Carrying bricks up, mixing mortar. Disgusting! Can't we tell them to go somewhere else so we don't have to see their despicable, immoral behavior?

This is a pluralistic society. It has all kinds of people, and in fact it takes all kinds. You can't simply tell one part of us to go away and get out of your face. No matter how strongly you feel that you represent the One True Notion of what being American means. It's changing all the time.

OK, so this isn't about atheists, but about gays. Frankly, the arguments are identical in my mind. Some states are trying to pass laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Yeah, let's see them try to keep openly gay people from holding public office. It would decimate the Republican party, at the minimum. And easily do worse to the Democrats. Those damn Liberals! They're all gay!! (And I'm kidding, of course. But you get my point.)

As as matter of law we have no choice but to rule on the side of what's best for our kids. This means we cannot narrow the definition of marriage, even between a man and a woman. If we accept that there are children in same-sex partnerships, today, and we must because there are children in these families, then if we are honest and truly have our children's best interests in mind, then we have to allow same-sex couples to marry, under the legal definition of marriage. As I said above, we can't take these children away--that's inhuman and does not provide the best standard of care for them. Whether you think the "beliefs" of gays is best for kids, or not, you have to allow that followers of strange religions will also have kids and want to teach them in their own, strange ways. Just as you want to do. Being gay, of course, is not a "belief," it's who you are. Like being short.

All it takes here is a shift in perspective. I'm not calling for the abolition of religion, or the removal of personal freedoms to act and believe as we all, as Americans, want the freedom to act and believe. Bricklayers are people, too, and they deserve the same rights (if not the privileges) that everyone else has. Two Wiccans can marry and teach their kids to be tree-worshipers, and no one bats an eyelash (well, except in one famous case, but that was ridiculous). Personally, I worry about the utter nonsense that some Christians want to teach their children, because those beliefs run completely against my strong beliefs in rational thought--my belief in reality. We need more rational thinking, not less, but obviously I don't have the power to force them to do anything. I suppose that's a good thing.

We need to keep matters of law separate from matters of belief, because I don't want to have to be or believe a certain way, just because it's the law. Rather, the law must allow all of us to be and believe, and more than that, achieve our own persoanl versions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(I didn't put in a bunch of links to the things I mention, above. Do your own damn research if you care enough about it.)