.....Today I read an article in the newspaper which disturbed me no end, but no doubt made some people very happy. Voters in North Carolina yesterday approved Amendment One, a fiercely debated and highly restrictive amendment to that state's constitution that defines marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. The amendment not only outlaws same-sex marriages, it also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay or straight couples.
.....Now, I don't see how the marriage of gay partners affects me. I don't give a tinker's damn as to who marries whom, and I don't understand why some members of our society are so fanatically frantic to ban two men or two women who love each other, from marrying, and who want to make a life for each other. Human beings, who are gay are not aliens, but Americans, some of whom have given their lives in the service of our country. What is the answer as to why they are not permitted to marry?
.....When Mitt Romney selected a gay man, Richard Grenell as his foreign policy and national security spokesman furious voices on the right quickly condemned Romney for selecting Grenell and they made certain that there was no way in the world that Mitt Romney would ever again put a homosexual in any position of importance in his campaign.
.....Another problem that perturbs me involves Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. After 35 years in the U.S. Senate, he was defeated yesterday by a tea party challenger in a Republican primary that demonstrated the perils of compromise and intransigence in Congress. After 35 years of service, voters ought to have given Lugar the opportunity to serve and retire with dignity. Richard Mourdock, his challenger, pummeled Lugar for breaching conservative orthodoxy. Among them, Lugar's support of citizenship for some illegal immigrants' children in the military or college, and his votes to confirm President Obama's nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Tsk. Tsk. What a nerve to support these things! It's tea time.
Yes, we have the same "straight/gay" debates over here, but they are slightly more rational. Just about everyone knows that gay people are as capable of contributing to our society as straight people are. What was it the late Quentin Crisp said? "I am one of the stately homos of England!" We have plenty of "out" gay people in our legislature, and no-one turns a hair any more. Things aren't perfect, but we've come a long way since the early 1970s. As to your Tea Party, I'm beginning to think that they put stuff in their tea that affects their mental equilibrium. Lady Grey for me, please! Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteOn further reflection, I think that part of our advanced outlook is in some measure due to our having an established church. I know this might sound odd to Americans, but it does in fact mean that the church is subordinate to the state, and must to a large extent follow the legislation, which in turn follows social trends. Your independent Christian groups are far more fearsome to your politicians than the C of E is to ours. Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that the appointment of an openly gay vicar to a bishopric was withdrawn after strong protests from many official CofE and Anglican segments. When the Episcopalian Church (the U.S. branch of Anglican Church) appointed an openly gay priest as a bishop, many Anglican groups actually left the Anglican Communion in protest.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, Joel. It's a big issue for the C of E, but getting things done slowly and bit by bit is the name of the game in that particular institution. The row over gays seems to have receded for the moment, only to be superseded by a row about women bishops. But I think you'll find it'll all get sorted out eventually. Cousin Ruth
ReplyDelete