More than the sum of its (body) parts...

Yesterday, in what may be the only bit of sane legislative action we've witnessed in the country this year, the California Senate voted to allow same-sex couples to legally marry. As reported by the Washington Post, the bill "...would recast the state's legal definition of marriage as a union between two people rather than one between a man and a woman."

Of course, Republican opponents have already begun thumping their Bibles, and reciting the same tired talking-points about threats to the "building block of society" that would be unleashed by such a bill. And
we can be sure that in the months ahead, the usual cast of intolerant characters will again remind us (in the shrillest tones possible) that the greatest danger to our way of life is not a war based on lies, or the rape
of our environment, or the downward spiral of our standard of living, or
a federal government woefully unprepared to give prompt and basic relief
to victims of a natural disaster. No, prepare yourselves for a renewed campaign against the real enemy from which we must be protected -
gay couples in love.

So with that in mind, I thought I'd begin my blogging journey with the following piece, published locally on Valentine's Day of this year. Seems
to me that the sentiments still hold true - and it's a cause that's well worth fighting for...

- - - - - - - - - - -

Last week marked the one-year anniversary of San Francisco's recognition of same-sex marriages, and it occurs to me that during these past twelve months I really haven't felt that my OWN marriage was all that threatened. Guess I just wasn't thinking. After all, in the first six weeks of 2005 alone, the guardians of our national conscience have reminded me of the perilous influence of SpongeBob's tolerant attitudes (thanks, Dr. Dobson), shielded my family from the subliminal agenda of PBS and its "Postcards from Buster" series (big thanks, Secretary of Education Spellings), and assured me that this menace to "the foundation of society" is indeed serious enough to require Constitutional tinkering (a very special thanks, President Bush).

And here I didn't even know we were all in such imminent danger. Again.

So as long as the topic of "defending marriage" continues to be such a headline-grabber (and, according to that short but disturbing passage in the President's State of the Union address, so absolutely central to summing up the core values of America), I guess I, too, think it's about time we define the ritual in a meaningful way. Why, just a glance at the statistics is enough to convince anyone that the institution of marriage is most assuredly in trouble. One in two ends in divorce. Only 59% of our current population even bothers to tie the knot, compared to 70% thirty years ago. And only one-third of all married couples ever reach their 25th anniversary. In fact, I didn't fare so well myself the first time around.

Something just ain't workin' in Straightville.

It's interesting to remember amidst all the partisan shouting about Constitutional amendments, Biblical condemnations, and assaults on our hallowed institutions, that these dreadful statistics apply specifically to heterosexual unions. That's right - the ones in which all the parts already line up properly according to the government-approved IKEA diagram. Funny, but the states with the highest rates of divorce are those that aggressively pride themselves on "traditional" beliefs and values (and, not coincidentally, are also making the most noise about the grave threat of same-sex partnerships). And even though the so-called liberal states have the lowest divorce rates nationwide, things aren't really going so well up here either. Clearly, there's got to be more to this whole marriage thing than a simple equation involving complementary reproductive organs.

Of course, I'm aware of the basic danger in trying to define anything in absolute terms. That old saw about an exception to every rule didn't become an old saw for nothing. "Cholesterol is bad..." (well, yeah, except for the cholesterol that isn't). "All mammals bear live young..." (well, sure, except for the platypus). "I before E..." (well, you get the idea). But if there is one absolute, one ideal that sets successful marriages apart from the whole random array of human couplings, it's got to be that unique duo called Love and Commitment.

So, in the midst of all this homophobia masquerading as patriotism, I do think the time actually has come for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage, but one that's written in the only language we can rationally call "absolute". Call it the "Defense of Love and Commitment" Amendment. DLC for short (and for those oh-so-important FOX-News sound bites). Something that focuses more on those human emotions common to each and every being on the planet and less on the mechanics, since the mechanics don't really seem to guarantee much anyway. Just take a look at those statistics again.

No, the sole ingredients we should hold dear when trying to define a good marriage are love and commitment. Just ask anybody who's in one. The way I see it, people with the "right" plumbing get married every day for an amazing variety of wrong reasons. For money. For power. For sex. For fame. We're tying the knot because of accidental pregnancies, old-school family arrangements, or victory on a "reality" show. Are we actually satisfied as a culture that that's worth our government's blessing, just so long as the respective puzzle pieces fit?

And, please, no more selective Old Testament quotes about abomination. It's always seemed to me that people who claim to speak authoritatively for the Almighty forget one fundamental thing – that God speaks to all of us. Besides, that same book makes casual mention of slavery and polygamy as social norms, and specifies death for those who work on the Sabbath. "In for a penny, in for a pound", I always say...

"But, the children?" you ask hesitantly (or, in the case of Secretary Spellings, LOUDLY). Well, from where I sit, love and commitment look like pretty valuable lessons to pass on to the little ones, no matter who's doing the teaching. The perceptions that my six children are forming about adult relationships are threatened far more by 15-minute celebrity marriages and shows like The Bachelorette than they are by their Uncle Eric and "Aunt" Walter, whose love for, and commitment to, each other has lasted more than twenty years.

Opponents of a Constitutional gay-marriage ban have said little beyond their willingness to leave this a state issue. Leave it to the states? It wasn't so long ago that far too many localities, left to their own devices, viewed marriages that crossed color or religious lines as an equal threat to wedded "sanctity", and enforced small-minded legislation to that effect. 142 years ago, the first Republican president didn't leave the huge moral question of owning another human being up to the states, because it was a question whose answer said something fundamental about our national character. Well it's crunch time again, kids. As long as the issue is on the table, we need to decide what kind of America we want in the 21st Century – inclusive or EXclusive – and we need a clear statement on a national level that will settle the argument from coast to coast.

And what a statement the DLC Amendment would be. Love and commitment are feelings that cut across religious, racial, political, and gender divides. They're familiar to red and blue, young and old, gay and straight. Wouldn't it comfort you to know that every adult couple you see sporting matching rings had embraced the responsibility that comes along with love and commitment, and wasn't holding hands just because of lust or convenience or an in-law with a shotgun? It would me.

So who knows? If America officially champions these qualities one couple at a time, we might eventually be able to lead the entire globe toward an era of peace and cooperation, regardless of our surface differences. The DLC Amendment could be the first step toward presenting a different image of our long-term core goals than the current "shock and awe".
And that's a national policy worth supporting.