How does one justify opposing a bullying ban?

Okay, as a person who considers himself religious, I understand the need for a church to stand up for its principles. But there's a serious problem in existence when I see that a church is ON RECORD saying that they oppose the ban on bullying.

If you think I'm making this up, I invite you to check out this link.

http://www.votervoice.net/Core.aspx?AID=917&APP=GAC&IssueID=17772&SiteID=-1

In short, the problem is--according to these bishops--because there's a bullying law on the docket, it might lead to same-sex marriage. In other states that have had bullying bans, the bans have been used in the case for same-sex marriage.

Human dignity is a primary teaching of the Catholic Church. It's the first tenet of the social teachings. Even from the USCCB's website, it reads, "...the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person." This is a case in point where the dignity of human beings are being threatened, where worth is questioned, and lives sometimes become at stake.

Go to: http://www.cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=13515#hys to voice your opinion on this article. Odds are good that you will find those who disagree, but even if you're not Catholic, this is a human issue!

Outraged yet? Then keep paying attention...

While it's fine and I will readily admit that my folly is to laugh at stupidity, I have to point out that this particular idea is not funny at all. It's entirely too scary. Because somewhere, someone believes this to be an accurate image of reality. If this doesn't terrify you to your core, I'm scared for you!

http://www.wvformarriage.com/

Yeah. Check out the YouTube video attached to the front page of this.

Until the last election, I wasn't aware that wanting to be with my partner in a committed, legally-recognized relationship was a threat. To anyone. Anywhere. I didn't realize that a legal relationship with my partner would do anything to my bosses or their children, who are grown. Didn't realize that their grown sons' relationships, too, would be defined only by how my relationship was recognized.

I also was not aware, despite being both a church-goer and a gay man, that my relationship would put at risk any other couples from being able to have marital counseling from a church. According to the video, this is a fact. We also will keep couples from adopting. Or churches from having services.

And if we don't stop it now, apparently the Earth will implode.

Scared yet? Read on.

What amazes me (and terrifies my very core) is the audacity that some people have to agree with this so clearly misguided view of marriage. If marriage is sacred and worth fighting for, then I leave it to a very humble suggestion--one that in no way originated with me. Attack the real enemies of marriage: divorce, abuse, neglect, and infidelity. Leave a healthy relationship out of the debate--it's not breaking yours.

Want a real kicker in this one? I know more straight people staring down the barrel of divorce (or divorced within the last 2 years) than committed gay or lesbian couples (and I know several).

I'm astounded. Really. If your marriage is degraded by my partner and I being able to be legally recognized as a couple, then my only guess is that your faith life must be as challenged by the whole Da Vinci Code debate. If either case is true, you're a moron. I can't be nice about that. You clearly have lost the capacity of using your brain.

What marriage do you want?

Probably, I won't say anything new here, and that's okay. Still, I want to rant about the marriage concept the predominant culture seems so inclined to "protect." And if we actually looked at those silly things called "facts", everyone might notice that maybe--just possibly--nobody would want marriage in the first place.

Please understand, before I get started and before you send angry emails to me or to Les Bian, I'm a full advocate of equal rights. It won't be equal until it's 100% equal, as far as I'm concerned. But we're arguing over a term that may not be of interest to any of us, if we really understood it.

Let's say, for the poor sake of argument, we wish to fight for marriage equal to that indicated in Scripture. I don't think any of us who want marriage rights for the LGBT community really want that for ourselves. And if we do, our partners may disagree with the option on other grounds! Let's start at the very beginning, because if Julie Andrews taught good gay boys and lesbian girls anything, the beginning is a very good place to start!

Adam and Eve. The only reason they ended up together is because otherwise Adam would've resorted to beastiality. I somehow doubt that'll fly for most of the LGBT community.

Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sarah). Okay. That'd be all right, if we totally ignore how Abraham had sex with Sarai's servant girl in order to have an heir. By the way, that's what eventually led to the split between the Israelites and the much-later followers of Islam. Do we really want that in our mix? I'm thinking no.

Samson and Delilah. Okay. Bad example from the outset. She tricks him so she can cut off his masculinity...in the form of his hair. This one's self-explanatory. (Men everywhere just crossed their legs while considering this one.)

Joseph and Mary. I'd probably go for this, but we might want to be a little cautious. According to Catholic lore, Joseph got no nookie. Ever. I'm guessing that won't go over well. (I don't even think heterosexuals would go for that option.)

The Wedding at Cana. Really great party. We know nothing of the marriage that followed. NEXT.

We can't even mention Jesus. According to traditional understanding, Jesus was a loner. Now, there are a few theologians who argued differently...some even positing that Jesus may have been gay. Hence the whole thing about John being a "beloved disciple". Still, that's no concrete example of what marriage is or should be.

If we are to look to Scripture as a guide--and I'm speaking to the men for a moment, here--there's the whole Joshua and David thing. Vaguely, I recall something being mentioned about "closer than a brother." Looking at linguistics, "brother" was often considered WAY more than what we mean now. In addition the option of sharing parents, the term would equally equate the closest male companion of a male (or, in fewer cases, a female). In some cultures, "brother" or "sister" even referred to one's spouse.

So maybe we decide Scripture's not the best source. That's okay, too. Let's go to history and see how marriage looked.

Marriage as a contract. Purely a legal term, we want only to be able to take our partner's property, and be able to have control over their rights. Generally, this aligns pretty closely with what we seem to be arguing for with "civil unions." The only problem with this idea is that is has nothing to do with love or a recognition of commitment. It's purely a legal concept and could be annulled.

Marriage as a relationship. Add to the contract concept that we are a committed couple. Okay, that works. Except that even with marriage identified as a "special relationship", it doesn't say anything about the historical or traditional concepts of marriage. When marriage was seen as a special relationship, men often had additional women for sexual gratification. While this appeals to some, I'm guessing there will be people in an uproar over that.

We can also add to this the ideas of polygamy (or rarer cases of polygyny). That throws a big kink into our hose of marriage. Personally, that doesn't appeal to me--but if it works for other people...I guess they have their own battle to fight.

History shows that Marriage as a sacramental union didn't really happen until sometime between the 11th and 13th Centuries. The argument is over a term that wasn't in existence a LOT longer than it HAS been in exsitence. (You know, if you consider a few hundred thousand years a "long time", that is.)

Let's understand where we are now:

• Marriage is a person-to-person thing...not like it was when it originated as a family-to-family contract.
• States can choose to acknolwedge any contract they so choose.
• The church only acts as an agent of the state in the matter of marriage. They serve merely as a witness.
• We're arguing over a church-based understanding of a term, not a legal understanding.

All this is to say simply: Do we really want marriage, as it's been traditionally defined? Do we want to be equated with people who can get divorced so easily, when we are hoping for a lifetime commitment? Do we want to have a term that carries the baggage of cheaters, abandonment, and the other negative concepts?

As a spiritual/religious person, yeah. I do. I want to be able to look at my partner, know he's mine in both my eyes and God's. That's a personal understanding, between me, my partner, and God.

I want my church to recognize our relationship as special, as blessed, and as fully committed. But that's my argument with my church. Not the state.

I want my family to recognize us as a unit, one pair that is always a pair, not simply two seperate entities who get sexual release from one another. (Though somehow, I kind of doubt my family even wants to think about me having sex. Period. Male or female doesn't matter here. I'm pretty sure they think I'm still chaste, despite having been partnered nearly a year!) And despite all that, that's my argument with my family.

More than anything, I want my state and my country to admit that my partner and I deserve equal rights under the banner of the law. We deserve to be able to visit one another in a hospital without hassles. We deserve to be able to interview for positions without the fear of discrimination based solely on our sexual preferences, just like any other couple.*** We deserve being able to get health coverage for one another through our jobs, just like any other couple.

Maybe it would simply be better if we did go to Switzerland's form of the argument. Take marriage out of legal vocabulary. EVERYONE gets civil unions. That's it. You want a "marriage", something sanctified by your church? Take that part up with your church, and fight with them for that concept. If you want equal rights under the law, fight with your state and your country.

And a note to church leaders who might be reading this--though I doubt that's a likelihood. If you want to get involved in the debate, that's fine by me. But before you do, check your tax-exempt status with the IRS, and start paying taxes like me. You can preach all you want about "saving marriage" then, and be a taxpaying person doing it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself or your after-service coffee & donught hour. Leave my bedroom out of this...I don't come to your church and tell you who you can't sleep with. Don't come to my state and tell me who I can't sleep with.

(I'm a bit bitter today. It's been a rough week.)

***As a total aside...while typing that line, I immediately went to the gutter. If you aren't mad about nondiscrimination policies, consider this. A guy who likes it when his girlfriend uses toys on him doesn't get discriminated against for that, but in some work environments, you can be discriminated against for being a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls. Glorious, ain't it?