Marriage doesn’t seem to me to be a controversial issue.  My views are fairly conventional I suppose, two people exchange vows, commit their love and lives to each other, and everyone eats cake.  Easy.

But it isn’t.  Who can marry, and where they can marry have become one of the most polarizing issues, and at this pace will be one of the top two issues in the 2006 and 2008 elections, along with immigration.

The bigger news is that the Senate Judiciary Committee has sent a Constitutional Amendment to the Senate floor that would ban Gay Marriage, amid a heated shouting exchange.

Gay marriage ban sent to Senate floor

A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday after a shouting match that ended when a Democrat left and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter said.

"I’ve enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Remember all the times I have pointed out that politics exists in a sea of bad manners, in both parties?  Proof in point.

The reality is that this is a futile gesture and everyone knows it:

The panel voted 10-8 along party lines to send the constitutional amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.

Stupid.  Reading the details of it proves the point further:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

So what the heck is the point?  Is this a rear guard action to prove it cannot happen so it can be more easily dismissed?  Because that is easily the most unconstitutional constitutional amendment I have ever seen.  Why take the document that grants and guarantees freedoms and use it to not only restrict people, but also severely violate the States their right to self govern?

Without even touching on the moral issues, or cultural issues, the Amendment is a bad idea just for principles of constitutional law.

I am hoping there is some realistic point to this, because this is insane.  And insanity is spreading, it seems.

One of the common arguments forwarded by opponents to gay marriage is that it erodes values and violates the sanctity of marriage.  It has long been in my mind that the state of marriage as it exists today is hardly making it a bastion of conservative values.  Marriage, plainly put, died decades ago when it became a throw away commodity.  Marriage is a convenience store end cap item.  Couples pledge their eternal love, sign a pre-nup (just in case) and then part ways in mere months citing irreconcilable differences.  Our pop culture peers in Hollywierd are lucky if their marriage lasts a decade, before they end up in the inevitable tug of war over money and kids.

Many churches and other well meaning social groups do a lot to salvage the value of marriage, don’t get me wrong.  The religious communities tend to take a more serious view of it, and in the case of the Catholics, they take a very serious view of it.  But I have long maintained that many groups that are so vocal about gay marriage, well they focus so much on preventing gay marriage, it seems they have given up on saving straight marriage itself.  Looking at the erosion of values in America, and the erosion of marriage, it is hard to call the chicken or the egg.  Did laxity in marriage cause the cultural slip that drives the desire for gay marriage, or did a sick and permissive culture hobble and poison marriage leading to further corruption.  Regardless, marriage is clearly not what it used to be.

It’s plainly a wonder that Gays want to embrace matrimony in the first place, but I will come back to that.

One town had an intriguing solution to the marriage problem.  Apparently concerned about unmarried people raising children, they decided on a simple solution:  Marry, or move.

Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents

A small American town is facing accusations of seeking to drive unmarried couples with children out of town on grounds they do not fit the local definition of a family.

The brewing controversy in Black Jack, a town of 6,800 in the central state of Missouri, began unfolding earlier this year when Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a four-bedroom house they had purchased.

 Local officials told the couple that the fact they were not married and had three children, one from Shelltrack’s previous relationship, did not fit the town’s definition of "family".

A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

The couple were then left with the option of getting married, packing their bags and leaving town, or putting up a fight, which is what they decided to do.

Obviously this is going to be interesting when the ordinance undergoes scrutiny, and loses. 

Hmmm, makes ya wonder, if a gay couple and their kids were living there, would they be forced to marry, and if so would they fight it out of principle?  Never mind.  Forget I asked.

Marriage also comes into scrutiny about the reasons why people marry, and in some cases why they stay married.  Take the Clintons (please) whose marriage is a top DNC topic of discussion.  I know, it’s touching the concern over their happiness, and poor daughter Chelsea, right?  Wrong:

For Clintons, Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives

Bill and Hillary Clinton flew to Chicago together last month to deliver speeches a few hours and a few miles apart. And like any couple, they thought about having dinner at day’s end. But life is not so simple when you are married to a Clinton.

Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife. Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle, or hitting parties and fund-raisers in Manhattan; she is yoked to work in Washington or New York — her Senate career and political ambitions consuming her time.

When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage — and how the most dissected relationship in American life might affect Mrs. Clinton’s possible bid for the presidency in 2008. (emphasis added)

You read right.  The political ramifications outweigh any aspect of morality.  When she ran for the Senate there was considerable speculation about whether she could use his sexual antics to strengthen her position.  She could have played it several ways, but chose the public role as a forgiving wife and then rarely mentioned it.  What always killed me was when Bill admitted to lying all these years about Gennifer Flowers, it reminded me of seeing them together on the Arsenio Hall Show, as she firmly defended him.  That she could so readily accept his decades of lies and betrayal spoke either of a deep love, or a secondary motive.

If the democratic insiders are right, maybe it really was the later as her detrators suggested years ago.  I would hope not.  I would hope there is a genuine love there, and not a sham, and in that I am sincere.  I won’t speculate further on that.

But I do know that marriages of convenience are more common then people may think, the most obvious of which is for people to obtain citizenship.  Or the gold-diggers like Anna Nicole Smith (sorry Vickie, {her real name} you are a trampy gold-digger, deal with it) who marry for wealth or prestige.  Face it marriage is a very important commodity.  Even if its meaning and value has cheapened in one sense, it has deepened in others.

So returning to my earlier question, why do gays bother?

A couple reasons.  One, marriage derives a socially accepted relationship, and gay people want the same social acceptance in their community we all do.  Sure there are the activists that want to use this as a backdoor to broad social acceptance and persumption of normality, but lost in the political gambits are people like the gay friend (call him D) of a straight friend of mine (call her M).  D is not an activist, or a disgusting pervert, he is a man, who is deeply in love and just wants to be in a committed relationship with the person he loves.  In a discussion on another blog, he expressed his heartbreak not toward the amendment, but to the overall discussion and action, which he cannot help but feel is mean spirited and deliberate.  His passion and pain has done more to sway my sympathies then most arguments.

In some cases I imagine it is indeed deliberate and mean spirited.  Cruel people do exist.  But I cannot help feeling in most cases it is not.  I know Liberals and Gay Rights activists love to paint the anti gay marriage movement as solely the religious right, a howling mob of mindless, hate filled, gay bashing, self righteous homophobes.  Those do exists, it is true, in liberal and conservative stripes.  Oh yes, there are liberal homophobes.  And in a like exception there are Conservative supporters of gay marriage.

My friend, M made this comment:

Still, that it’s even taken seriously by any of our politicians is so mean-spirited and heartbreaking.

I thought about the ramifications of that, not just the accusation, but the presumption behind it, and I wrote her this response (condensed):

I think that is partially unfair. The truth is that in regard to "mean spirited", mean has nothing to do with it. Sure there are some haters. But most of these people have no malice; they see it as an attempt to protect something they find sacred.

I am a Catholic (well mostly), though I was an Evangelical most of my life. I have to admit that dramatic changes to marriage do give me pause; the teaching around marriage in both faiths is [so] deep that it is hard to open to new definitions. They revere the relationship and simply don’t want it changed. In the case of Catholics it is Sacrament, one of 7 priamry core beliefs. They cannot put it aside lightly anymore then they can change the doctrine of Baptism into a hearty handshake.

That may be short sighted, it may be unfair (though the government control of marriage is what makes this unfair), and possibly a bit misguided, but it isn’t hateful or malicious.

It [can be] ignorant. It is not my place to excuse it, but I hope maybe by discussing it, you might understand better who you are dealing with.

Just a suggestion here, consider this an attempt to understand your enemy. Your enemy, while it may be seen under a label of "the Christian Coalition", really is not accurate. People tend to lump fundamentalists or evangelicals into pretty labels, but like any subset of people, it is a core belief that unites them, not total unity in purpose and belief.

Most people are simple people with a sincere belief, and the leaders have co-opted their fears, as well as their belief in the degradation of society.

The problem is there [are] enough changes that have been made in our society that are bad, that it is easy to paint with a broad stroke.

My point was that the left painting all conservatives as bigots is no more useful then the right painting all gays as diviants.

I think that part of the problem is that marriage is so wrapped up in government control   You see, I want government out of marriage altogether. Let’s talk about why.

The major issue behind this is an issue of rights. Gay couples contend they are denied equal rights under the constitution, rights that hetero couples enjoy.  They are right, but only in a limited sense. Ignoring states that have legal recognition of marriage or civil unions for gays, in all those other places, currently a gay couple can achieve any legal right regarding their relationship…except one: Federal recognition of dependency in regard to taxes, and Social Security.  The government itself has made this a Federal issue by tying so much to Federal recognition of marriage.

I know there are always exceptions to my comment about rights and benefits, so rather then fill my inbox with a laundry list of exceptions lets assume for the moment that I am right, 

Ok, assume it is my blog and I can assume anything I want, ok? 

Further, let’s assume on the flip side that Gay Rights Activists are also right, that this Amendment is really designed to ensure that Federal parity is always denied to gays, which by the way, is the primary function I see in it. If so, it should be defeated because, as I said, the Constitution should be to protect rights, not to limit them.  Those supporting it may try to contend that this is to protect the rights of heteros, but in reality gays getting married cannot make any straight marriage mean less in spirit, it can only make it worth less in relative benefit, and that is not the place or point of the Constitution.

Whether anyone likes it or not, marriage is a cultural, religious and social issue too, not strictly a governmental and legal one. The fact we have to ask permission to have a personal relationship recognized and sanctioned by the State is a fundamentally wrong idea at its root.  Marriage is about recognizing a relationship, and I dont think the State should be the final answer in approving them. 

Lost in this are the traditions that churches have held for Millennia about marriage and sexuality, and as atavistic as some activists may say they are, they are also protected by religious freedom.  Churches should not be placed in the position of being compelled to recognize or perform marriage against their doctrine.  The possibility exists that even as a constitutional Amendment might conceivably be used to force churches not to recognize or perform gay marriages, the Federal and State recognitions of gay marriages may someday be used the opposite, to compel a church to sanction or perform a relationship that violates their dogma.  We already have had religious organizations forced to employ people who do not believe in their dogma, so I don’t see it as too far of a stretch.  As for he churches, I might wish they were more worried about some other aspects of life then abortion and gay marriage.  But forcing them to accept it will make not it better, it just takes the gay out of the closet and put the church in it.

I of course have the simple solution.

What I would like to see, is marriage returned to being a religious and community issue. Let communities and churches recognize what relationships they want, and it only has binding effect in that community or church. So any church that want’s to can sanction for their members what they want.

How does that help? It protects those religious people and allows them to have their faith communities in the way they want them, but at the same time allows a gay couple to get the support and community recognition they want elsewhere.

What about federal benefits you say?

On a State and or Federal level, rather then force gay marriage as a point of equity, let’s force equal rights under civil unions. Get the government to drop marriage as an issue altogether, and equally recognize hetero and civil unions.  In my perfect world, the government is only used to register and acknowledge a civil relationship, and it is open to any who wish to apply.  It protects legal recognition and status only for taxation.  And divorce court, of course..

Yes, yes I know, that might conceivably open the door to polygamy.  Are you honestly suggesting that that door is not already being eyed under the current debate?  And frankly, I personally could care less if it did.  If some guy or girl is idiot enough to want two or three mother-in-laws, who am I to save them? But I digress.

Damn…think about a divorce court for polygamists….whoops there I go digressing again.

The whole momentum of the debate rises from the government having control over a moral issue, not a legal one.  If the government becomes neutral on the moral issue, which is what marriage really is, it would be better for all.

Think about it.  Any couple straight or hetero, simply registers at the local office to enforce their codependency, and then goes off to whatever chirch they want, and have what ever ceremony they want.  Or not.  The union has its own reward in tax status and SS benefit.

The right to free association is protected, as is freedom of religion and equal protection.

Disagree?  I am sure I will have many on both sides call me an idiot or a bigot or what have you.  Feel free, I am just trying to find some kind of common ground that protects all aspects of the debate. Maybe there is such a cultural divide that there is no fair common ground.

But we need to start talking about this, and stop hiding behind stereotypes and anger.  Like it or not, it is coming.

Remember too that we have overcome other serious moral and cultural issues in our history as a Nation.  We can overcome this one too.

And then we can all have cake.