ALWAYS THE SKUNK...AT ANY GARDEN PARTY...

Here is something many of you no doubt have been waiting for: a resolution to post fewer comments. I just don't seem to be doing too well lately.

John at "Open A Window" closed his most recent post with a poignant question:

I don't know why people cannot simply see the point of any two humans getting married. Marriage between any two people is about love and companionship. It's about shared lives and responsibilities. It's about falling asleep comfortable knowing that when you wake up someone will be there beside you. It's about continuing the basic structure of society, a simpler form of society--a family. What better way to ensure that we evolve, then to have smaller units of unity within our own society. It's simple--simple groups coming together to form a larger unified group.

It's a simple basic need--love.
Why does it have to be complex?

Good advice #1: never post questions like that. Here is what you get:

Windowman:

Here's a reason: Because it is.

And because it involves people and their history. Since the dawn of time, which is to say since human societies decided who was going to marry whom and how they were to go about it, marriage has meant one thing: a union that would launch the tribe/clan/family further into the future through the birth of children. Marriages are insitutions in time.

I know that in these days this is no longer true of many marriages, but let's just say that until sterility in marriage became a positive good, marriage and fertility were obviously and inextricably linked. Otherwise, Moloch would not have demanded the first-born of every union, human and otherwise, as sacrifice.

Now, courtesy of Margaret Sanger and Co., marriage and fertility have been "de-linked" [uncoupled?]. So questions like, Why can't two guys marry? arise.

In the meantime, there has been a revolution in America so vast that it is almost impossible to comprehend: a near-majority of straight people think two committed gay people should have all the rights of married couples under law. That apparently includes well-known "knee-jerk liberals" like George W. Bush.

But people do not want to re-define "marriage".

I am absolutely convinced that if the gay marriage movement continues to push for "marriage equality," they will find they have taken on a beast which was perfectly friendly until angered. I would be delighted to be wrong, but I am really fearful.

Like it or not, 6% of the population cannot force social change that the rest of "them" don't want [and the percentage of that 6% that wants to marry is quite small, actually, from the available statistics. Note: there is an initial surge, followed by a steady drop-off in numbers. The experience in Vermont can also be seen in the Netherlands, for example; because we are Americans, however, in VT and MA the number of gay couples opting for marriage comes close to 17%, while in the Netherlands and Belgium it is between 5 and 7%. One of the interesting tidbits to come out of the Dutch data is that one sixth of the men registering for a same-sex partnership/civil marriage had been married, i.e., to a woman, previously. In general, lesbians are twice as likely to commit as gay men -- no surprise there.]

Until the federal government recognizes civil/same-sex unions, victories like the current mess in Massachusetts will have limited meaning. And the federal government is a big boat to turn around.

There is a fundamental difference between Europe and the US, which is never mentioned in the history books, and which we do not see because we take it for granted: the church[es] in the US predate the state. That turns the legal experience of the Old World on its head. But it also means that little European beach-heads like Massachusetts, or big ones like Canada, are at odds with a great weight of American opinion and history.

I would rather see everyone get the rights they deserve, and let the sleeping dogs lie. Half a loaf is definitely better than none.

Well, that's probably too much said.
But I'm too lazy to erase it.

Cheers.
The Troll

And I still think the best reason to create a new name is that the marriage equality movement is CREATING SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING,

just like God.

It's kind of amazing.

from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

According to a July 2006 survey by the Pew Forum, Americans oppose gay marriage 56% to 35%, but those with a high level of religious commitment oppose it by a substantially wider margin of 75% to 18%. Opposition among white evangelicals is even higher, at 79%. A majority of Catholics (53%) and black Protestants (74%), as well as a plurality of white mainline Protestants (47%), also oppose gay marriage. Only among seculars does a majority (63%) express support. However, sizable majorities of white mainline Protestants (66%), Catholics (63%) and seculars (78%) favor allowing homosexual couples to enter into civil unions granting many of the legal rights of marriage. As with gay marriage, white evangelicals (66%), black Protestants (62%) and frequent church attenders (60%) stand out for their opposition to civil unions. The general public narrowly supports civil unions (54% to 42%).

Global Views on Homosexuality

While Americans have become more accepting toward homosexuality over the past few decades, Americans are significantly less tolerant than citizens of most other advanced democracies in Europe and North America. In 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes Project surveyed public attitudes across a wide range of social and political issues in 44 nations, and found that the question of homosexuality highlights a stark global divide over social values.

Openness toward homosexuality is most widespread in the Western European nations of France, Britain, Italy and Germany, where more say homosexuality should be accepted by society than not by well over three-to-one. Residents of Canada, as well as the Czech and Slovak Republics also take an overwhelmingly accepting position on the issue of homosexuality.

Americans, by comparison, are split on this issue. A bare majority of Americans (51%) believe homosexuality should be accepted, while 42% disagree. In this regard, American attitudes have less in common with Western Europe or Canada than with Latin America, where opinion is also largely divided.

Across Africa, and in most predominantly Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, lopsided majorities believe homosexuality should not be accepted by society. There is similar opposition to social acceptance in India, Vietnam and South Korea.

I never knew that we were living in a banana republic. Did you? It looks like Germany and the Czech Republic hands down.

In the meantime, my posted "comment" over at Mobius Flip had brought me this enconium from Nate of "BiByDays":

I love Troll - have had e-mails with him, we read each other. But let's be real: Troll (love you, guy) redefines obtuse. It is part of his charm.

At first I thought I was just DEFINING "obtuse."
On careful re-reading, or more accurately, on highlighting it to copy it over here, I noticed that I am cited as REDEFINING "obtuse." That seems like more of a major accomplishment. At least it's part of my so-called charm.

Another lost soul looking for Greasetank checks us out, this one at Syracuse University. What are they teaching these children?