taken from a vey good progressive website
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0302-01.htm
The Question of Marriage
by Bill C. Davis
The word “marriage” is written on litmus paper. When dipped into “gay” colors that range in hue from uncomfortable and hesitant to hostile and disgusted are revealed. In the public discussion one question is the only question that needs to be asked.
The question is simple: “Do you believe being gay is an aberration or a variation of the human experience?” This should end the faux debate and begin the real one.
If someone perceives homosexuality to be a stark aberration then it would follow that society and government not only don’t have to but also should not adjust its codes. If being gay is a variation of the human experience then marriage, as a universal and personal choice should be accommodated by legal, social and spiritual constructs.
If marriage is neither a hetero nor homo sexual need but a human, psychological and spiritual one - and if sex is an expression of those needs and not exclusively a procreative function then the universe of human contact and commitment opens up. Societal evolution can respond to that opening and marriage, rather than being sullied by its expanded application, might actually be uplifted.
The Christian and other fundamentalist interpretation of being gay is that with the grace and/or mortification of God it can be “overcome.” As George W. Bush put it when asked about gay marriage, “We’re all sinners.” They believe, that like alcoholism and kleptomania, homosexuality is an irresistible and destructive urge and not a field of opportunity for growth, discovery and emotional dynamism. So why should precious vows apply to it and why should the culture of laws, benefits and support bend to it? For that matter why should it be legal?
If opposing voices are forced to say they believe homosexuality is nothing more than an aberration it brings clarity to the discussion. The middle ground - the undecided - are then in a better position to search their souls about their positions.
Recently, the term “sanctity of marriage” has been heard even more than “weapons of mass destruction.” Both are ambiguous terms used to excuse a variety of questionable motives. When someone says that gay marriage compromises the sanctity of marriage the implication is that marriage will be debased by freaks trying to assimilate. That is what the opposition means and that is what they must be forced to say at every debate. While on the subject of the sanctity of marriage I would like to offer pre-nuptials as a possible and accepted insult to the sanctity of marriage. A big vow punctured with a major codicil and not a word of protest from the Right.
Inherent in the debate is the question of human and civil rights. What the virulent opposition to gay marriage reveals is the resistance to the expanded reality of humanity. The opposition exposes itself by its opposition. They are a serious, determined and bloodless clique. They are like a pack snapping at the heels of the rest of the population reminding them to remain stalwart in the face of progressive movements. The only way to fight and engage this pack is to force them to show their teeth.
It’s been said that Christ is at the center of all romantic movements. The declaration of vows coupled with civil disobedience is as romantic as it gets and in the middle of it all on three thousand screens is the spectacle of the man many believe to be the embodiment of love on earth being tortured and bled to death. Simultaneously Americans are watching revolutionary marriages and an open hand being nailed to the cross - rings exchanged as nails are being sold. The life of Christ was a romance with humanity - his death, now number one at the box office, is the power structure’s response to that romance.
Bill C. Davis is a playwright - author of 'Avow' and 'Mass Appeal' - billcdavis.com
The Question of Marriage
by Bill C. Davis
The word “marriage” is written on litmus paper. When dipped into “gay” colors that range in hue from uncomfortable and hesitant to hostile and disgusted are revealed. In the public discussion one question is the only question that needs to be asked.
The question is simple: “Do you believe being gay is an aberration or a variation of the human experience?” This should end the faux debate and begin the real one.
If someone perceives homosexuality to be a stark aberration then it would follow that society and government not only don’t have to but also should not adjust its codes. If being gay is a variation of the human experience then marriage, as a universal and personal choice should be accommodated by legal, social and spiritual constructs.
If marriage is neither a hetero nor homo sexual need but a human, psychological and spiritual one - and if sex is an expression of those needs and not exclusively a procreative function then the universe of human contact and commitment opens up. Societal evolution can respond to that opening and marriage, rather than being sullied by its expanded application, might actually be uplifted.
The Christian and other fundamentalist interpretation of being gay is that with the grace and/or mortification of God it can be “overcome.” As George W. Bush put it when asked about gay marriage, “We’re all sinners.” They believe, that like alcoholism and kleptomania, homosexuality is an irresistible and destructive urge and not a field of opportunity for growth, discovery and emotional dynamism. So why should precious vows apply to it and why should the culture of laws, benefits and support bend to it? For that matter why should it be legal?
If opposing voices are forced to say they believe homosexuality is nothing more than an aberration it brings clarity to the discussion. The middle ground - the undecided - are then in a better position to search their souls about their positions.
Recently, the term “sanctity of marriage” has been heard even more than “weapons of mass destruction.” Both are ambiguous terms used to excuse a variety of questionable motives. When someone says that gay marriage compromises the sanctity of marriage the implication is that marriage will be debased by freaks trying to assimilate. That is what the opposition means and that is what they must be forced to say at every debate. While on the subject of the sanctity of marriage I would like to offer pre-nuptials as a possible and accepted insult to the sanctity of marriage. A big vow punctured with a major codicil and not a word of protest from the Right.
Inherent in the debate is the question of human and civil rights. What the virulent opposition to gay marriage reveals is the resistance to the expanded reality of humanity. The opposition exposes itself by its opposition. They are a serious, determined and bloodless clique. They are like a pack snapping at the heels of the rest of the population reminding them to remain stalwart in the face of progressive movements. The only way to fight and engage this pack is to force them to show their teeth.
It’s been said that Christ is at the center of all romantic movements. The declaration of vows coupled with civil disobedience is as romantic as it gets and in the middle of it all on three thousand screens is the spectacle of the man many believe to be the embodiment of love on earth being tortured and bled to death. Simultaneously Americans are watching revolutionary marriages and an open hand being nailed to the cross - rings exchanged as nails are being sold. The life of Christ was a romance with humanity - his death, now number one at the box office, is the power structure’s response to that romance.
Bill C. Davis is a playwright - author of 'Avow' and 'Mass Appeal' - billcdavis.com