Wading in on the Gay Marriage Debate

Why not an amendment on divorce?

By Kelvin Wade | | July 24, 2008 15:33

With a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman on the November ballot, this editorial page has seen some back and forth on the issue.

Unless one is just a stark-raving homophobe, opposition to gay marriage is mostly rooted in religious belief. We don't want to put a societal stamp of approval on something we consider to be a sin. We don't want the 'gay agenda' to advance.

Many Americans secretly agree with Pastor John Hagee, Pat Robertson and others that tolerating homosexuality results in things like 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and wildfires up and down the state.

A Field Poll in May found that, for the first time, a bare majority of Californians supported same sex marriage. Another Field Poll this month found that 51 percent oppose Proposition 8 which would ban gay marriage. This is a big change from eight years ago when 61 percent of Californians voted for Proposition 22 that banned gay marriage.

I'm among those whose opinion has changed. In the 90s I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, but opposed a constitutional amendment. In 2000, I supported Proposition 22. Once again, I can't support a constitutional amendment on the issue.

My former neighbors helped change my perspective. They were a lovely lesbian couple of 10 years. Whenever I would think about the arguments I'd used in previous columns to oppose gay marriage, they just weren't strong enough to explain why the state should refuse to legally sanction their union.

I know what the argument is from the religious and they should not be denigrated for their belief. But our court shouldn't just cite a religious text or belief as the basis for a law. That's what they do in Iran. Someone wise once said to render unto Caesar . . .

There are many things that are legal that some religions and denominations consider sins. Smoking, drinking alcohol, getting drunk, pornography, dancing, tattoos, adultery, fornication, masturbation, lying and taking the Lord's name in vain are all legal. A legalized gay marriage doesn't mean any individual has to approve of it.

Massachusetts upheld gay marriage in 2004 and heterosexual marriage hasn't imploded in the state. Gay marriage isn't a threat to hetero marriage. Roving eyes, singles bars, Internet chat rooms and airport bathrooms are.

In fact, the biggest threat to any marriage is divorce. For those quick to reach for their Bibles to condemn homosexuality, take a peek at what it says about divorce. Why aren't the same people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds urging governments to ban divorce? That will save marriage.

Perhaps former governor Jesse Ventura is right when he says the government should only be involved in civil unions, genders be damned. Leave 'marriage' up to churches that would be free to marry whoever they chose to.

Gay marriage in California is still not on par with heterosexual marriage, however. Gay couples will still be denied federal perks that heterosexual couples receive like Social Security benefits, immigration privileges and various marriage exemptions on their federal taxes.

I'll be honest. I'm not entirely comfortable with a societal change sanctioning gay marriage. But I refuse to amend the state constitution just to ease my comfort level. Peace.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

NOTES: This wasn't an easy column for me to write. I had to get past all of the internal 'stuff' I have. The issues. I was raised in a religious home that viewed homosexuality as a sin. And I'd argued against gay marriage in previous columns. But never on the basis of the morality or immorality of the issue. My stance was that society could limit marriage to a man and a woman because it limited it by other things as well. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. Mothers and sons can't marry. Multiple partners couldn't marry.

And when gays would compare their situations to interracial marriage, I'd rejected it in the past. One difference obviously being that interracial marriage still was between a man and a woman. Also, interracial marriage in this country goes back to the 1600's and was later outlawed. Not many people know that. So there was a history supporting interracial marriage that wasn't there for gay marriage.

But analyzing it in the cold light of day, what would be the purpose of the government disallowing gay marriage? There just didnt seem to be any real practical reason to bar it.

And this evolution in my thinking goes beyond gay marriage. I believe in plural marriage. I don't think there's any reason why multiple partners should not be allowed to marry.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

A rapper has an "embarrassing" past. Read about it on the Other Side DR Blog.

This is my brother Tony's column on his first car.

Tony Wade: A loving tribute to my first car, The Merc concertmobile

By Tony Wade | | July 20, 2008 23:24

My first car was a parrot-green 1974 Mercury Montego that cost $2,000. The left front quarter panel was gray Bondo, but besides that it looked great.

The best part of the car was its rebuilt 351 Cleveland engine. That meant nothing to me as the only thing I knew about cars was that one pedal made it move and one made it stop, but I had a car fanatic friend who gave it the thumbs up.

The Merc had an 8-track player and unfortunately that year, 1982, was when 8-tracks were being phased out. The Wherehouse on North Texas Street had just made the change a few months earlier, and I searched all over town until discovering that Ardan's (a department store located where the future Fairfield Wal-Mart Supercenter will be) had a limited supply of the doomed bulky cartridges.

I listened to April Wine and Led Zeppelin 8-tracks for a few months until I upgraded to a cassette player.

Soon it was time to, as the kids unfortunately say these days, pimp my ride. A trip to Grand Auto brought a center console, cleaning supplies and hanging trees to try to coerce my 8-year old vehicle into pretending to have that New Car Smell.

Instead of paying exorbitant prices to have my rear window tinted, I bought that do-it-yourself stuff that requires you to try in vain to squeeze out all the air bubbles and ends up looking like sunglasses for a fly.

I'd spend all Saturday afternoon cleaning my car. I'm talkin' vacuuming, shampooing the carpet, Armor All-ing the interior and tires, and lovingly waxing and rewaxing it. These days I only begrudgingly wash my truck when the dirt crust is noticeably causing more wind resistance.

But with the Merc, cleaning it was like taking care of a baby.

Once the sun went down, I drove my shiny car up and down Texas Street in a weird, purposeless ritual called cruising. Actually, the purpose was to impress girls, but a '74 Mercury Montego with bubbly-tinted glass, no matter how clean, didn't impress even the most desperate female.

My buddy Carlos improved my rolling sound system by adding a graphic equalizer, power booster and cool 6x9 speakers that came with a lifetime warranty. Unfortunately, the power booster was an el cheapo model and would more accurately be described as a distortion booster.

Carlos and I would go to rock concerts at the Cow Palace and, while enjoying liquid refreshments, would keep crankin' the stereo up to compete with other vehicles until I blew the speakers out. I would return to the store, get replacements and repeat my drunken stupidity until the electronics store told me I had voided my warranty.

My Merc was the concertmobile for my friends and I for five years, and by the end of that time it hadn't aged gracefully. I got rear-ended on the Bay Bridge and used the money I got from the accident to party at the 1983 U.S. Festival in San Bernardino rather than fix the damage.

I replaced the front seat with one I got from U-Pull It but had a problem getting the seat belts loose. I just cut them out. Of course, soon after doing so, the mandatory seat belt law came into effect. The driver's side window didn't roll down, which would have been only a minor annoyance if exhaust fumes weren't leaking into the cabin of the car.

Still, I never had problems with that 351 Cleveland engine.

Despite my first car's run-down state, I still got a $1,000 trade-in on it from Woodard Chevrolet (suckers!) for a 1981 Monte Carlo. It was a much nicer vehicle, but I never have had that same emotional attachment to it or subsequent vehicles I've owned.

I don't see too many '74 Mercs on the road these days. When I do, I smile and sigh.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Now, if you'd like to read about my first car, you can do so on the Wading In Blog.