"Marriage" OR "Civil Unions" for Gays ?

The doting grandmother who raised me had definite ideas about right and wrong and she drew pretty distinct lines for me to follow on the road to adulthood. Life was not nearly as complicated, liberal or confusing back in those days. Kids still played outside by choice, attended church on Sunday morning and Wednesday night and never even considered talking back to an adult. In retrospect, her rules, life lessons and child-rearing style weren’t all that different from other parents of that period in Small Town, Texas, USA, with one glaring exception.

Granny’s attitude of "live and let live" was more generous than most and covered a lot of ground. I never heard her speak disparagingly of anyone’s race, religion, age or choice of lifestyle. That didn’t mean she condoned wife beaters, criminals, the lazy or drunks as she could get pretty vocal on those subjects. She did, however, always take a pretty good look at all sides before forming an opinion on anything and if no one asked; she usually kept her opinion to herself.

Her values "took" and my attitudes are very similar except the one about keeping opinions to myself. That’s never been very high on my list of life’s "do's or don’ts" and I spout off like Old Faithful on a regular basis. There’s one subject I’ve given a lot of thought to but remained pretty closed-mouth about and that’s the question of homosexual partners that insist on being "married." I see no reason for it, am agin’ it and think the whole thing’s irrational and unnecessary at best!

What goes on in anyone’s bedroom is their own business and I don’t want to hear about it no matter their sexual persuasion – kinda like you don’t intrude on my privacy and I’ll not intrude on yours. Does the gay community have rights? You bet your booty they do but their rights don’t supercede the rights of heterosexuals and are no more important in the general scheme of things. The constant barrage of "my civil rights are being denied" has become ludicrous. At this particular point in time there’s not an American breathing air who’s civil rights are not being ground into the dirt whether they sleep under a bridge or with a penguin.

I will not, however, deal with homo-phobes and once identified, avoid being in their presence at all costs. They’ve set off some pretty stellar rants from this old lady which, by the way, hasn't changed a thing. On the same page; I also refuse to tarry very long in the company of a gay person(s) who insists on making their lifestyle the major topic of conversation anytime two or more people are gathered in the same place as it’s not only counter productive it’s boring!

Gathering of gay rights activists are no more or no less outrageous than any other gathering of "for" or "agin’" something citizens. On a recent trip to Austin, Texas, I was stopped for two hours as a group of anti-war protestors had gathered right in the middle of Interstate 35 (a major artery in this state) and blocked traffic both ways. The police molly-coddled them by redirecting traffic, pushing cars that overheated to the side and keeping angry drivers (delayed by the whole mess) subdued. Had they not had police protection; several of us would have gleefully run over the first s.o.b. that stepped in front of our vehicle and gone ahead on. No one objected to the gathering but their choice of location was atrocious and in exercising their civil rights they stomped all over everyone else’s.

Any focused, dedicated individual with a cause can, if their campaign goes on long enough, fall victim to a win/lose attitude and lose sight of the original purpose entirely. Gay activists have traveled such a long, hard road on the way to gaining public acceptance and banishing gay bashing it’s understandable how some have become overbearing and radical. The same thing will apply to any/every dedicated activist no matter their cause. It’s not a gay thing and shouldn’t be considered as such; it is however, irritating as hell to everyone else that’s inconvenienced and unable to go about their daily lives because of one groups over zealous dedication to a cause.

History has proven that when two people love one another, live together and establish a home the next step for many is children. Many gay couples have adopted, not only one but several kiddos, and from my personal observations; they make pretty good parents. Gays, like other childless couples, have put a lot of planning and forethought into adoption so when they become parents it’s not by accident but by choice.

Those I’m acquainted with make it a priority to explain to their kids, when their children are old enough to understand, that they subscribe to an alternate lifestyle. I’ve personally never heard a gay parent put any emphasis on the "why" nor tout their way of life in preference to heterosexuality. I’ve also never seen them parent in any way that would eventually result in that conclusion by their children.

The gay parents in my circle of friends are educated, financially secure, interesting and involved individuals and most of those friendships have stood the test of time for over 30 years. Several couples are now retired and their kids are graduating from college, marrying and presenting them with grandchildren. As an observer I can bear witness that it didn’t appear any easier or any harder for them to raise their children than it was for heterosexual parents.

Most are now becoming comfortably ensconced in their "senior citizen" role and enjoying life immensely. To a person, they’ve had legal documents in place for many years that cover life’s unexpected eventualities including poor health, death and finances, which provide security for both partners and their children. They are active both socially and politically in their communities and contribute their time and money generously. To my knowledge these folks were neither shunned nor accepted because they had a sign across their foreheads that said "gay" or "married" they just engaged themselves in living – and did!

Were they immediately accepted and included in their communities? Not no, but hell no! Initially there were hurtful times, the occasional embarrassing incident and confusion on both sides but good judgment, kind hearts, open minds and intelligence won out. Both "sides" downed their heads, went about their own business and tried to avoid confrontation at all cost. Neither the "straights" nor the "gays" ever attempted to shove their opinions, attitudes or beliefs down one another’s throats because both were too busy trying to raise kids and make a living. It proved a good formula which I, for one, attribute to common sense and logic by everyone concerned.

In the present war of words, going on between gays, straights and government, there’s no evidence of backing down from any side and a definite lack of logic prevails. One of the most prevalent arguments is the fact that the bible DOES directly address homosexuality. Well, I’m a Christian and own a bible and as I understand it after the Cross we’re all living under grace and not under law.

I also don’t find anything in there giving me permission to pass judgment on another with or without cause. As to being without sin and therefore eligible to cast the first stone; it would be more than interesting to see who’d be the first to step up to that plate. I’d not only be banished from the line waiting to throw; I’d be way up in the cheap seats!

In this era of drastic social change and shades of gray rather than the old easily identifiable black or white analogy the word "marriage" is floating around like a feather in a hurricane. The obvious question is -- if the same rights are granted to all and everybody has the same chance, benefits and opportunity; how will the word "marriage" rather than "civil union" make it better?

Right there, perchance, is the answer. My particular circle of partnered-up gay friends don’t seem to care one way or another and never have. In fact, many of them view the whole thing with a definitely jaundiced eye and stand way back from the melee in the interest of their own peace and contentment. I agree with them and support their attitude.

As the institution of marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman with the explicit purpose of providing for the protection and support of children born to that union; what part of that definition is unclear? As people of the same gender can’t conceive a child; that’s just the way that is. Is gender to be the last bastion to fall in the realm of established reality?

Can’t a homosexual union be recognized and valued between dedicated partners as readily as a heterosexual one without the term "marriage" being used to describe it? Unfortunately, the whole thing looks more like a clash of wills and one-ups-man-ship than anything else to this old lady. I advocate equal rights for rich people, the middle class and poor people but I refuse to call them all "millionaires" because they’re not!

I emailed a copy of this article to two couples among my gay friends, both of whom have been together over 25 years and have grown children. I asked them to read it carefully and give me an opinion as it was not my intention to be unsympathetic or unkind to either side of the argument. I received answers from both couples in very short order and they both said (in slightly varied style) "you’re a mouthy old rabble rouser – run with it!" Obviously, that was the answer I was hoping for but I didn’t expect to get such a hoot from the additional comments included by each couple.

The Morgans said and I quote: "We’ve never understood how any piece of paper issued by a government entity could bind us closer together or separate us. We’ve never given a damn what people labeled us or said about us and don’t intend to start at this stage of our lives. As to raising our children; our biggest challenge was when we had to tell Aaron he was black when he started to school. As he had two white parents it was a bit hard for him to understand!"

The Blankenships answered as follows and I quote: "My dear, old age has neither dulled your perception nor quieted your instinct for treading on very thin ice. Don’t you like to knit or crochet? We’ve both read your article and offer the following: We’ve had our ups and downs like all couples and can only liken child rearing to sacking wildcats. No matter what one calls a partnership it’s still, bottom line, both a physical and emotional joining of two individuals that love one another and want to share their lives.

"We like things the way they are and subscribe to the "if it ain’t broke don’t fix it" school of thought. In considering the merits of the institution of marriage it crossed both our minds that the word "institution" not only has an unpleasant ring to it but suggests it might well be as confining as any other small space and you know how claustrophobic John is."

After receiving the two reviews I had to email back and get permission from each to include their answer in my article. The Morgans gave permission to use their comment and their name but threatened to send their three children to live with me if I included their address.

The Blankenships also gave permission and closed with, what I considered some very profound thoughts:

"Being together, establishing a home and raising healthy, well adjusted, intelligent, children has been the focus and great joy of our lives. Looking back to the time we met and made our plans; if a legality-based banner, ie. marriage, had been considered imperative to our happiness things might have been very different -- or perhaps not at all. We've found love, independence, charity and good will have, over the years, just naturally evolved into a state of being and happiness beyond all our expectations.  It's simply called "family."

And that, dear hearts, is a wrap!