America, and the rest of the world, have some choices to make.
Photo: albany_tim
As I read the news coverage of the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, I couldn’t help but think about a short piece I came across the other day.
The title was What Should America Become? and came from the blog, A Couple of Things. The author(s) gave these options for the future of the country:
A. A softie nation who invites terrorists to bomb us with immunity?
B. A softie nation on the outside but some thugs ready to beat you secretly (if possible).
C. An angry nation where citizens can be picked on by high taxes so others can get free things.
D. An angry nation where there is no minimum wage and where you can dump dioxin in the river or street.
E. A scared nation who kowtows to any complaints.
F. A bully nation who invades any country it doesn’t like and is willing to have hundreds of thousands of troops dead in order to take over a country.
G. A lawsuit nation where anybody can sue and lawyers can shape the country.
Really, are these our only choices?
Time For Change
Photo: B Rosen
We are at a time in history where many countries throughout the world are having to decide a different course when it comes to their politics, human rights, and environmental choices.
The United States has employed obvious contradictions that are apparent in recent political decisions, such as Prop 8.
Yet I wonder, what is with the black and white mentality? Of course there are no simple answers to dealing with terrorism, economic collapse, healthcare, or turning back time on a polluted Earth.
But what about contemplating how some of our actions have, and continue to, instigate terrorist activities? And what if our taxes went to things like free higher education and healthcare so that a good chunk of the nation wouldn’t be saddled with loan debt?
Or how about a real move internationally toward sustainable forms of energy so the government can’t come out with a bogus reason to go to war?
Buddhist Philosophy At Work
On her blog, Jennifer Jones posted a quote attributed to Buddha that I think fits these dilemmas nicely:
The thought manifests as the word. The word manifests as the deed. The deed develops into habit. And the habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its ways with care. And let it spring from love, born out of concern for all beings.
What if we moved from a place of concern for ALL human beings, not just the ones in our family, community, or country? That might actually lead to a completely different train of thought as compared to soft vs. hard, angry vs. scared, bully vs. victim. It might lead to a simple respect for all beings.
And I sit with the thought that this respect might reach across the boundaries of faith and belief, and allow that everyone should be able to love – and marry – who they want.
About the Author
More By This Author
Related Posts
6 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Agreed – I think the problem is that marriage is tied in heavily with religion. The government should not be the one to “force” a religion to accept same-sex marriage, as this just leads to bitterness on both sides.
Instead, leave marriage to religion and civil-union as the government sponsored alternative.
↵ -
For myself, I’ve never liked this solution because I am not religious, but I want to get *married*. In the same way that civil unions feel like a second-best sop to gays, I would feel like I was being shut out and denied something that others are allowed, because I’m not baptized and can’t get married in a church even if I wanted to.
Nobody is suggesting forcing the churches to marry gay couples – the Catholic Church has never been forced to marry divorcees, or Protestants, or unbaptized folks, or members of other faiths, so I don’t see why everyone is so worried that the “forcing” will start now. The same-sex marriage debate is strictly about civil marriage, and I don’t see why civil marriage should be thrown out as an option for all of us just because some religious people – for whom, really, civil marriage isn’t an issue at all – don’t like it.
The idea that marriage is the age-old prerogative of the church/temple/synagogue/whatever is a myth. Until very recently, marriage was almost entirely an economic arrangement. Religions don’t own the practice, and I would be very angry to see the option being taken away from me.
I hate to put it so bluntly, but for me, the solution is for churches to butt out of civil marriage. They don’t object to all sorts of civil/legal practices that contravene their beliefs (hey, they’re not lobbying for divorce, adultery or pre-marital sex, etc, etc to become criminal acts, right?) so why the obsession with this one?
↵ -
I agree with Colin’s point. Let the government designate everyone as having civil unions for the economic benefits and let religious institutions continue with religious marriages. I feel that this SHOULD make everyone happy as everyone is getting what they want without bowing to the other side.
↵ -
I agree with Eva. As someone who is not religious, I want the right to get married as well. And yeah, religion is tied to marriage in many communities, but that’s not all of the meaning marriage holds for our society. And what does this mean for my parents, to non-religious individuals who are married? Does their marriage get down-graded to a civil union? They signed a marriage contract. They didn’t sign “civil union” contract. It’s not fair to go back on people like that. There are couples in Californi who got married when same-sex marriages were allowed in San Francisco a few years ago and got married again before prop 8. Are you suggesting taking that away from them again?
That solution also creates an array of complications. We would have to rehaul our vocabulary. “Are you married?” “Oh, no, we’re civil unioned.” There is also a lot of prejudice in American society against non-religious people. Why bring that out even more by giving us a special label?
I feel like that would make things worse than they are now. And besides, why does religion get a monopoly on marriage? Marriage has been around longer than the exisiting major religions. Marriage has changed over time, and it can take this change.
The only real answer is real equality.↵ -
If only someone taught our religious leaders to ‘live and let live…’
↵
