the rix mix

No couple I know (including my own parents) who were married in a religious ceremony & subsequently divorced, considered the "sanctity" of their marriage an inhibition to ending it. Ending a marriage is rarely simple or easy, but that doing so might be offensive to God doesn't much figure into the decision.

On the news, we all see the novelty weddings, people getting married on roller coasters, skydiving, in Vegas with an Elvis impersonator officiating, with participants dressed as Star War characters. This is sanctification? To those people it is.

The best marriages (& intimate long term relationships) I know are - in ways I cannot quite explain - profoundly spiritual. They're not all first marriages. One couple had cohabited for 15 years before legalizin' it. The spirituality in these unions grew over time from the inside out, through a life together lived day-to-day, it's not a quality anointed by a magical two become one rite.

At some point, a gradual, evolving process for me, I concluded I didn't care if gay couples had access to the rights of civil marriage or the word "marriage," if that's what they wanted, & state domestic partnership laws weren't sufficient. The problem is the civil alternative isn't even available at the national level as it is in Great Britain, which went to great effort in keeping the word "marriage" out of the laws. In America, resistance to gay couples having the legal rights & protections of heterosexuals goes beyond defending the definition of "marriage." It goes to prejudice. It isn't enough for an individual state to extend those rights. I thought it was irrational to guard a word, "marriage," without providing a full alternative in civil law, & that's probably what pushed me across the line into open support of gay marriage. If we want to hang on to a traditional definition of marriage "between one man & one woman" in a society that continually demonstrates contempt for the institution's traditional "sanctity," we have to offer a defensible alternative. America does not.

I've noticed cultural peculiarities I might find amusing if I didn't know what they meant. Young evangelical guys setting off my gaydar - which is not finely tuned - I'm generally incurious about a person's sexual orientation; these men, nearly all over-compensating spectator sports enthusiasts, use the word "gay" flippantly, & often, to signify inadequate maleness. It's a buddy insult. There's the black lesbians fleeing Newark via PATH train on Saturday evening, I've watched how they relax, smile, & become more unguarded as the train passes across the Meadowlands & the Newark skyline shrinks. What's with that city? I've thought.

I don't know if the Jersey marriage rights legislation will pass next week. Public support hovers around 50%; over the next few years it'll break in favor & stay there. The problem is that approval is weighted toward the younger demographic, & they're not reliable voters, so a referendum this year would likely lose, too. It won't lose three or four years from now. But it's good to put politicians on record. With her committee "no" vote, I think future aspirant for statewide office, State Senator Jen Beck blew her chance to become governor or U.S. senator when she grows up, that's how much the Jersey cultural & political landscape will change.

The legal protections & exemptions extended to clergy are unnecessary, but go ahead & add them. How can a Catholic priest be forced to officiate at a gay ceremony when he not only can decline any invite to participate in wedding ceremonies outside his own parish in any capacity, he can refuse to provide the marriage sacrament itself for any Catholic from his own parish he deems not in good standing?

Labels: culture, New Jersey politics, sex with a Republican