Gay Marriage, Maine, and the Church: Where To Go From Here

            This past Tuesday, the state of Maine had a question on the ballot Election Day about whether to uphold or repeal a state law that was passed earlier in the year allowing gay marriage.  It was a hotly contested issue on both sides, and the vote was very close.  In the end, the people of the state of Maine chose to reject the law that the state legislature had passed.  A lot of disappointment, anger, and was expressed by those who supported gay marriage.  I think there are some hard truths that both sides need to hear, and would do well to heed.  As always, everything I’m writing is intended to hopefully spark dialogue and discussion and not shouting and confrontation.

            I have to be honest in saying that I did not vote on Tuesday.  I managed my time poorly Tuesday afternoon(I probably should have gone and voted in the morning when I got out of work, as I work a 3^rd shift job, and the lines would have been minimal).  I ended up having to choose between going to vote and going to see my grandmother in the hospital who was recovering from surgery.  Had I planned better, I would not have had to choose, but circumstances being what they were, I chose family over civic duty.  However, part of me is glad I didn’t vote, because I did not particularly want to vote on Question 1, which was the gay marriage referendum. 

            It is no small understatement to say that gay marriage is a loaded issue.  Simple laws on the books are not enough to settle everything that it involves.  It is a loaded issue because the debate is framed in a discussion of basic human rights and religious freedom.  Those in favor of it believe that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed the right to marry whom they chose to spend their life with.  Those against it believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God, the Bible has some very pointed things to say against homosexuality, therefore, gay people should not be allowed to marry because it goes against God’s will.  These beliefs make it deeply personal, because of the clashing of these two conflicting world views, and emotions are very much involved on both sides.  Imagine having someone tell you who you are, what you do, who you choose to love, and what you want, are and abomination.  Naturally, defenses would go up.  On the flip side, imagine being told that what you believe, what shapes your understanding of the world, and informs many of your decisions in life, is flawed, backward, and bigoted.  Obviously you’re going to take issue with that characterization.

            Because of the strong emotions and entrenched beliefs on both sides, I think it is important approach these things with as little emotional attachment as possible, and look at things rationally, calmly, and with light treading, because this field is filled with treacherous land mines. 

I’ve stated previously my views on homosexuality, so I won’t go in depth on those here.  In basic terms, I believe that being gay is a natural thing, not a chosen lifestyle.  I will also say that just because a feeling, instinct, or disposition is natural does not mean that it should be acted upon.  I believe it is a sin, but no worse than any other sexual sin.  I will honestly say that I am not comfortable with gay PDA (to be honest, PDA in general makes me a little uncomfortable).  At the same time, I am not the God police.  My relationship with God informs my life and my life only.  I can share my beliefs with others, but they are under no obligation to actually listen to me, or adjust the way they live according to how I believe; nor do I expect them to do so. 

If I had voted, I would have voted “yes” in favor of repealing the gay marriage law.  But my reasons for doing so would probably have been very different from many of the people who voted “yes” on 1, and probably would have been misconstrued by people who voted “no” on 1.  The reason I would have voted against it based on my view of how changes in laws should occur, and not on a moral objection to gay marriage.  A lot of people would say that civil rights trumps the rights of citizens to vote on a matter and that the legislatures and judges should make the necessary changes.  While I’m sure there are some instances where I would be okay with that (abolition of slavery for example), for the most part I believe that most of those changes are better for society as a whole when the voting public has a direct say in the matter.  While it may disappoint me, I can live with something I believe in being voted down, because, ultimately, the democratic process prevailed and the voice of the voter was heard. 

Too many times, I think proactive legislation and activism in the judicial system has a negative side effect when laws are enacted on issues that are incredibly divisive.  Two examples that come to my mind are the laws passed in the 60s during the civil rights movement and Roe v. Wade.  Not to argue for or against the merits of those, especially the civil rights because those should have always been in place when slavery was abolished, but I don’t think there is any denying that the enactment of laws and the way those laws were carried out cause some resentment among between both sides.  Think of how heated things got with forced busing.  Look at the venom that is spewed by people outside of abortion clinics.  Again, not to argue for or against the merits of either side, but if those same laws were put in place through a vote they would carry more weight because a major part of the opposition’s argument would be invalidated. 

            So the reason I would have voted yes is because I did not agree with the state legislating this decision without the direct input of the Maine voters.  I realize this may be too idealistic, because there are plenty of people out there who oppose gay marriage simply because it has to do with gay people.  And I also don’t have a clear cut standard of what issues should or should not be decided by voters vs. congress, I can only promise that it is not wholly arbitrary.  On the flip side, I am dead set against the Defense of Marriage Act as a constitutional amendment because I don’t believe it belongs there.  I suppose my rule of thumb would be to leave things up to the voting public as much as possible, erring in that direction, and leave the rest up to the state and federal government.

            People of faith have a balancing act that they need to maintain between being governed by God and by the laws of the country in which they live.  I think for a lot of people, that balance is out of whack.  As a Christian, my life is governed by my relationship with God.  The decisions I make and the things I do are to be informed by that relationship.  At the same, time, because I live in a democratic society that adheres to no state sponsored religion, I have to accept that not everyone else in this democracy subscribes to the same beliefs and viewpoints that I have.  They may have a different faith that informs their life differently than mine.  They may have no faith.  Because of that, I cannot expect such a diverse democratic society, like the melting pot that is the United States, to govern based solely on my set of beliefs.  That is completely unreasonable.  I believe too many Christians make the mistaken assumption that this country should be governed by their Christian beliefs.  But we do not live in a theocracy.  Democracy strives to fairly represent all people living underneath its banner.  A Christian simply cannot expect a non-Christian person to live by Christian standards.  The way you function in a democratic society may be informed by your faith, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone around you to also follow suit.  Because of this, I resign myself to the fact that sometimes things are going to happen in my country that I disagree with.

Gay marriage has been soundly rejected every single time it has appeared on a ballot for a popular vote.  In the last few years it has been up for a vote in 31 states, and all 31 states have said no with varying margins of defeat.  The only places in the United States where gay marriage has been allowed is where legislation has been passed or judicial decisions have been handed down.  Even in the most liberal of states, gay marriage has not been approved by popular vote.  And while that is disheartening to some and encouraging to others, it should informs both sides of the issue as to where the country is heading.  Even a decade ago, this issue was not even really in the consciousness of the American voter.  And in just a short time, public opinion is about 50-50 on the issue.  Older and more traditional voters are strongly against it.  Opposition is harder to find in younger generations.  It seems to me that unless there is a dramatic shift in public opinion, gay marriage is something that will happen sooner rather than later in this country.  The question is whether it will come about naturally through voting or by being pushed through by elected officials or judges.  I hope it happens naturally, because I think would be less traumatic for our democracy. 

While I hope I have presented my opinion above in a manner that, if not agreeable to all, can at least be respected by most, I still believe there are larger issues that need to be addressed. 

Obviously, people of faith are protective of marriage because of its religious significance.  And those who want gay marriage are concerned that the state is not treating all of its citizens equally by allowing some of them to marry and saying that others are not permitted to do so, thus denying their human rights (by the way, as a Christian I’m not convinced that marriage or even sex are a God-given, inalienable right for all human beings.  I think there are some people who probably should not marry, and should not engage in sex.  I think more than anything, we want these to be inalienable rights because they are so appealing.  Then again, this may just be because I’m single…).  I think both sides are right, and both sides’ rights need to be protected, because this is a conflict of religious freedoms and civil liberties. 

There are too many people, of many different religions, who believe that marriage is a religious institution and gay marriage goes against their religious beliefs.  But marriage as a religious institution is in the eyes of God.  A marriage in the eyes of the government is a state licensed union.  In this setup marriage exists as one thing with two distinct meanings.  I think a better approach is to create two distinct overlapping spheres, like a Venn diagram or something.

So here is what I propose: Do away with all marriage licenses.  Remove the state from the institution of marriage; remove marriage from the purview of the state.  Leave marriage to the institutions of faith or cultural customs.  In place of that, the government recognized only civil unions.  This is not just a change in semantics.  Marriages retain their religious significance, as they are a union in the eyes of God.  As for civil unions, whoever gets them gets all of the legally recognized rights that go along with that, whether it is tax exemptions or whatever else.  In order to maintain religious rights, churches are not legally obligated to marry any couple that they do not approve of, and cannot be punished if they refuse.  Couples who are married in the church would also file for a state licensed civil union in order to obtain the legal benefits that the law affords.  The best illustration I can use here is that of squares (marriage) and rectangles (civil unions).  All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.  I don’t have all of the details on this ironed out, but there are people who are paid far more than me who could be put to the task of hammering out those details.  In this scenario, I believe that religious rights are maintained and the civil liberties of all are made equal under the law.

I started this out because I wanted to put all of my thoughts into one place to share with whoever was interested in hearing what I had to say on a hotly divisive issue.  I don’t have all of the answers.  Also, this ended up being far longer than I originally intended, so if you’ve come this far, I commend you.  But I felt everything in here was important. 

One last thing I believe is important is this: People need to be more respectful of each other on both sides.  It accomplishes nothing and is harmful to your cause when you are hateful, judgmental, and abusive to the other side, especially on an issue like this.  Calling people “f*cktards”, “bigots”, “close-minded” or using homophobic slurs to belittle your opponent is shameful.  Also, to express disappointment in the outcome is one thing, to say how ashamed you are of the people in your state or country for how they voted is something else.  Those who support gay marriage should keep in mind that people on the other side of this issue are some of your co-workers, neighbors, friends and family.  On the flip side, those of you who are against gay marriage, these people who are being marginalized are some of your co-workers, neighbors, friends and family.

~Moose

Racial Tension in Cambridge

This second item I wanted to talk about is a bit more serious than baseball trade speculation.  I heard about this a couple of days ago and have heard about it more on the radio since then and read some about it online.  Last week, Dr. Henry Gates, a Harvard professor of African American studies, was arrested at his home by a police officer for disorderly conduct.  The cop who arrested him was responding to a call from one of Dr. Gates' neighbors who thought she was witnessing a break-in.  She was, but the people breaking in were Gates himself and his driver, who were having trouble getting into his home. 

When the officer, Sgt. James Crowley, got there, he questioned Dr. Gates, who did not cooperate with the officer, and according to multiple reports, both police and eyewitness accounts, he was yelling and accusing the cop of racial profiling and refused to show the officer ID; saying things like, "This is what happens to black men in America!" and "You don't know who you are messing with!" and, according to some news reports, "I'll step outside with yo' mama!" were things that Dr. Gates yelled at the officer when the officer asked for identification and asked Dr. Gates to step outside to talk.  After giving Dr. Gates several warnings, the officer arrested him for disorderly conduct, because he would not calm down.  Those charges were dropped a couple days ago. 

Since this incident, a racial firestorm has ignited as people take sides on this thing.  I don't think this was a case of racial profiling, nor a case of the police taking excessive, unnecessary measures against a black man in America.  Sgt. Crowley was responding to a call.  He was doing his job.  God forbid someone actually was breaking into the man's home and he didn't respond.  And asking for identification, even in someone's own home, is procedure.  Would you refuse to give an officer your license if he pulls you over in your car? 

I know race, despite all of the progress made in our country since its founding, is still an issue, and that racial harassment and profiling is part of being black in this country.  But from everything that I have read and heard about this incident, this has more to do with a college professor who is not used to having to answer to authority than someone in authority taking advantage of the situation because he's racist.  Sgt. Crowley remained calm and level-headed and tried to diffuse the situation.  Gates continually escalated it.  And he continues to escalate it now after the fact.  After the police department dropped the charge against him.  After his lawyer and the police department released a joint statement saying things were resolved.  He demands that Crowley beg for his forgiveness.  He demands sensitivity training for the Cambridge police.  According to his lawyer, he hasn't ruled out legal action. 

Nevermind that Sgt. Crowley was doing his job in responding to a call.  Nevermind that the other officer on the scene was black.  Nevermind that Gates was uncooperative with a police officer.  Nevermind that almost to a man, anyone who knows Sgt. Crowley has said that he is a even-handed policeman and racisim is the last charge they would expect leveled against him.  Nevermind that this alleged racist administered CPR to a dying Reggie Lewis in a desperate attempt to save his life 16 years ago.  nevermind that there have been sevral reported break-ins in that area over the past few months.  Because a privileged, accomplished black man was inconvenienced by a white officer, it is automatically a racist incident. 

What if Crowley had been black?  Would a tired Prof. Gates, who was tired from a long trip back from being abroad in China, still have exploded at him for asking for identification?  The only person who injected race into this situation was Gates himself.  The only person who escalated the situation with his actions was Gates himself. 

Like I said, I'm aware that there is racial profiling in America.  I'm aware that there are people in positions of power who abuse that power because of their own prejudices.  But it does no one any good to exacerbate things and interject these racial tensions needlessly.  Except it gives the harvard professor more name recognition. 

~Moose

"When You Get To a Fork in the Road, Take It."

First of all, I can't believe I haven't written anything in here since the beginning of March!  Part of the reason is that, while I still have the same going-nowhere security job, I switched locations, and access to this site is blocked at my new job site.  The other part is just sheer laziness on my part.  It's not like I haven't had things I want to write about, just no real desire.  But I got two things that I wanted to spend some space on.  This one is sports related while the other one is news related.  Probably not so ironically, they both deal with Boston.

The Boston Red Sox need to trade for Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Roy Halladay.  There is no doubt in my mind about this.  The asking price is sure to be steep, as the Blue Jays will want several top prospects in return for one of the best pitchers in the game, but it is a price worth paying. 

Roy Halladay is a 32 year-old pitcher who has spent his entire 12 major league season pitching for the Toronto Blue Jays.  He is a six-time All-Star, he has won a Cy Young award and finished in the top 3 on two other occasions.  In 12 seasons his record is 142-69, with a 3.46 ERA.  This season alone he is 11-3 with a 2.73 ERA.  He is 6th among active pitchers in complete games, which means he is a horse who always goes late into games almost every start(everyone else higher on the list is older than he is too).  He has done all of this while pitching in the AL East, which is home two the Red Sox and the Yankees, two of the strongest and consistently competitive teams year in and year out.  There are no sure things when it comes to trades and future production based on previous performance, but Roy Halladay is a known commodity and a proven commodity.  And he is a valuable commodity. 

In order to get Roy Halladay, a team would have to give up a couple of significant prospects to Toronto in return.  Nothing is known for sure, but speculation is that the Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricchardi wants the moon and the stars for Halladay.  He wants his choice of a teams prospects if they want Halladay.  The Red Sox have one of the best farm systems in all of baseball.  Any trade would likely have to include SP Clay Buccholz, a young pitcher with a lot of promise(he pitched a no-hitter in his 2nd or 3rd career start two seasons ago), but one who struggled last year and has spent most of this year in AAA Pawtucket.  Some of the other top prospects that the Red Sox have include 1B Lars Anderson and SP Michael Bowden. 

The Red Sox have always been reluctant to part with young, talented players under GM Theo Epstein, but the fact is that no prospect is a proven commodity and anything but a sure thing.  They would probably have to give up around 4 prospects to get Halladay, and the chances that all four of those players turn into stars in remote.  Most likely, one ends up being good/great, one contributes to your major league team, and the rest linger in your farm system or get traded.  That is a worthwhile cost to get one of the best pitchers in the game.  The Red Sox have the resources to make a trade like this, both in terms of prospects and in financial terms.  Money is no issue for this organization.  And since they have a talented scouting operation and farm system, they can find and develop new young talent to replace any loss in giving up prospects in a trade like this. 

And the appeal of Halladay pitching in Boston is obvious for both sides.  He has proven he can pitch in the AL East(16-5 lifetime against the Yankees).  He would give the Red Sox the best top 3 rotation(Halladay, Beckett, and Lester) in baseball since Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz were in their primes with Atlanta.  For Halladay, he would be able to pitch in a big market for the first time in his life and get even more national exposure than ever before.  He would also get to pitch in the postseason for the first time ever.  Some people might say that if the Sox got Halladay they'd have to spend even more to re-sign Josh Beckett when he's due for an extension next year, but that is a good problem to have if he continues to pitch like he has for most of the time he's been a Red Sox player.  They have the resources to pay Halladay and Beckett and pay them competitively with what the market would dictate as their worth.

One of the oldest mantras in baseball is that you can never have too much pitching.  Right now the Red Sox have 7 pitchers who would start for most teams(Beckett, Lester, Wakefield, Smoltz, Penny, Dice-K, and Buccholz).  Wakefield is on the DL right now, as is Dice-K(who hasn't been right all year, thank you, WBC).  Smoltz and Penny are struggling to get past 5 innings and Buccholz just made his 2nd start of the season last night.  You're telling me that going with Beckett, Lester, and whatever you can piece together out of the remaining five is better going forward this year, and better long term for the organization, than having Halladay, Beckett, Lester, and whomever you can cobble together out of Wake, Dice-K, Smoltz, and Penny? 

What is the worst case scenario?  That Halladay starts to break down within the next couple of years because he's 32 now?  He's under contract through next year, so you've got time to come to a long-term decision on him, like they have done this year with Jason Bay.  Worst case scenario is that he breaks down and isn't worth a long-term investment and you start over after 2010 looking for more pitching depth.  Best case scenario is that you've got the best rotation in baseball for the forseeable future.

~Moose

Netflix = Awesome

I did some number crunching this weekend to try and find out how well Netflix works for me.  I had a pretty good idea that based on the volume of movies I was consuming through Netflix that I was getting a pretty good bang for my buck, but I didn't realize how good I was doing until I saw the actual, tangilbe numbers in front of my eyes.

I've had Netflix since the end of July 2006.  For most of that time, I've been on the 3-at-a-time, unlimited monthly plan which costs me $17.84 per month right now.  In the 31 months that I have been a member of Netflix, I have spent $563.16, which comes out to 18.17 per month.  In that time I have received 365 DVDs in the mail, approximately 313 movies and multi-disc series. 

365 total discs means I'm going through 11.77, or just under 12 DVDs per month.  And I've been a member since July 31st, 2006 until today, which is about 945 days, so I'm averaging 1 DVD every 2.59 days.  I've been paying $1.68 for each day I have Netflix.  But the most staggering stat is that I'm spending an average of $1.54 for every DVD that I get in the mail.  Compared to what I would be spending on in-store rentals at Blockbuster, which according to this newsarticle, is an average of $4.37, I'm saving nearly $3 per disc at this rate.  At $4.37, if I were to rent 12 DVDs each month, I'd be spending $52.44.  So I'm saving about $34 a month(of course, if I didn't have Netflix, there's no way I'd be renting 12 DVDs a month, so it's not a REAL saving).  $52.44 a month for 1 year is $629.28.  After THREE years I will have spent $652.36 on Netflix. 

So basically, no matter which way you slice it, I am making out like a bandit with Netflix.  The best number I saw was $1.54 per disc that I'm spending.  That is just amazing.  And I can keep the movies as long as I want.  Good times.

~Moose

Currently De Stijl By The White Stripes Death Letter see related

Top 10 White Stripes Songs

NEWSFLASH!

I love The White Stripes.  Actually, that's probably not news.  But I really do love Jack and Meg White's band.  They're the best fake brother/sister band I've ever heard.  In fact, they're probably my favorite band right now as I pretty much enjoy everything they put out that i happen to hear.  I own four of their cds; their first two and their last two.  Unfortunately I don't own their middle two!  But I know I like a lot of the songs from those albums.  So with all of that said, here is a list of my 10 favorite songs by The White Stripes.  I've attached YouTube videos to as many as I can, trying to get the music videos as much as possible, but having to settle for live recordings for a few. 

Honorable Mentions:

12. Icky Thump

11. The Denial Twist

TOP 10:

10. We're Gonna Be Friends

9. My Doorbell

8. Wasting My Time

7. Astro

6. The Hardest Button To Button

5. Death Letter

4. When I Hear My Name

3. Little Ghost

2. Seven Nation Army

1. Blue Orchid

~Moose