I suppose you've all heard by now that the latest court challenge to California's Prop 8 has failed, allowing the state's ban on gay marriage to stand...at least for now. Somehow I am not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised. Americans have long considered themselves citizens of an enlightened nation while simultaneously embracing some very medieval ideas. I'm not sure how that works. For my part, I understand neither America's fascination with, nor the abhorrence of, homosexuality. Perhaps it's because I was raised in large urban environments, but gay people have been, for me, nothing unusual. And certainly no threat to, well, anything. Other than, perhaps, to those closely held American values, prejudice and fear.
I remember in the 1970s, while a teen and still living at home with my parents in a New York City high-rise, I watched as many of my parents' friends went through painful divorces, some involving infidelities, many entailing bitter financial disputes...while the gay couple in the apartment next door (who had been long-time partners) lived in what seemed complete harmony. So any idea that straight people have some kind of monopoly on making long-term relationships work has never held any merit with me.
As for gay marriage being a threat to straight marriage....that just seems so absurd, I don't think it deserves a point-by-point response. And as regards the Biblical anti-gay stance...I must only marvel at how selectively the Bible gets used to guide social convention. If we are to follow Leviticus to the letter, it's goodbye Red Lobster. What, no surf-n-turf? Now THAT's what I call an abomination.
There is, however, one issue that seems to require some smoothing out, and that is the idea of marriage vs civil unions. Marriage, of course, is a spiritual ceremony...while civil union guarantees certain rights to each member of a relationship. As I understand it: the question is: Should each partner in a gay union be afforded the same rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.) as is afforded a partner in a straight union? That, to me, seems an obvious YES. Or perhaps, "yes, duh."
As for the spiritual aspect of romantic unions, that gets messy. Because we're dealing with a range of religious institutions, most of which seem to be somewhat uncomfortable with gay marriage. So, it would seem that guaranteeing the rights of civil union to gay couples in all 50 states will probably precede acceptance of gay marriage by all faiths and denominations.
But I think we, as a country, are at a pivotal point as we were in the 1910s, when women's suffrage stood on the threshold of success. Opponents of that movement put forward objections that were every bit as silly as those put forward today by opponents of gay marriage. Namely, that somehow allowing women the vote would 'wreck the system.' Gay civil unions (and marriages) are, I believe, a feature of tomorrow's America. Future generations will probably take it all for granted, looking back and wondering what all the fuss was about. Maybe then we'll be half as enlightened as we claim to be.