Diversely Black, White, Latino, Asian, Arab, European, Indian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist...and Gay, too.

I know this is supposed to be a blog that discusses marketing, not politics. But the thing is, I'm not real good at following rules when it comes to blog freedom. And, more to the point, a person's sexual orientation isn't at all political.

Unless we make it allow it to be.

(Wasn't Global Warming a "political" argument at one point, too?)

Insofar as pressing political issues during an oh-so-political year, I see the economy as huge. No question. Along with foreign relations, healthcare and medical research. Many readers know that education reform happens to be my hot button, not only for the "long term" but for the "here-and-now" crisis that is dropout nation. I'm very concerned about the opportunities we're handing our kids, what that means to them and what that means to our country's future.

But I struggle with Same-Sex Marriage. Quite a bit. Not with whether, or with whom, people should marry (get hitched!). I struggle when people say, "With all our problems, gay marriage is waaay down the list, CK".

You see, this issue--which isn't an "issue" being we're talking the inability to legally marry and therefore falls under "rights"--is an area that is steeped in freedom. And freedom is what our country is steeped in. Freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to pursue various careers, profits, land, American dreams and so on.

Let's look at it from another angle. Here's a question: What is so beautiful--and altogether unique--about America? That we're all different.

Nope, not much of the same homogeneous ties-that-bond here. Many races, many cultures, many classes and many beliefs are we. What binds us is not a common culture or race, what unites us is a set of of core values, with freedom ranking chief among them. It's something we all unequivocally agree on. We've fought for it "externally" at our nation's founding and we've continued to fight for it "internally" through movements both Civil and Suffragette.

Those fights were important. Fact is, once we're afforded 20/20 hindsight, we all wonder how these rights could have possibly required a fight, since it's so obvious they should have never been in question in the first place. In a democracy, one doesn't need a reason to make things free (or legal), only a reason to take away freedoms (or make them illegal). So perhaps, if we stopped making such an "issue" out of it, we'd not only be the better for it, we'd look back and find that we likely exhausted a lot of time stifling freedoms and diversity when what we needed to do was support these values. After all, these values are not only uniquely American...they are true to our country's unique brand (see, I did talk marketing ;-). 

Offering a clever take, here's R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe who has been in the headlines the past few days for urging more public figures to be open about their homosexuality--now he's 'outing' his heterosexual band mates. RSS readers and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view.

Comments

[Ryan Karpeles]

At this point it's also a moral issue - not simply a freedom issue.

It's a tricky subject across the board, but the reason we can't "stop making an issue out of it" is because of the morality question. People aren't ready to throw their morals out the door in the name of a little more freedom.

No matter what side of the fence you're on, morality adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity. In other words, this issue is bigger than just liberty. Which is the main reason why there's so much controversy surrounding it.

Interested to see where this discussion leads ;-)

[CK]

Hey Ryan. I purposely left out the moral and religious leanings in this post--tho' it's surely why this is an "issue" to begin with, you are perfectly correct. Because if we applied the separation of church and state (which is a duty of ours), we'd find we have no right to make something as personal as marriage to be illegal.

We have many, many issues needing our attention right now--maintaining rights needs to be among them. Not saying it will happen; but when it does, future generations will likely look back (as we do now at past violations) and say "I can't believe in the 21st century that we denied our citizens of their freedoms...in a country that's very identity celebrates freedom and differences." Sigh.

[Lewis Green]

CK,

Separation of church and state is practiced to ensure government makes no rule to hinder the freedom of religion and so that we can never become a theocracy.

We citizens can and should bring our religious beliefs, our values, ethics and morals to bear on any issue, including gay marriage. Doing so is our right and a freedom.

That's why reaching concensus on most political issues is so painful and difficult. Democracies aren't perfect (and we actually aren't one, we are a Republic); but they are better than any other systems we are aware of.

[Cam Beck]

"You see, this issue--which isn't an "issue" being we're talking the inability to legally marry and therefore falls under "rights"--is an area that is steeped in freedom. And freedom is what our country is steeped in. Freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to pursue various careers, profits, land, American dreams and so on."

I recommend looking at this from a different perspective. Rather than boring you with the logic of it all, though, I'll simply pose a question once it's been properly framed.

--

The institution of marriage, as we understand it, is part religious and part civil.

The religious aspect can be handled without government interference whatsoever. However, it does not obligate the government to treat people any differently.

The civil aspect implies government interference.

Here's the question:

Why would you want government interfering in the relationship between two private individuals at all -- telling them how they can, can't, should and shouldn't behave with respect to that relationship?

[CK]

@Cam: Thanks. I wouldn't want gov't interfering, I view placing restraints, as is currently the case, to be interfering with freedoms. Does that answer your question?

[Cam Beck]

Not really. The law does not prohibit two private individuals forming a relationship in complete freedom and without restriction and interference.

When you think about it, it is the married who are restrained, and the bonds formed therein are subject to government interference.

Married people are not only subject to the laws of the single, but additional laws that apply only to the married -- and still more when such a relationship produces a child.

[CK]

Ya know, I can't agree more that those who are married are indeed restrained (which is why I haven't done so ;-).

But, those who choose to get married--even with its restraints, I'll give you that--had that choice available. That same choice should be available to all; it just shouldn't even be in question that a choice that is available to a man and a woman shouldn't be available to all humans/citizens. No rationale or reason to preclude anyone from those choices, only bias remains.

[Cam Beck]

The law is not required to treat all people the same, in every respect.

Children, for instance, are forbidden from drinking or smoking and voting. People under 35 are forbidden from running for president. Those who have been twice elected president are not allowed to run again.

In another respect, the marriage laws treats all people the same regardless of orientation. Two homosexual males are free to marry according to the laws of the land -- just not to each other, and only to a person of the opposite gender. That is their choice.

That they aren't allowed to marry each other and be subject to those restrictions the government requires of married couples doesn't mean the law treats them differently, it just means that marriage is defined a certain way, both legally and historically.

Is there a rationale or reason for that definition? That seems to be a question you have answered as "no." But it may be that you haven't identified it -- yet. Once you have, only then can you definitively determine and convincingly argue that the rationale is illegitimate.

If it's arbitrary, it's tyranny. But with hundreds of years of accessible historical record and court cases supporting the institution of marriage as we understand it to be legally defined, I know you can find it.

Unpleasant as it may be, the law requires such painstaking analysis, for the force of government, like fire, should be used only sparingly, and only for the most judicious and logical reasons that has a tangible societal benefit. You don't want the government messing around where it doesn't belong -- such as in your bedroom (a common complaint I hear, but it doesn't apply if certain crimes just happen to be committed in a bedroom).

So that brings us back to the original question: Why would it be *desirable* for the government to issue laws -- and therefore place restrictions -- on the relationship between two private individuals? Why would anyone want them to?

You do not need to apply your values to solve the riddle, but try to understand the values of those who saw the laws to be necessary in the first place. Once you do that, and you've identified the initial need, then you can ascertain if that need still exists in today's time, and if it should be more broadly applied to different kinds of relationships, and why.

[CK]

You are logical in how you present this. So I will do my best to answer you with rationale (because I'm particularly passionate about equality and freedom, as are you).

Yes, we have certain laws for certain age groups. We even have laws that physically restrain us (seat belts) in the 'value' of protecting lives or 'need' for safety.

We find that there is basis for some laws (restriction of certain freedoms) and we find there is a basis to rescind or revise others. Allowing women the right to vote was one, a woman's right to choose (on a state-by-state basis )was another, ruling out segregation yet another because "separate but equal" is not in-line with our constitution. Here we don't even have a case of 'separate but equal' because the same freedoms (to legally marry) do not apply. One group has a certain set of options, the other has another--yet both groups are citizens in a country where all men are created equal.

Now, I do not know the historical "values" or "needs" reasoning behind the current laws. I point to the current chasm. Nor can I think of one solid argument as to how in lifting these restrictions (or instilling these rights across the board, no matter sexual orientation) can produce any harm to any other citizen. Instilling these freedoms, or rights, only aligns with our country's overarching values of freedom and equality--so I'm applying those overarching values (not just mine) and the need to maintain them. It otherwise becomes an issue of discrimination, IMO.

[Cam Beck]

This is why it's important to agree on a methodology. Without such agreement, resolution of the issue is possible only by random chance.

I find the discussion fascinating, and I appreciate, as always, the level tone and thoughtful consideration.

[CK]

@Cam: I can only imagine what courts must go through...I mean in separating the strong passion and opinions from methodology. It has to be a fascinating but a challenging process. I also wonder how they balance that level of 'power'.

Anyhow, this is an 'issue' that I struggle with when people point out, and understandably so, that we have so many problems that take priority. Because freedoms and rights are core to our country (and diversity is what makes this country so darn good). So I get really concerned when we either violate, or start to cross that line of 'core'.

It helps to work through it from both sides of the brain (the emotional and rational). So, thanks for helping me think it through, as always.

[Christian Gulliksen]

I remember a trip to Budapest when I was 13 and Hungary still labored under a communist regime. We were staying in a high-rise hotel, and when I went down to buy a few things in the hotel's shop the cashier pointed to a sign listing accepted currencies. The Hungarian forint was not among them, so I paid in Austrian schillings and left. But as I rode the elevator back to my floor I realized the currency restrictions gave me access to goods that the Hungarian population (theoretically) lacked. Sure they could acquire Western currency, and spend it, but they were never on a legally equal footing. The inequity made me furious. I spent the rest of the trip tipping everyone in schillings, pounds, dollars, anything but florints.

I feel the same way about same-sex marriage. It kills me that I live in society that allows me to do something expressly forbidden to my gay friends. I understand the whys and the wherefores, but the arbitrary discrimination is still ten kinds of wrong.

[Joe Heat]

Great investment! Vana Blue is publicly trading, the stock symbol is "VBLU", it should hit $1 in a matter of weeks. I checked out their website online at www.vanablue.com, it has a great Company Structure. I already purchased 10,000 shares and I am ready to buy more..............

What are you waiting for?