This almost sounds like a joke straight from Jay Leno or David Letterman. Sadly, it isn’t.

Two of the latest lawmakers to co-sponsor one of those ridiculous “Defense of Marriage”-type laws that define marriage as a union between man and woman have themselves demonstrated a somewhat unconventional standard within their own commitment.

First, there’s Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the man arrested a little more than a year ago in a Minneapolis airport terminal on charges of lewd conduct. Craig entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct after allegedly attempting to signal a male in the next stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. He has since attempted to withdraw the plea, but has so far been unsuccessful. He never even told his wife about the arrest, according to reports, until the story was made public.

The second lawmaker with the odd background is Louisiana Sen. David Vitter. In July of last year, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the woman dubbed “The DC Madam.” In a statement, he apologized for what he called a “a very serious sin” in his past for which he had apologized to God and to his wife.

I realize that there are a lot of people out there who still believe that marriage needs to be “protected” via the male-female definition. Until a few recent court rulings making way for same-sex marriage in a few areas, this country’s long history of the male-female definition by practice still managed to rack up a divorce rate somewhere around 50% or higher (depending on whom you ask). You’d have to believe, if you think same-sex marriage would destroy the institution, that these men and women who are so committed to fighting for the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with will somehow forget every ounce of commitment they displayed once the ring is on their finger.

But for those of you who still are so convinced of such a preposterous notion, does it at least seem odd to you that the institution of marriage needs the help of people who have been accused of either being unfaithful or taking the first steps toward infidelity?

Sure, I know what they say about forgiveness and redemption, and it’s great that these two politicians have seen the error of their ways and are surely committing themselves, through acts like these, to be good boys for the rest of their lives.

But if you are really interested in protecting the institution of marriage from all its various threats, and if you really want everyone to believe that you aren’t just being homophobic or blindly toeing a party line just so you can ignore really important issues like the economy or Iraq, you might wonder why there’s no proposal to punish adulterers; it seems to me that marriage needs a shot in the arm to protect the institution from them first.

John Cook, an 88-year-old retired teacher and school counselor, served in the Army during World War II, and was part of the second wave of troops that stormed Omaha Beach on D-Day. That was on June 6, 1944.

It would be another 14 years before he would meet the love of his life. Now, this still-happy couple is preparing to celebrate their golden anniversary.

There’s just one minor detail that unfortunately turns what should be an inspiring story about the endurance of love into story that disgusts some. Continue reading “The Threat”

Married and wishing you weren’t?  If a new proposal by a Bavarian lawmaker ever goes anywhere, it might be the news you’ve been waiting for!  (Although you’d probably have to have been married and living in Germany for it to have the impact you want.)

Gabriele Pauli wants marriages to last seven years, after which they can be renewed by the couple or the marriage would be automatically dissolved.

I wonder how long it’ll take the defenders of the “institution of marriage” to start protests over that idea.

I haven’t commented, yet, on Sen. David Vitter’s name appearing in the records of a woman nicknamed a D.C. “madam.”

Unlike many Democrats — and Republicans who are fed up with certain aspects of their party — I am not particularly happy that Vitter was caught up in such a scandal. It does, after all, provide a painful bit of embarrassment for his family, especially his wife, who Vitter says forgave him years ago for whatever he might have done.

On the other hand, I do point to a page on Vitter’s own website, in which he comments about protecting the “sanctity of marriage:” Continue reading “Sanctity”

The most recent “Patrick’s Place” Poll asked you about your feelings on the controversial subject of gay marriage. Voters had three choices:

People willing to commit to each other should be allowed to marry like anyone else.
Same-sex couples should be allowed rights of marriage, but it should be called something else.
Same-sex couples should not be allowed any legal rights or recognition of their relationship.

I’m happy to report that 84% of those who voted feel that gay couples should at least have a legal option, whether it be called “marriage” or a “civil union.” Only 16% say the should not be entitled to any legal rights at all, which seems to me to be in direct opposition to that notion of all men being created equal that most of us hold so dear.

Of that 84%, it’s striking that 71% not only feel that gay couples should be allowed the legal rights of marriage, but that they also don’t have a problem with gay unions being called marriage. The remaining 13% feel that gays are entitled to the rights heterosexuals enjoy, but would be more comfortable if it were called something other than marriage.

What’s in a name? For many gay couples who want to be legally allowed to marry, having their relationship called a “civil union” rather than a “marriage” harkens back to the days of “separate but equal,” when children were segregated by race into separate school systems.

Granted, this survey was in no way scientific. But if this is even close to the “general population’s” view of things, why, other than for political posturing by a president desperate for a strong show of support on something, does this even need to be an issue? If the majority is supposed to rule, and if these results represent anything near what the majority really feels, it seems like it would be time to move on to more critical issues of the day.

Recently, President Bush has renewed his determination to get a ban on gay marriage on the books. It’s blatantly clear to anyone with even a nominal IQ that this is an attempt to bring support his way on something as his approval ratings continue to decline. It’s a shame that with the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, immigration and an ever-increasing national debt, we have to put priority on whether gay people should be afforded the same rights everyone else has.

Some time ago, I wrote a piece about being a fiscal conservative. I do believe in fiscal conservativism, but considering our deficit, it’s obvious that there aren’t many fiscal conservatives in any positions of power. In that post, I mentioned that when it comes to social issues, I tend to be more on the liberal side. The gay marriage debate is a perfect example of this.

Continue reading “The Gay Marriage Debate…Again”