Fourth of July and same-sex marriage

[This was intended to be posted on the Fourth of July. However, this Prattler got lazy. So, first of all, apologies.]

So on the occasion of the fourth of July (Happy birthday America! btw), it seems appropriate to prattle about the civil rights issue of this generation--marriage and adoption equality for same-sex couples.

In an editorial by published in The New York Times on 26 June titled A Decent Proposal, Bill Keller wrote:

What if the state were empowered to grant civil unions, regardless of sexual orientation ­— in other words, to lay out all the rights and responsibilities of two adults who merge their lives, without recourse to the word “marriage”? The state can make you partners, but it can’t make you husband and wife. The church — or synagogue or mosque or temple or ashram — has the authority to bless (or not) this contract as a marriage. Marriage, after all, is a sacrament. We don’t expect the state to baptize or serve communion or absolve our sins.

Marriage is not just a sacrament. It is not simply a religious concept. It is a human institution that has stretched across cultures for thousands of years. In many societies, marriage bears no religious connotations. In many societies, marriage is and only is a civil, and emotional, institution.

Of course, we cannot deny that in the United States, marriage has a religious aspect to it. Many wed in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious venues. Many view their marital bonds as a sacred commitment before an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent force.

But religion does not constitute the intrinsic meaning of marriage, does it? Marriage signifies, above all else, a bilateral commitment, a joint declaration of union in love and purpose between two people. Stripped of all religious, civil, legal, and all other (I beg your pardon) bullshit, marriage is a celebration of love, period.

So how do you tell two single people not related by blood (this is a debate wholly separate from the issue of same-sex marriage) who love each other and want to commit their love and lives to each other that they cannot marry? The same way you told inter-racial couples back in the 1950's and 1960's that they could not marry?

The argument that civil union (or any other civil institution of similar ilk) is an acceptable substitution for same-sex marriage is, therefore, unacceptable. The only reasonable, the only right move on the issue of marriage equality is to recognise it, not just in any state, but across the United States, and, ideally, across the globe.

Recognition of same-sex marriage, of course, must come with nothing less than full adoption rights for same-sex couples, and indeed, gay individuals. I will concede, that the freedom of religion does grant a certain level of protection for faith-based adoption agencies. But not when they receive funding from the government. Any organisation, secular or religious, funded in full or in part by the government--local, state, or federal--must be mandated to treat same-sex couples and gay individuals the same way they treat opposite-sex couples and straight individuals.

Faith-based organisations receiving public funding will have two choices: either treat all human beings equally, or end adoption services. If they end adoption services... well, then we know that they would rather stick to their outdated, discriminatory doctrine than help orphaned children find a loving home.

a moment of silence...

On Wednesday, 20 April, 2 journalists were killed and 2 other injured as they were covering the on-going conflict in Libya. According to BBC News:

Liverpool-born Tim Hetherington, 40, and American Chris Hondros, 41, died on Wednesday while covering the conflict in the besieged city of Misrata. 

Both Mr. Hetherington and Mr. Hondros were highly regarded war photographers. BBC News Picture Editor Phil Coomes writes of Hetherington:

If there is such as thing as truth, then Tim got as close as anyone could.

Another truth teller gone, killed in the line of duty.

But these deaths, the sadness they bring, and the media attention they catch, remind me of a sad reality.

the value of life?

I came across an article titled "Should my hereditary disability stop me having a baby?" on BBC News. Here are some excerpts:

At the age of 26, Jono is happy with how he looks, but the genetic disorder that affected the way his facial bones developed in the womb has caused him years of anguish.

His condition means he has no cheekbones - so his eyes droop downwards - and he has problems with his hearing, so has a bone-anchored hearing aid.

It has resulted in years of bullying, several operations and numerous hospital visits. It also led his parents to give him up for adoption 36 hours after he was born.

But perhaps the most vital factor for Jono and his long-term girlfriend, 20-year-old Laura Richardson, is that it is also hereditary, so any child Jono fathers naturally has a 50% chance of having Treacher Collins.

[...] 

"I've always dreamed of being a daddy. I crave father and son moments - my adoptive mum was absolutely amazing but I never had a father figure in my life, and that's something I really, really want. I want to do the school run, take my child to dance, gymnastics or football - whatever they want."

But for the couple - and particularly Jono - the thought of having a child naturally opens a minefield of morals, emotions and self-questioning.

"Knowing that there's a good chance of passing your condition on to your child. It scares me and I question whether it's the right thing to do.

"The big debate in my head is how can I knowingly put my own child through potential suffering," he says.

Is it "right" to conceive a child, knowing that you, in all likelihood, will give him or her a hereditary physical, or even mental, defect? Is it "right" to bring a child into this, let's be honest, cruel world, knowing how much harder his or her life will turn out?

"La. Student Sent Home for Gay T-Shirt" ... here we go again

Advocate.com reports that a student in Louisiana got sent home yesterday, 23 March, because she was wearing a T-shirt that said "Some kids r gay. That's ok."

The school claimed that "the T-shirt was disruptive."

When will school officials realise that they cannot conjure up lame excuses to abridge the freedom of speech of their students? When will schools learn that they cannot hide their homophobic responses behind claims of "impropriety" and "disruption"?

the occasional prattle

Why do I blog?

So my friend and I had a talk about blogging today. He told me that he blogged because he had the occasional urge to write something less formal than a newspaper article but more lengthy than a Facebook post or a tweet.

And I realised that I have that occasional urge too. I'm not too keen on crafting great articles on a weekly basis. But I do want to write something sometimes. I want to engage in occasional prattle about things happening around the world.

Not supremely sophisticated, in-depth, fact-filled discussions.

Just slightly intellectual, kind-of-deep, sometimes-supported-by-facts talks.

And I really do not want to watch out for to-be verbs and make sure I choose the absolutely definitely perfect noun, the one-million-dollar verb, the total-snipage adjective every time I feel the urge to write.

So here's my try at blogging. Let's hope I don't suck.