this is my response to a thread on facebook that got me fired up:
“This issue is not about church and state – there are plenty of non-religious folk who are prejudice.
Rather the core issue here is a matter of governance – regardless of how you feel about this issue – the BASIS of the judge’s decision is to… say that moral preference is not a sufficient reason to “deny rights.”
A friend of mine today sent me a link to a news item from the great state of Iowa explaining and exploring the ramifications of a landmark ruling that is essentially going to allow same sex marriages. The very nature of this topic of conversation is a fairly interesting one from all aspects. From a legal perspective, from a political perspective, from a cultural perspective and from a spiritual/religious perspective.
Within all of those areas of conversation their are some fairly hefty arguments on either side of the coin, some more compelling than others. What truly fascinates me about this topic, and the topic of homosexuality in general is that there seems to be no clear cut answer to it.
It is too simple to say that May 1, 2007 will be a day that will be scrutinized with a real potential for infamy. From the mass walkouts (not as mass as 2006) to the inappropriate behavior by young protesters and the police reaction under investigation. A day that was meant for young voices to be heard will be defined not by the cause, but by the aftermath.
To put things in perspective, yesterday was not only a day planned for student protests it was also election day for the City of Long Beach and other municipalities around California. Civil disobedience should always be held secondary to the power of the democratic process (which actually exists at the local political level). The power to speak out in peaceable assembly is dwarfed by the power to elect, to ratify and to defeat. The absolute greatest right we have in the United States, the most expressive way we can make our voice heard is through our ballots.