In Sickness and In Health

Netscape Home The Netscape BlogNetscape NewsQuake

In Sickness and In Health — Jun 12th 2007

By Alexia Prichard

On June 5th, 2007, the California State Assembly passed AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which grants same-sex couples the right to marry. A lot of folks--including legislators and a few presidential candidates--are saying we shouldn't be talking about such things "in a time of war."

Well, I think wartime is an important, sacred time. People are dying, and out of respect for them, we should be mindful of what we say. But the war cannot be an excuse for sweeping citizens' rights under the carpet or slamming the lid shut on discussion. In a free society, democracy is discussion, whether somebody likes it or not. The rest, especially this close to a heated election, is simply spin.

Spin isn't reserved for politicians, of course. We all engage in it. During the four years since the invasion of Iraq, we as a nation have been discussing all manner of unimportant, non-war-related things. Remember Bennifer? Michael Jackson? The finale of Friends? Where were you when you first heard about Martha Stewart's release from prison? What's your feeling on the paternity trial of Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter (what was her name)? And what about Paris? Is there any doubt that you know which Paris I might be referring to?

Our obsession with celebrities in a time of war is deeply inappropriate. Celebrity stories have nothing to do with citizenship. The gay marriage debate, on the other hand, certainly does. The rights of marriage afford a couple the ability to visit each other in the hospital, and to retain shared property and parental custody in the event of one partner's death.

They also confer certain privileges that all of us hope we never have to face. For example: when a soldier's remains arrive at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, the family is allowed to "greet" them. The military currently lacks any clear policy defining exactly who is a family member. "There's no restriction," says Major Stewart Upton, a DOD spokesperson, "as it's a private matter. It's a time for the family." Exactly--but in this case, the gay or lesbian spouse can be present only if the blood relatives consent. Can you imagine a heterosexual husband or wife being barred under the same circumstances? Until legislation like the California statute is more widespread, this will remain an urgent discussion--even in wartime.

Tags:

8 Comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Sundog — 4:07AM on Jun 14th 2007

1. It once was, that during wartime you wanted to keep things much the same, so that when soldiers overseas came home they weren't forced to adapt to a strange new country as well as the horrors they'd witnesed.

A laudable goal. But today, our soldiers are incorporated as part of our society. Even in wartime, they can stay current with events "back home". It's no longer a reasonable excuse to delay important, culture altering legislation such as this.

melissa — 7:10AM on Jun 14th 2007

2.
Is this Netscape only liberal. Every day I look at this and can't believe there is never a conservative view point on any thing?

Dave Ketels — 8:30AM on Jun 14th 2007

3. Apparently you have forgotten the military establishment's long-standing policy regarding regarding homosexuality within its ranks. It is not tolerated for any reason. They ask you at the time of enlistment (they also ask you about your views on going to war- but that's another matter) and if you are, then you are not allowed to enlist. If you answer "no", and they later find out that you are, then you are prosecuted for perjury and dishonorably discharged.

Without a complete overhaul of these policies, the military will never recognize same-sex marriage.

James Marcus — 12:31PM on Jun 14th 2007

4. Is NewsQuake only liberal? I would say the answer is no. Take a look at these posts and tell me how they advance any sort of liberal agenda:

http://newsquake.netscape.com/2007/05/28/memorial-day/

http://newsquake.netscape.com/2007/06/11/jakes-life-more-about-jake-wood/

julian — 12:32PM on Jun 14th 2007

5. Let's get real! Two points. 1) Not talking about things important; regardless of the current state of afairs (world wide, nationaly or locally) is a cop-out and failure to lead. So, perhaps disclosing who the weak willed so-called leaders are will bring fuller disscussion not only about the matter at hand; but allow citizens a greater opportunity to evaluate those in or aspiring to public service. 2) What you said about "imagining something" is fair to say; but why are we consistantly being subject to these "contortureous" expressions? The reason the sinario you are discribing in not real is because we have a "real" heritage that has provided this and many other priviledes. Ignoring either the issue or viewing any issue outside of historical context (ony)is incompetent schollarship at best.
J

alexia — 1:46PM on Jun 14th 2007

6. I used to be anti gay marriage because I was kind of anti legal marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. It went against what I believe at heart which is, if you love someone and are committed to them, you're married. You're married because you decide that you are. It's heart-thing. More and more (and still to this day a little bit) I was seeing us all bowing to too many funky rules. Why should the state be allowed to have a say in whether we're married or not? I understand it from the point of view of taxes, but we all pay taxes anyway, so why not do away with legal marriage altogether and alleviate some of the financial burdens that come with being married. But, we don't live in that society. We live in the one with all these rules (most of them good!), and so, with that in mind I changed my thinking to supporting civil rights. Civil rights for all. And that includes me and my girlfriend.

Danell — 2:43PM on Jun 15th 2007

7. In this time of terrorism, violence, and hate is exactly the
time we should be discussing the love and equality between two people
regardless of their sexual preferences. If we acted more on making
all creatures equal, then there would be less war.

serena1313 — 3:03PM on Jun 18th 2007

8. It never ceases to amaze me that some people believe we ought not talk about things that may [or may not] be conducive to everyone's liking. We are not at "war," we are occupying a country. They do not want us there, our soldiers do not want to be there and people at home are arguing about whether we should or should not be discussing gay marriage? I think our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, if not sitting up!

Allowing the government to curb free speech goes against everything this country has stood for. While this administration has tried its best to curb dissent it is one of the healthiest things the citizens of this country could and should engage in.

This is not a liberal or a conservative issue; it is an American issue. Our ancestors fought and died for our freedom. Will they have died in vain?

We honour our troops and our forefathers by standing up for freedom and liberty. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

When was the last time you read the Constitution of the United States of America? Either we live are a free country or we don't! Either we believe in the Supreme Law of the land as written in the Constitution or we don't. To forego our heritage means we lose everything unique and hopeful about America. That would be a tragedy.

Regardless of your personal views on gay marriage, will it alter your life, one way or the other, if two people of the same sex marry? Just because we may or may not agree with any certain issues does not mean we have the right to deny others their pursuit of happiness.

At NewsQuake!, the Netscape staff blogs about breaking news of every stripe. Looking for context, commentary, and lively reportage? You’ve come to the right place.

RSS News Feed RSS Feed / Send us Tips

Featured Galleries