First off, I'll introduce myself.
My name is Nate, I'm 17 years old (18 in July), I'm from southeastern massachusetts, and I'm gay :).
I have to admit, I started off in these presidential campaigns supporting Clinton without any objection (nor much knowlege, either) to Senator Obama and his ideals. However, after going through his ideas and voting records on the web site ontheissues.org, I quickly felt that he was the right candidate for me.
Although not the absolute perfect candidate (but who is?), he seemed to click with me. Actually, one of my only objections is the fact that he isn't 100% for gay marriage nationally. Sure, he isn't as experienced as some of the other candidates on capitol hill, but isn't that fresh mentality something we as Americans need? The last thing we need is someone who has had their spirit broken by seeing bills they supported denied passage for years and years. We need someone who still has that "we can do it" spirit. Also, the fact that he is a newer senator means that although not as experienced in some subjects, he also hasn't been tainted by decades of politics in office.
In short, although his support of the gay community isn't perfect in my eyes, he's very cordial and more supportive than many of the other candidates I've seen. His stand against DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell are enough to view him with a sense of respect and honor that I haven't felt towards other presidential candidates.
I have to say, I'd enjoy very much to get the chance to have a chat and meet with him someday. I'd like to ask him how he feels about the fact that giving the gay community civil unions, but not marriage, is very similar in theory to the separate but equal doctrine of the United States in the mid 20th century. Allowing the states to decide for themselves on the issue is a step in the right direction, but state sanctioned civil unions and marriages don't qualify the couples in question to full federal rights and benefits that heterosexual marriage allows. In short, this makes the unions nothing but a spiffy title while outside of the home state.
If a couple that is recognized as married, or in a civil union is out of state on vacation and one is injured, unless the state they are vacationing in recognizes their union, they don't qualify for medical or visitation benefits.
If they must move for business or work, the state they move into could simply say that they don't recognize their marriage, forcing them to spend thousands more annually in taxes and medical insurance.
In conclusion, how are civil unions and state sanctioned marriages equal, or even close to equal, when they aren't recognized and supported throughout the nation? Why should a couple who lives outside of New England have to move across the country simply to live in a place that they can be considered married? More importantly, why is the country that supposedly runs with "separation of church and state" continually blocked in the attempt to federalize gay marriage by evangelists and Christian politicians? Their views may affect their thinking, yes, but if they feel gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of their God, why don't they simply not apply for one, and urge those in their church not to apply for one as well? A piece of paper, a title, and a tax break aren't going to break up marriages. This is easily seen in countries that allow civil unions and marriages! The United States has one of the highest divorce rates in the world and, if polled, I wonder how many of those divorces were cited as being carried out due to the fact that gays can marry?
Sanctity of marriage, my ass.
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Visit The Bill of Rights Institute website and reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights:
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/borday/
After 7 years of the Bush Administration and a growing fundamentalist movement that causes presidential candidate Romney to declare that he meets the Jesus test, it seems that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are being erased from the American conscience. So, after you reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights, maybe read the Constitution as well.
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=529&False
As a child, I was raised with the evangelical canon of the Church of Christ. But as an adult, I no longer allow my spiritual beliefs to be confined to the pulpit or book of just one organized religion.
I still believe in God; I still believe in trying one’s best to do the right thing; I still believe in the power of prayer and of forgiveness; I still believe in the beauty and purpose of the soul.
I still believe myself to be Christian.
But I also believe that two consenting adults should have the right to love each other regardless of their sexual orientation and that a woman should always be able to make decisions regarding her own body and reproductive rights.
My religious upbringing taught me that homosexuality was sinful and that gay unions should not be allowed. But my political belief is that all people are created equal and thus should be treated as such, homosexual couples being given the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
My religious upbringing taught me that abortion was wrong and that such should be outlawed. But my political belief is that such a choice should always be in the hands of the woman making it, not in the hands of a legislative body that has no personal responsibility in the matter.
Regardless of the religious upbringing of my youth or the prospect of the changing spiritual beliefs of my tomorrow, I always have and always will strongly believe in the separation of church and state.
Regarding the political landscape of late, it seems to me that there are those in power who would have us blur those lines ... those who propose to speak for all Christians, those who propose to speak for my God, those who would have us believe that our governmental policy should be driven by the will of our supposedly "Christian-only" nation.
But we are not a Christian nation; we are a nation of Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. We are also a nation of non-believers and non-church going folk who may not have "Sunday-best" hanging in their closets but who most assuredly carry the best of intentions within their hearts. And just as our Pledge of Allegiance states that we are “ ... one nation, under God ...” perhaps it is worth mentioning that such does not denote a singular God, merely a singular nation.
We must be politically united in the constitutional right that religion can be publicly divided but that such division is the very reason why religion can not, it must not, ever be used to mandate governmental policy. For whose religion would you choose to authorize such by? Which church’s “sins” would you choose to replicate as law?
Furthermore, separation of church and state not only protects our governing process but such also protects our freedom to worship. Our executive, legislative and judicial branches of government should never be allowed to repress our worshipping practices into one nationalized religion. A person's relationship with God is a very intimate thing and I shudder to think that my government would ever try and regulate when I could and could not go to him in prayer or sing praises in his name.
These are the very ideals that our country fought for, that our founding soldiers died for. This nation was founded upon the very principle of freedom of religion ... a freedom that gives us the right to worship, or not worship, a God of our own choosing.
As human beings, we have the right to have our lives and property protected by law from others that would do us harm. But, for example, in the case of gay civil unions involving two consenting adults, tell me ... what life or property is at risk? And in the case of a woman’s right to choose, tell me ... why should such a personal, private decision, involving the woman’s body alone, ever be taken away from her? Simply because they’re deemed “sinful” by one's church is not enough to demand governmental legislation.
But on the flip side of the separation argument, there are those who seek to completely remove all hints and whispers of a God, of faith, of religion from the governing of our public lives. There are those who believe the phrase "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and that the words "In God We Trust" be removed from our national currency. There are those who believe that the mere mentioning of God or of prayer should remain absent in speeches within the political forum.
But to do so would be a great disservice to our nation's spiritual ability to share in the broader commonalty of the belief in a higher power. The concept of a higher power, unlike some argumentative religions, unites; it does not divide. A higher power urges us to feed the hungry and to clothe the poor. A higher power urges us to provide affordable housing and to supply the educational tools needed so that our children might reach their highest potential. A higher power urges us to care for our oldest citizens and for our veterans, to respect the contributions they have given to America. A higher power urges us to provide medicine and health care for those that are sick and in need. And perhaps most importantly, a higher power loves us all - regardless of our race, our religion, our sexual orientation or political affiliation.
A higher power has many names but whatever you may choose to call such, be it God or conscience, a higher power believes in you and a higher power believes in the preeminence of democracy.
Our founding fathers had the right idea; they knew what they were doing. Their concept of separation of church and state was radical and innovative in its time and it continues to stimulate debate to this day. They understood that the concept of one's faith was a very personal issue and that faith was and still is, by its very definition, a matter of hopeful belief, a belief not needing to translate to factual governmental law. But they also knew that such faith has the power to unite, the power to awaken, the power to enlighten, the power to call a person to duty.
Barack Obama has heard that call.
Barack Obama's Call To Renewal Keynote Address given on June 28, 2006 in Washington DC is, in my opinion, the perfect example of a man of great faith demonstrating the common sense and reasoning we need when faced with the heady mixture of religion and politics. He understands the challenges and the limitations on the separation of church and state. But he also understands humanity's desire for a belief ... for a purpose ... in something much larger than themselves.
