"The well being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established." ~Bahá'u'lláh
The concept of world peace is surely not new to you. The idea that it just might come about — now that is a revolutionary concept.
As a child I watched Elroy Jetson with a certain bemusement, flitting about in his jet pack, popping food pills, and relying on Rosy the Robot to keep his room clean. Likewise in Disney World's Tomorrowland I gazed in amazement at what was once envisione d for our future. Monorails and jet packs were just the optimistic incarnations of that Cold war futurism — but in science fiction particularly we find the more sinister predictions. Luminaries such as Bradbury, Roddenberry, and Gibson penned tales of continuing exploitation of all that humanity might invent. While their tales were scoffed at or ignored by the masses, especially when the Cold War ended with fall-out-free winters, the days of past present may be returning to the present future.
"When you look at marriage, it's between a man and a woman," Ms. Goldford said. "Biblically, homosexuality isn't in the plan." (today's New York Times). I'm sorry Ms. Goldford, but we do not live in a theocracy. Please base your vote on secular arguments. Unfortunately I'm too late for my elementary-years-state-of-residence: Missouri voters have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. And probably based mostly on the simple religious truism above.
As a matter of religious conviction —and standard English language definition (this definition has shifted since the post was originally written) — I have never felt that the term "gay marriage" meant much of anything, and would, perhaps, even call it an oxymoron. When the government, however, tries to step in and reinforce that definition with legal statutes, I immediately react against it as an unwarranted and discriminatory encroachment upon civil rights.
I understand that this is, for many, a large and complex issue that deserves real thought and consideration. I welcome the debate in the Senate, and trust that this august body will realize that a "marriage amendment" is not in keeping with the spirit and text of the Constitution of the United States—the most powerful secular document ever conceived. I acknowledge that there are instances where the federal government must act to protect the public safety and in doing so, moral questions do at times come up. Nevertheless, I cannot see that the banning of "gay marriages" is a matter for federal jurisdiction or concern; I cannot see that it is a matter of such overwhelming importance to the continued functioning of our society that it should be enshrined in our Constitution.
