It’s only love

Before I get to today's topic, a few programming notes.

1. Sheeba asked me to tell you all that he appreciates the worship and well-deserved appreciation, but would like me to remind everyone that "I am not a GIRL!" Long story short, the person Ken got him from thought Sheeba was a girl (no comment), and Ken named her Sheeba, after his very first cat, Shee. (I think that's right--he'll correct me if I'm wrong.) We saw pretty quickly that Sheeba the girl kitty had a couple of extra body parts that she shouldn't have had, and we realized that Sheeba was a Heeba. And yes, he's very lucky (and very spoiled) to have a personal masseur.

2. Notre Dame-Michigan State coming up in about an hour. I'm already feeling agitated and nervous, so I'm working some of that out by writing. [Update as I get ready to post this: ND 7-MSU 0...now it's 7-3. Now 13-3. 13-10! Guess I'd better post this soon! Stop with the penalties already, Irish—they’re killing you!]

3. Scott the Botanist has posted his entry about Swamp Angel Nature Preserve. It's an excellent write-up, and I especially enjoyed the part about the parasitic plants, including the pitcher plant I mentioned here. I hope you'll stop by and see the viewpoint of a professional, rather than that of just a casual observer like me.

Now, to the topic at hand!

A Facebook friend posted this picture today, and I loved it. I've been pondering an entry about this for a while, and decided it was high time I did so.

I grow increasingly impatient with those who would legislate their own version of morality based on their religious views. Morality is a vague and subjective term based upon many criteria, including societal and philosophical. There can also be a religious element in there, but when it comes to legislation, it must also be vague and not predicated on any one religion or faith. People can quote the Bible or any other sacred text they want to, but in looking at this collection of Deuteronomy verses, I think most of us would agree that we cannot take much of this literally. If we stoned every woman who isn't a virgin when she gets married, we could very well be looking at the end of our species!

One of the great things about where we live is that we have the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe. Even if we don't want to believe anything at all. Whatever we believe, it doesn't mean that religion can be forced onto anyone else, or that it should shape our laws. Societal morality is one thing; religious morality is quite another. In other words, it is against the law to steal from someone because you are taking what is rightfully theirs—not because the Bible says it's wrong.

So when it comes to gay marriage, I look at it as a civil rights issue, not a religious one. Our country prides itself on equality for all, although we often fall miserably short of that worthy goal. Let me put it to you straight (so to speak): I don't care if you quote scripture at me until you're blue in the face. Your religion has no place in this debate. You are trying to force your religious beliefs on what is an equality and civil rights issue, and that is wrong. God doesn't approve of gay marriage, you say? So what? Apparently he doesn't approve of women who aren't virgins entering into marriage, either, and I don't see us trying to legislate that. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I believe it's a valid one. It's time to get beyond this argument, because we don't legislate based on any religion or any religious tenets.

In the past, I was one of those who felt, okay, let marriage be between a man and a woman, but let civil unions—with all the benefits conferred to hetero couples—be okay for whoever wants them. I explored my thinking on this a little further, and realized that I had no good reason why that should be the rule. I believe completely that people are born the way they are, and love who they are wired to love. It's based on genetics, nothing more. (I still laugh at the Homosexual Agenda that so many people talk about. I'd be interested in getting a copy of that, if anyone has one.) If that's the case, that it's genetic, why should marriage be denied to anyone? Simple answer: it shouldn't. Don't even get me started on that "pray away the gay" bullshit.

I worked with a guy in Indianapolis who spent many years with his "husband" (not legally married here in Indiana, obviously, but that's the way they thought of each other). He stuck with his husband through years of severe illness; stuck with him as he suffered amputations, became confined to a wheelchair, and went blind due to diabetes. His husband was an artist, and his blindness made him angry and hard to deal with, but my friend stuck by him all the way to the very end. His sense of loss was as profound as anyone I've encountered who has lost a spouse, and their commitment to each other was every bit as real. They should have been allowed to marry...for real.

It's time to set aside objections based on religious grounds—they have no place in this debate. As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Gay marriage will soon be the law of the land. It will happen. It is inevitable, because it is the right—and only—thing to do.