The view from my desk

So there’s this section on page 31 of the 2012 Republican Platform, “Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage.” It starts off,

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. 

Aside from that last sentence being a distortion of fact, if not blatantly untrue, and that I vehemently disagree with the use of “traditional” (I suppose implying “heterosexual”) marriage, I can handle this. Frankly, I kind of agree with the first two sentences, in specific contexts, but obviously that is not exclusive to so-called “traditional” families. Anyway, it’s nothing you wouldn’t expect from Republican bigots. 

But then the paragraph concludes with this little gem: 

…the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity [EMPHASIS ADDED].

Excuse me, I need to go find my dreidel; a reality check is in order. Nope, not a dream. What kind of parallel universe are Republicans living in that such an exclusionary proclamation can be concluded with “respect and dignity”… RAGE, RAINBOW-HULKIFIED ANGER.

advocatephotos:

Newsweek hopped on the colorful cover bandwagon on Sunday with the above image of Barack Obama dubbed as “The First Gay President.” Accompanying the bold headline is the President with a rainbow-colored halo. This comes only days after he announced his support for marriage equality in an ABC news interview.

Two general approaches to Christian sexuality can be discerned in the early church, distinct in their relation to “orientation.” The earliest, evident in the New Testament, is similar to the “sex is dangerous” approach of pagan ethics: eroticism is a troublesome aspect of a fallen world; Christians should attempt to control it through responsible use. This approach would not, in itself, create distinctions based on gender object choice, because it focuses on the permanence and fidelity of erotic relationships, qualities that could be and were present in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships in the ancient world. Longlasting homosexual unions and even official marriages were known in Greece and Rome, and Christian ceremonies of union for males closely resembling, if not actually constituting, marriage were also common in parts of the Christian world throughout the Early Middle Ages; they invoked well known pairs of saints as models for permanent, erotic same-sex relationships. Even in areas were such relationships were not recognized, there was through the end of the twelfth century a strong tradition in Christian thought which regarded homosexuality and heterosexuality as two sides of the same coin - either could be put to good or bad use, depending on the extent to which it was directed toward godly or ungodly ends. Any faithful and selfless passion subordinated to God’s love, in this tradition, might be holy and sanctifying, just as any selfish lust was sinful.