There are few national discussions that have come on so rapidly, yet have made their way to every corner of this diverse country, as the current debate over gay marriage.
To those of you who are new to this column, I’m to the left of center. You know, I’m that word, “liberal,” which the conservative movement in this country has tried so hard to make into an expletive.

Dictionary.com’s number one definition does it for me: “Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.”

However, I’m not a “knee jerk liberal” and do consider issues carefully and then most of the time, find myself standing with the liberals, or them with me. I don’t cling to one party’s or group’s ideology.

I think.

All of you should, too!

And this is an issue worthy of thought. There is much available in the recent writings and ramblings of every pundit whoever punditted. There is an “awful” lot available at your place of worship. Sadly those who claim they were put on this earth to interpret God’s word really missed his message of all-inclusive love. How, from the supreme deity’s love, could we wind up with anything but those who preach love and equality for all?

I don’t care what you call him (or her) or in what church you worship (or in no church at all), I believe the “ultimate power,” the “moral imperative,” the “human purpose,” is positive. It is a message of inclusion and affection.

Black, white, yellow, green, gay, straight, handicapped, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, short, tall, fat, thin, and all those colors, religions, sexual preferences and shapes I omitted, are all to be accepted and embraced as equal.

No, I’m not going to become a Hindu. Nor do I intend to try a gay lifestyle, nor do I wish to experience the life of a handicapped person. I’m fine with “white.” Tall and thin on the other hand . . .

But just because I’m happy with the lot I’ve drawn doesn’t mean I don’t respect or acknowledge as equal your religion, color, size shape or sexual preference. It may be strange to me. It might make me feel uncomfortable – I’m more at home in a synagogue than a mosque or flirting with a woman than a man, but that doesn’t diminish your right to flirt and pray how and with whom you want.

Before this debate began spinning out of control, it was simpler and clearer. Back a number of years ago, I would ask candidates for public office: “Do you favor equal rights for gays?” The substance of that question, when defined, related to housing, jobs, health and pension benefits and, of course, no discrimination based on sexual preference. By avoiding, or just not raising the term “marriage,” most of the candidates seeking office in New York City embraced – make that accepted – equal rights for gays. At least the Dems did. There still exists that conservative wing of the Republican Party that seems on what they consider “moral issues” to be dictated to by those same folks who believe they were put here to interpret God’s words.

Then, some three years ago, I started adding gay marriage to my interview list of standard questions. And candidate after candidate started to duck, avoid and dodge the issue with an equal rights for gays answer. Few, if any would endorse the term “marriage.”

Well over night, the debate has changed. The word marriage is now the issue. I’m not sure if it’s good or bad that marriage and not equality is the subject of the national debate, but it is. The President, along with activist mayors in San Francisco and New Paltz and the court in Massachusetts have changed and intensified the debate.

I knew where the equal rights debate would wind up. This country holds on to the concept of equality, above most other things. As long as that equality doesn’t impact safety or religion, the United States comes down on the right (read correct, not position on the political spectrum) side – although it often takes too much time.

As far as introducing the word “marriage” to the debate, we now have conflict with archaic religious precepts and the American debate gets clouded. The word “equality” is pushed back by many behind the word “morality.” And again those folks who claim to interpret the wishes of God think they should dictate to our government.

Our founding fathers when creating this nation with separation of church and state, based on equality, did not include women or slaves as equal. However, the process they envisioned allowed the Constitution to be amended to correct their terrible omissions.

And now, in the third millennium, along comes an American president who proposes to utilize the amendment process, not to expand individual rights, but to deny an entire class of citizens absolute equality. My position on this act and the man behind it is clear. Whether or not you embrace gay marriage, you should reject amending our Constitution to deny rights to anyone and you should reject the narrow-minded man behind it.

I think the gay rights movement would have been better off strategically by winning the national debate on equal rights and avoiding the term marriage for now. But I understand any group wanting true and complete equality.
And how can such a basic human right be denied?

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.