Jul. 02, 2003 - 19:42 MDT

THE WONDERING JEW

By The Foot

Daddy told me to never discuss politics or religion with anyone ever. But it looks to me that most every one has become vocal to the max about both, including the the anathema of talking about sex. So I guess any euphemistic, rabble rouser has the right to talk about it all, all rolled into one ball of worms.

I don't claim to be a rabble rouser, but do claim to be a man with some decided opinions.

So as the politicians are working to do now, make it a law that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman. They may have a point, marriage in reality goes way back into Biblical times and Biblical meanings. I have no bone to pick with that.

But then, we have some radical folk that hold that marriage between humans and dogs should be legal, or horror, marriage between men and men or women and women. And they are active too, and of course outspoken -- as they have a right to be. I do however think they are a bit misguided.

But what if the biblical definition of marriage be confirmed by our Supreme Court ?

Mixed motives for the loud-mouthry ? Dunno. Seems to me though that gays should be pressing for legal bonds that would have the same effect as marriage without classifying it as such. Certainly two people should be able to confirm commitment to each other, in the form of a legal document (call it what you will) that will give them the right of survivorship, the right to ask for medical treatment for their partner and medical insurance coverage and all that entails. The relatives of those people committed in that way should not, I think, have the right in case of death to take over the property, insurance and things belonging jointly to a couple and leaving the lone partner out of the picture.

So, are the very vocal religious types right in the way they think ? I guess so. Let it be that way.

Are the gays right in wanting the same rights as married peope ? Sure, I think so anyway, so long as legal papers of committment are signed and witnessed, but not called marriage. A binding partnership, hard to dissolve and enforceable by law. What's wrong with that ?

Through the centuries committed people have done what they feel is right, stood by each other faithfully and made the welfare of their partner prime in their lives. For the most part they weren't raving, "Call it marriage, call it marriage !" Why should they ? They were always busy living their lives as they saw fit and proper and doing the utmost for each other.

Perhaps I am too simplistic and naive to even talk about this, but it seems to me that each side is busy quibbling over words when the thing they need to do is to come to agreement over a lifetime partnership between two people, legal and binding and giving the same rights as married people -- except calling each other husband and or wife - to say they are married. I dunno, is this another dead horse to pound into hamburger ? My opinion.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have over the years become accustomed to noting that a grandchild has gained inches in height as the years pass. Increments, noted yet not quite shockingly noticed. We have before us our Oregon daughter's son, 13 years of age. The last I saw him he was of normal height for his age, seemingly growing at a normal rate. When the Oregon contingent appeared this time, although the grand daughter appears to be of normal height, grandson has grown into a giant overnight. Six feet and still going, he is huge. Normal in musculature and energy, but oh, how he has grown.

Another area shows he is growing too. He is much more peaceful, less antsy and more respectful to other folk, yet not a zombie but a man with an active mind and sensibilities. In my eyes he is pretty well a man now, and I salute him. This last go around he hasn't grown by the inch, but By The Foot . . . . . . . . .

Blog