Into the deep end of the pool…

So the issue of gay marriage has come before the Supreme Court and it seems that everyone is trying to assert their opinions on why they support or oppose gay marriage.  It has gotten personal in many cases and social media has seen an uptick in people changing profile pics in support or opposition of gay marriage.
I have been watching this fight for over 14 years in various forms of Valparaiso University distribution lists and other pages.  Name-calling on both sides has been embarrassing to say the least.  It hasn’t changed my mind about the issue.  And frankly, I am numb from the back and forth.

So, how have I decided to approach the issue?  First, I have decided to eliminate some noisy people from the argument that are more interested in the “My way and you’re wrong and I will embarrass you into coming over to my side” holier-than-thou stance.  Unfortunately, with so many people acting that way, it does reduce how many people I pay attention to.  Since I am a Christian, the Bible has been a source as well.  But there is a lot of deciphering between the Law of the Old Testament and Gospel of the New Testament that it can get confusing.  Examples in my life are playing a role as well.

First off, let me state my belief that marriage is a GOVERNMENT institution in this country.  Marriage certificates are provided by the state and not by religious groups.  Religions and priests have the ability to marry people in this country, but you can also get married at a courthouse, or by anyone who is licensed to wed people.  Heck, in Portland OR, you can get married at a donut shop.  So what purpose does Marriage serve in this country?  The answer is simple:  tax collection.  By the way, this argument was presented to me by an LC-MS pastor—not exactly a liberal type, mind you.  So, if the government decides to legalize gay marriage for tax purposes, who am I to disagree.  And with so many ways to get married, same-sex marriages do NOT have to occur in churches or synagogues that oppose those types of marriages on religious doctrine.  So, same-sex couples can avoid going to get married at religious institutions who disagree with their views—unless they want to force a confrontation.

Let me be clear:  Governments do not care whether you marry for love, marrying up for status, getting married at the point of a shotgun barrel (OK, they might care about “Shotgun” weddings these days, but that’s another point), or whether you marry someone of the same sex.  True, they do care about you marrying blood relatives, but that’s more from a health and genetic standpoint, and nothing else.  All they care about (aside from the blood relative issue) is getting their fair share.

Why are gay people interested in marrying?  Well, a sound reason is for the benefits and the ability to take care of a person they love.  That right is important.  Civil unions are not always recognized by states in certain manners of benefits and taking care of people.  Only marriage is a complete guarantee of certain benefits and rights.

So, is it that simple?  Not completely.  How do you square what is written in the Bible concerning the topic?  It’s not easy, and people who do not ascribe to the Christian view often mock what the Bible says on a number of topics WITHOUT confronting what the Bible says about Homosexuals and Marriage (they choose to attack other parts of the Bible instead of confronting the point directly).  To be fair, Jesus is never asked point blank about his views regarding homosexuality and marriage in the Bible and only St. Paul addresses the topic of homosexuality in the New Testament.  Regarding marriage, Jesus was asked by the teachers of the Law whether is was lawful for a man to divorce his wife, and Jesus gave the same response found in Genesis 2 that a man will leave his father and mother, cling to his wife, the two shall become one flesh, and what God has joined together, let not man separate.  God only allowed divorce because man’s heart was hard.  Privately, Jesus explained to his disciples that anyone who would divorce except for spousal unfaithfulness and remarry was committing adultery.  But then, Jesus revealed something to the disciples that SHOULD SHAKE everyone’s views on marriage (gay, straight, poly, etc.) and it is found in Matthew 19:  Because of the difficulties of maintaining monogamous relationships, it is better for men and women to NOT MARRY in many situations and focus instead on the kingdom of heaven.  However, if one cannot withstand their sexual cravings, they should marry and they should be faithful to their spouse.  Break the marriage covenant, and you commit adultery.  St. Paul affirms this belief in one of his letters to the Corinthian church.  Yes, there are references to Jesus being the groom and the church being the bride, but it is reference to imagery about the kingdom of heaven.

As for my interactions with same-sex couples, well, I’d call it “Fifty Shades of Gay”.  I have never met any two gay people who have had the same perspective on same-sex relationships.  The perspectives have been fascinating.  Some have chosen to live in the closet, only coming out to a few people.  More have chosen to be open about their life.  Some have thrown their lifestyle in the face of others.  And some have chosen to live a relatively quiet life.  And some live in variations of all four types.  Their reasons for being gay are infinite.  In short, no different than how heterosexual people live their lives.  I will say the lives of my same-sex relationship friends from Georgia have been the more positive portrayals.  It is their examples and the voices of my childhood friends who have supported gay marriage that have more than offset the counterproductive attitudes that have largely come from the Valparaiso contingent, which to a significant extent has largely held the “I’m right, your wrong, and I’m going to mock you even if you change your opinion one day” attitude.  There are some from VU who have tried to engage in a rational discussion on the matter, but it is few and far between. 

So what now?  Now we find out if this will be resolved legislatively or judicially.  Either way, we need more productive discussions on the matter and less in-your-face confrontations (I’m looking specifically at you, Mr. Arnold).  It’s time for the “adults” to sort this out.  And we’ll be better for it the sooner we do it.

South America’s Yugoslavia…

Less than a year ago, I predicted that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez had less than a year to live, sorely based on his own words.  And despite assurances from his advisors trying to maintain all is well, Chavez’s own words and, at the end of his life, his lack of words told the truth.  Even though there were claims of a heart attack and that the US was involved, cancer ultimately claimed the life of the South American leader at the age of 58. 

So now what?  Well, let’s look at what I said about a year ago for a possible clue:

“He (Chavez) effectively owns every major company in the country, and whatever he doesn’t own, he uses his power to try and take it.  Several once prosperous companies are now being run into the ground by Chavez allies, all in the name of allegedly helping the poor and spreading the revolution, but in reality, it is keeping those allies from turning on him.  In short, he is Venezuela.

But what happens when you remove a leader like Chavez from the equation?  To answer that, you don’t have to look very far into the past at a country once known as Yugoslavia.  Josef Broz (better known as Tito) was the undisputed leader of Yugoslavia from 1948 until his death in 1980.  He ruled with a iron fist, but his charisma managed to keep conflicting factions from wiping each other out by integration and intimidation.  But upon his death, no one was able to match his leadership abilities, and within 10 years, the country began to split apart, factions began committing genocide, and once beautiful countries were reduced to ruin that have taken years to rebuild…

When a leader who consolidates all the power and resources to himself or herself over a period of time, their departure means their subordinates or others will fight over control of that power.  Rarely does a successor have the iron will or charisma to keep the power to themselves, though the obvious counterexample is the former Soviet Union, where Josef Stalin was an even more larger than life figure than Lenin.  It is unlikely, based on what we know about the situation in Venezuela, that there is a successor who can even match, much less be bigger than Hugo Chavez.  That means trouble for Venezuela once Chavez has left the scene.  And it’s not just Venezuela.  What happens in Cuba, once old age finally claims the Castro brothers and their brothers in arms from the 1950s revolution?

Regardless of what you think of Chavez, the country is Venezuela is now tied to him.  His imprint will long affect that country, even after he is gone.  His untimely departure is not a scenario I look forward to, regardless of my opinion of Hugo.”

Chavez’s allies are trying to portray Hugo as an eternal entity.  But Venezuela has real problems that not even Hugo could easily face.  The currency is falling, basic food staples are in short supply, and crime is rampant across the country.  The oil industry in Venezuela can only survive so long without the major capital investment improvements that companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, and others could provide.  And if the TransCanada pipeline is approved, oil companies will likely favor a more friendly Canada for development as opposed to a hostile Venezuela.  The oil productivity in Venezuela will continue to decline in years to come unless the nation gives oil companies a reason to invest.  And without constantly flowing oil money, the situation in Venezuela will only get worse. 

New President Maduro can only hold the people in check so long without descending into an unpopular dictatorship.  And can all of Hugo’s former allies work together without Hugo’s charisma at work?  History shows not likely.

I hate to say this, but Venezuela will have issues for years to come.  And their allies in Cuba won’t live forever.  It’s about to get really interesting for the bombastic anti-US leaders in Latin America… and not in a good way.