"But the greatest of these is love...."

Here's an interesting table from Wikipedia:

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships
[hide]Marriage Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark: · Denmark proper France Iceland Mexico:1 · DF, QRNetherlands: · Netherlands proper New Zealand: · New Zealand proper Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom: · England & Wales† United States: · CA, CT, DE, DC, · HI, IL†, IA, ME, MD, · MA, MN, NH, NJ, · NM (8 counties),2 · NY, RI, VT, WA, · 8 tribesUruguay Recognized Israel Netherlands:3 · Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten United States: · Federal government, · NM, OR
[show]Civil unions and registered partnerships
[show]Unregistered cohabitation
[show]See also
† Not yet in effect Valid in all 31 states No statewide law governs same-sex marriage; counties issue under their own volition or court order If performed in the Netherlands
LGBT portal
v t e

So, what stands out here?   Don't we think it's pretty interesting that with one exception, all of the nations on this chart are or were part of Christendom? 

This is the table for Civil Partnerships:

[hide]Civil unions and registered partnerships Andorra Australia: · ACT, NSW, QLD, · TAS, VIC Austria Colombia Czech Republic Denmark: · Greenland Ecuador Finland Germany Hungary Ireland Isle of Man Jersey Mexico: · COA, COL, JAL Liechtenstein Luxembourg Slovenia Switzerland United Kingdom United States: · CO, NV, · OR, WI Venezuela: · Mérida

It seems as though the culture has taken in the teaching about the highest Christian value, and taken it seriously - even as the church itself has forgotten it completely.   And I think it really has - particularly, as far as I can tell, in America.

Perhaps it's time for the church to take a long, hard, truthful look at itself, and to wonder why it's become so angry, and so unable to love.....

Mutual sacrifice

I've seen, many times, in the argument over same-sex marriage, the idea advanced "one-man/one-woman marriage is the foundation of society, and for the sake of the children produced in marriage, and thus for the future of society, it should have its own place - a special elevated niche."

I actually have quite a lot of sympathy with this idea.  Clearly, male/female unions are extremely important; they are first-class, simply because they produce new life.  They do need to be elevated and exalted, I think - and supported by the entire society.  Not that same-sex unions are any less valuable to the people in them (including any kids), but that the very place where life is created is, in fact, something sui generis and extremely important.  It could be that it ought to be formally recognized as such, in the law.

So then, gay couples could sacrifice the idea of "marriage," and settle for "civil unions," just as a way of demonstrating their respect for the institution of heterosexual marriage.  Gay couples could say:  "We acknowledge the importance of your union to us and to our society.  We will no longer ask for 'marriage'; instead, we will accept a separate-but-equal status, simply as a way to acknowledge the central importance of the creation of life that's at the heart of your union.  You shall have 'marriage'; we shall have 'civil union.'"

In return, heterosexual couples couples could politely demur, saying:  "No.  You shall have marriage, just as we do.  There is no reason to turn you into second-class citizens.  You may not be quite what we are, but you are human beings nonetheless - and besides, it's just totally silly to have two sets of parallel laws that do exactly the same thing."

See?  "Mutual sacrifice."  After you.   And even if it didn't go this way - if the return gesture didn't happen, that is:  we'll still end up with "civil unions," the legal, equal recognition of our partnerships.   I don't see the problem with this, myself - but of course, I'm not in a partnership, either, so perhaps there is some problem with it.

(It really is rather stupid, in the end, to have two sets of laws that do exactly the same thing, merely for the sake of a word.  But then, this has all become quite a ridiculous discussion at this point, hasn't it?  I just got off another of those threads wondering why we shouldn't allow incestuous marriage, if we allowed same-sex ones.  Yikes.)

"The Best Year Ever for Gay Rights in America"

From The Atlantic, on today's landmark SCOTUS rulings.  Thinking over the past 40 years, it's quite an amazing thing, really.

Michael Knaapen, left, and his husband John Becker, right, embrace outside the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. (Charles Dharapak/Associated Press)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and declined to reinstate California's Proposition 8. As a result, gay marriage will be legal in America's most populous state, and gay couples legally married in their states will enjoy federal benefits such as joint tax filing and inheritance rights.

The decisions -- greeted by a jubilant crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington -- cap off an epic year of progress for gay-marriage advocates. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 13 states, more than double the number from just a year ago. Thirty percent of Americans now live in a state where gay couples can legally marry, and nearly half live in a state that recognizes gay relationships in some form, be it marriage or civil union.

"Our country's movement on this issue has been nothing short of breathtaking," said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of the center-left think tank Third Way, who compiled these statistics. "The country has come to realize that we should not stand in the way of couples who want to make that commitment [of marriage], and today's decisions ensure that our laws reflect that principle."

Public opinion has moved quickly, with slim majorities in most national polls now saying gay marriage should be legal. Last May, President Obama embraced the issue, becoming the first American president to favor gay marriage -- and, with his reelection, the first to campaign successfully on a pro-gay-marriage platform. In November, four states voted in favor of gay marriage -- the first-ever wins for gay marriage at the ballot box. Previously, more than 30 states had voted to ban gay marriage. Recognizing the tide of public sentiment, politicians from both parties have also changed their positions on the issue in recent months.
Advocates believe the shifting public tide and the court ruling are not unrelated -- that the Court would not impose something the country didn't seem ready to accept. And while the decision is a boon for gay rights, it was not as sweeping as it could have been. Whether out of caution or legal reasoning, the Court did not take the radical step of making gay marriage legal nationwide, as it theoretically could have done.

But it's stunning to realize how far gay marriage has come in such a short time. When the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, a Democratic president and 85 senators supported it, and there was not a single state where gays could be legally married. Even in 2008, when Californians approved Prop 8, gay marriage was only legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut, imposed by judicial fiat in both states; not a single legislature or referendum had approved it.

What a difference a few years makes. "It seems it is only a matter of time," Erickson Hatalsky writes, "before all committed couples can make the lifetime promise of marriage, and receive full state and federal recognition of that relationship."