As I write this, it is November 22nd, 2003. It is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is also just a few days after the Massachusetts ruling regarding gay marriages.

I'm relatively certain that a connection between the two wasn't deliberate. But it's difficult to not pull them together.

In his speech delivered on June 11, 1963, regarding the Civil Rights Act, JFK said "This nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." He also says "In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case."

This particular speech was about issues regarding race, not homosexuality. But it was also about civil rights. And civil rights encompass everyone, not just one specific group. Well, they're supposed to, anyway. Homosexuals still can't get married.

It has been said that allowing homosexuals the right to marry would "violate the sanctity" of marriage. To that I say...who's marriage? I myself have already been divorced once, and a second divorce is forthcoming. No homosexual caused the problems I've had. And it seems to me that allowing them to marry would strengthen said sanctity. They want their unions to be legal, binding, and hopefully permanent. Denying them the right to do so does more to weaken things than allowing it, the way I see it.

JFK said "We are confronted with primarily a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."

The moral issue is a sticky one here, considering what we now know about JFK. However, he did not try to hide behind morals in an attempt to deny anyone a right. He stood up and said that there was simply no reason to deny anyone the rights outlined in the Constitution. "We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that they only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that."

Since I began writing this, I've since been to New York City and seen some friends. Some friends who are planning to be married, and others who want to marry but can't yet.

I understand that a lot of the issue seems to be simple semantics. Some straight people simply don't like the idea of calling a permanent, legal union between homosexuals a "marriage." To that I say...what's the freakin' problem? If it's going to walk like a duck and talk like a duck, call it a duck. I also understand that most homosexuals are willing to take a "civil union" or a "Shirley," even, if it will give them the same legal rights as a married straight couple, and I understand why. I support that, too, although calling it a "marriage" is, in my personal opinion, more preferable.

Because that's what it is. And denying part of the citizenry of the United States the right to do something that I have done and screwed up twice now just isn't fair.

I'll be filing for divorce again next week. Here's hoping that by the time it's final, homosexuals will have the same rights I do.

Back to Issue 17 Index