Fighting Over The Definition Of A Word

Ever since Gov. Eliot Spitzer's extra-marital rendezvous came to light back in early March, it seems that New York has had a streak of making national news. Yesterday was no exception: Gov. David Patterson instructed all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages that are legally performed in other states and countries. It's like a social conservative's nightmare -- no law, just a directive.

To be honest, I have no strong opinion on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that the issue of "gay marriage" is simply a red herring, intended to rally the base of support and distract others from the real issue: equal rights. Two women or two men who decide to commit to each other for the rest of their lives should have the same rights and privileges as a man and a woman who decide to do the same. I don't care what they call it, as long as it happens. I'm talking about healthcare, and tax credits, and social security benefits, and adoption privileges, and more.

150 years ago, slavery was the acceptable norm. 50 years ago, segregation and legislative racism was commonplace. Today, we look back on these times and (most of us) wonder what the country's leaders were thinking, and how this kind of thinking was acceptable. It is laughable to think how the country was when in came to something as simple and obvious as equal rights for those of a different skin color.

Perhaps in 50 years, the next generations will be laughing at us, because we were fighting over the definition of a word.