RelationshipsTruthandNow.com Blog

My concern is that we clarify “the issue” so that we can reduce the level of passion, and forestall the increasing possibility of a “serious national–even international–conflict!” What the issue is not. The issue is not ‘equal rights or civil rights.’ People of goodwill and supporters of the Constitution of the United States of America support and defend everyone’s “equal rights under the law.” There is no issue there. The issue is not about any differences, therefore, in “rights” granted to married couples and rights granted to gay couples. The legal rights are the same, as it should be! The issue is not even whether people approve or disapprove of gay couples. That position is a matter of choice–just as whether people approve or disapprove of intercultural or interracial marriage. Neither disapproval nor approve affects the ‘legal rights’ of the individuals, as it should be!

The central issue, then, is THE UNIVERSAL DEFINITION/UNDERSTANDING OF ‘MARRIAGE.’ Should we change the definition of marriage? Why should we change the definition of marriage? How should we change the definition of marriage? Shall “three-some relationships” and polygamous relationships have a place within the “revised definition of marriage?” If not, why not? See where this is going?

Traditionally, around the world, ‘the universal understanding’ of marriage is that every such union has the following minimum, similar characteristics: 1) a woman, 2) a man, 3) a presumed capacity for procreation [without 'third party' involvement]. If we agree to these minimum criteria, we resolve our current dilemma!

Let’s call same-sex unions “gay marriage,” if we wish. Let’s call gay unions “domestic marriage,” or let’s arrive at a suitable and acceptable term. But, let us no longer confuse the issue. Same-sex couples ‘cannot engage in procreation.’ That rules out their unions as ‘marriages,’ given the definition above. It does not take away or diminish the value, essence, and importance of their unions, legally or personally. We have many kinds of “vehicles,” but a car is not a truck, a bus is not a train, a boat is not a plane…but they are VEHICLES. Marriage, civil union, gay marriage, domestic partnership, legal marriage, same-sex marriage, gay union, domestic couple, and others attempt to describe “very special private connections between two people,” religion, romance, companionship, love, protection, finances, culture notwithstanding! But, only “marriage” offers procreation, making it different from the other “unions.” If we object or disagree with this reality, then let us change the meaning; let us have a Proposition to decide the meaning of marriage. Or, did California just do that on November 4, 2008?

When it comes to the one-word description–marriage–let’s not call it marriage unless it 1) has two people, male and female, 2) promises procreation, and 3) excludes three or more and those of the same sex, who cannot, together, reproduce the human race.

Now, if we are focused on civil rights, human rights, individual rights, private choices, I am out front in defense of everyone’s “Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!” And, I will defend a gay person’s right to choose his or her own partner, with full legal privileges–no questions asked! NL–

‘Marriage,’ understood in most countries around the world and deeply embedded in the religious and cultural traditions of peoples who are very different in many ways, but who tend to be “rather similar in their ‘traditional’ understanding and beliefs about ‘the marriage construct or contract,’ seem to agree on one basic definition of marriage.”

Around the world, various peoples and cultures support and subscribe to the notion that ‘marriage’ is “that union between two Homo-sapiens who have the potential to reproduce the species, without the involvement of a third Homo-sapien.” Any union meeting this ‘general standard’ is deemed, universally, to be “a marriage.” Of course, there are ‘civil marriages,’ ‘holy marriages,’ ‘cultural marriages,’ interracial marriages,’ ‘intercultural marriages,’ ‘arranged marriages,’ ‘common-law marriages,’ ‘forced marriages,’ ‘legal marriages,’ ‘bad marriages,’ ‘teen marriages,’ ‘religious marriages,’ and ‘mixed marriages,’ among possible others. What they all have in common–supposedly–is their potential for reproduction without any ‘third party’ involvement.

Gays do not imply or assert that they can “reproduce the human race, without third party intervention.” Thus, the love and protection and service and companionship and all the other wonderful benefits gays bring to each other do not, and cannot meet the ‘critical criterion measure’ of reproduction [without third party assistance]. Therefore, “civil unions, equal under the law to the legal benefits of traditional marriages” simply need their own ‘universally accepted name.’ That name should not be ‘marriage.’

So, what is the “gay issue?” On the one hand, when I thought the issue was whether to call gay unions by the traditional union term–marriage–I “voted Yes on Proposition 8.” My sentiment being that “marriage was between woman and man, with the potential for reproducing the human race [without any third party intervention or assistance].” I thought it unreasonable–and unwarranted–to arbitrarily change our historical and traditional understanding and definition of “the marriage union’s possibilities” or the name by which it is historically known.

On the other hand, when I thought the issue was “rights for gay partners that are equal under the law to rights accorded straight partners,” I “voted No on Proposition 7.” My sentiment being that UNDER THE LAW GAYS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO THE SAME LEGAL BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES ACCORDED non-gay couples. Such ‘other’ unions are based upon the “legal rights of adults to choose their mates, for their own private reasons [without the "necessary" approval of anyone or of any segment of the general population, so long as ' reasonable communal standards' are respected and observed]. This same standard also applies to “straight couples.” No legal rights should be denied whether couples are gay or straight!

“The gay issue” seems to be more about a ‘word’ than about a ‘right.’ I wish this were not the case. I pray that my gay sisters and my gay brothers will arrive at “an acceptable name” to call their “civil unions.” Conversely, if gay unions were first to use the term “marriage,” as a “straight person” I would want a different name to describe my union with a member of the opposite sex. I would want this because my partner and I would hold the key to the survival of the human race. She and I–alone–could “replenish the earth.” That is something that neither Law nor human will can legislate or endow.

Whether you are religious or not, whether you are for or against gay unions, whether you are for or against heterosexual partnerships, and no matter what country or culture you are proud to embrace, neither our good intentions nor our greatest capacity to love, cherish, and protect can dictate whether the coming together of two human beings has the capacity to reproduce the race. But, those unions of two human beings that can keep the human race going deserve the honor of our ‘traditional understanding and belief.’ These deserve to be known as ‘marriages.’

Civil unions between same-sex partners deserve the honor of their own name–different from the ‘traditional’ union. My fear is: if we do not–now–call civil unions by ‘another name,’ what will we do as a society when five, ten or fifteen years from now, “three-some” or “four-some” or polygamous unions shall “demand equal rights under the law,” that they be recognized as ‘marriages?’ NL–

This is the day we think of you–veterans–as heroes and as heroines, not as homeless persons or as ‘beggars.’

This is the day we remember your nobler deeds, not your vast distance from the affluence and greed that you served ‘to protect.’

This is the day we cherish headstones and tombs, rows and rows of marble, even isolated grave markers of wood, plastic, paper, tin, or whatever stick or wood was available.

This is the day we smile, or weep or cry; the day we wonder: if you had lived–or not have survived–what more then, on this day?

This is the day we remember the pain and suffering of our former enemies, who are now our friends: the day we remember men and women who knew they would die.

So, on this Veterans’ Day I ask the telling question, before this time another year, how will we remember and honor those who survived the war–and returned home?

When I was a little boy, growing up in Savannah, Georgia, I was always filled with excitement when the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other patriotic groups would stage parades. I especially liked the various animals that were in the processions. But, nothing made a greater impression upon me than the American Flag! For me, the Flag became infectious…even to this day! In my adult years, I was once rebuked and shunned by a person I called a friend; this happened when he visited my home on Flag Day. My flag goes up [when not left up continuously!] at the slightest ‘invitation.’

He criticized my displaying “the man’s flag” and I argued it was MY FLAG! He called me an unkind name that I was foolish enough to ‘acknowledge’ “this man’s country.” And, I responded: This is MY COUNTRY. My forefathers–and fore-mothers–bled and died developing this country. So, America IS my country; I share in its ‘ownership!’ And, this is how I raised my three children–understanding that this is THEIR COUNTRY, because it is MY COUNTRY, therefore it is THEIRS. That they should ‘lay claim’ to their pieces of “this good earth.”

I learned as I grew to my present 74 years of age that there were more “good people” in America than there were “bad people.” Even during our ugliest past, the people were better than their beliefs and understandings. I grew up loving my country, and I learned to love Americans who “appeared not to love me and people who looked like me.” I also empathized with the painful memories of “Civil War and historic mistakes made by brothers and sisters, finding themselves a divided people.”

Tonight, my fellow Americans, you have put to rest the troubled ghosts of our deceased ancestors–whether they perished ‘honorably’ or ‘dishonorably,’ as “war heroes” or as “indentured servants.” Tonight, you have finally buried your restless dead. Congratulations, people of America. I love you still, “O, Mother Land” (see Mood Poetry for Everyone, Anderson, 2007). Hotep, Norhm Lee, Ph.D.

P.S. The acceptance speech of President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama is playing on CNN. Goodnight.

I am a Republican…for Obama. I believe he is “God’s gift” to America–and to the world! Somehow, we as human beings are in more peril than we know. I believe we are much closer to “a religious war” than anyone has brought to public attention. I believe this is a very dangerous threat–if it is real–and God is providing the human race “a saving grace.” Barack Hussein Obama is sent by God; this is my view, and I am grateful for the blessings.

On Wednesday, November 5, 2008 people around the world will rejoice with a positive energy that could provide the equivalent energy to run every machine on earth for a lifetime! Why do I make such an outlandish statement? I speak what I “feel inside…down in my special-message place.” No more, no less.

Americans from “both sides of the aisles” will feel a sense of pride and joy–like we have not felt since the best days of President John F. Kennedy! Whether we voted for Barack Hussein Obama or not, we will feel the affection and positive energy directed toward America and Americans from every part of the world! Our ‘national stock,’ to use a Wall Street analogy, will sore! Our moral leadership will be instantly restored, in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people!

Americans will begin to realize as we never have before the high esteem with which the peoples of the world wish to hold us! I say wish to hold us because they have held us high in the past and have lost much of that esteem over the years of our dipping prestige and believability. President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama shall be the instrumentality of a re-birth, of the character of America and of the character of the world-at-large.

President-Elect Obama will reach out–even too far on the first day [his critics will say]! He will spare no time re-stating his intent to be PRESIDENT OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And until the swearing in ceremonies January 20, 2009, more unifying activities will take place than have ever been noted in the history of our great country.

And, for the fragile–those who cannot shake your worse fears for the safety and success of President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama–be not dismayed: He is chosen by God; he “has been sent” as the core of “an invisible cosmic energy” which shall transform our earthly existence. This will happen, whether Obama lives or dies. You and I are not privileged to draw ‘the critical distinction.’

Congratulations, President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama! I think you know–and if you do not yet know, for sure, you will learn–what I told the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., exactly ten years before his death: “You are on a special mission, not of your own doing; stay focused and enjoy your journey. Take no thought of our material domain; yours is a mission too glorious to know.” Amen.

GOD LOVES AMERICA…AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES, and their peoples, as individuals. This, I believe.

There are exactly “three essential issues” involved in the “gay marriage” proposition that has energized the California electorate–if not the entire country! They are clear and precise issues, but are not clearly identified and are not ‘honestly’ argued, defended, articulated, or for that matter, understood. Passion clouds the critical issue. Let me explain (of course, I am presuming my fundamental premise is correct!). The three issues are: 1) the traditional view of marriage; 2) the equal rights–legally speaking–of individuals, especially of adults to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage (same sex, notwithstanding!); and 3) the religious, personal, cultural, moral, ethical, psychological, emotional, social, political, regional, ethnic, sexist, or any other rejection or ‘disdain’ with the public–if not the legal–recognition or acknowledgment of “same sex unions.” These are the issues; and here are the ‘whys!’

1. ‘The traditional’ view of marriage (around the world, I believe) presumes, among others, three “essential elements.” These are: One, a woman; two, a man; and three, the ‘machinery’ for reproducing the human race. Of course, there are various and sundry perspectives, from religious, cultural, and other viewpoints; but, all presuppose these “essential three.”

Since “same sex unions” cannot (normally, and as we understand procreation) deliver the third element–reproducing the human race–critics (including this writer) object to “broadening the traditional understanding/definition of marriage” to exclude an essential element of marriage–the ability to reproduce the race.

Therefore, for this writer and many others, using another name–same sex partnerships, domestic unions, other better names, but at worse “same sex marriage, non-traditional marriage, legal marriage or even marriage partnership” would be more acceptable and could find growing acceptance.

2. The issue of “equal treatment under the law” must be protected–at any cost; therefore, I support the right of all adults–straight and gay–to choose their partners–even same sex partners. This issue is not unlike our historic challenges well known as interracial marriage, voting rights for women and minorities, equal pay for equal work, etc., etc., etc. And, these unions should enjoy all the public and private rights of other ‘legal pairings.’ Let’s call it by another name and protect it under the law!

3. The issue of women expressing romantic love with women, and men showing tenderness and affection with men–in public view–is objectionable to many, to put it civilly. The press is replete with reports, from around the world, of negative reactions, actions, and subtleties associated with strong and passionate rejection of same sex unions, especially when such associations are observable in “public space,” especially “by our children!” Individual objection to same-sex unions cannot be ‘legalized’ any more than can racial or religious intolerance be condoned. Freedom is a BIG concept.

By understanding these three critical elements; by coming to an honest assessment of your own views of these “three essential elements,” you now can better articulate your true disagreement or your agreement. Remember this, as you re-reflect upon the reality of “same sex-ness,” it is not just about denying Constitutional rights to anyone or to any group of fellow citizens.

The equivalent issues are a) should we change the definition of ‘marriage’ and if so, how? b) can we separate our “moral disgust” or disagreement with same sex unions from our basic responsibilities to protect each others Constitutional rights? Those are the basic disputes.

I discussed this matter today with “Pastor Ann” and decided I would change my intent and vote NO ON PROP 7. I made this decision as the better of two choices: support the Constitutional rights of individuals, or vote for the preservation of our traditional understanding of “the institution of marriage.” I decided human rights took priority; I will await another opportunity to defend “the traditional concept of marriage.” I trust you will come to clarity about your feelings.

I am God-fearing; and I believe there is but one “supreme equality” and that is God’s Love for each one of us. Birth is equal to each of us; so is death. But, our human rights are not equal…unless we make them so. And then only to the extent to which we succeed. Be well, Norhm Lee, Ph.D.

I am a retired teacher. I have a long, multi-faceted relationship with American public education. I sense what is at the core of its disappointing assessment. More importantly, though, I think I know what will fix the overriding problem.

What I know, I think, is very valuable and many “educational consultants” and consulting firms–especially those controlling very large performance contracts–would pay millions for “a solution to what ails public education in America!”

Having the above brought to the forefront, I will not “give away” so valuable a resolution. Nor will I let it to the unworthy. Therefore, I will say only this much: those charged with ’solving’ the education problem do not ‘recognize’ what the real problem is. I will say no more in this blog.

Serious and responsible educationists interested in a serious interface may contact me by writing to norhmleephd@relationshipstruthandnow.com.

Respectfully,

Norhm Lee, Ph.D.

Dear President-Elect Obama:

I offer my services, on a volunteer basis, as Secretary of Education. I believe I have the educational background, the personal commitment and perspective, and the good fortune of being able to “see” the essential ‘problem’ that retards ‘educational excellence’ as Americans would have it.

My bachelor of education degree is from Cheyney University of Pennsylvania; my master of arts in religion is from Yale University Divinity School; and my doctor of education degree is from UCLA, with a major in curriculum and evaluation/instruction. I know “the urban education” matrix; I have observed and warned of the ‘critical issue’ or central problem that goes “unseen” by professional educators. I can help change the course of our educational enterprise, and I can do this in less than one term.

I want no salary, no special attention or favor, but plenty of dedicated, competent, and skilled souls who love students (learning and teaching and guiding) and who hold education among our highest cultural values.

Should you consider my offer, I will welcome an email at norhmleephd@relationshipstruthandnow.com.

Respectfully,

Norhm Lee, Ph.D.
Offer dated October 23, 2008, at Los Angeles, CA.

Former President Clinton, being interviewed on the Larry King Show, made a few comments that stood out in my mind. One, he said he expects Barack Obama to win the U.S. Presidency in November. This writer agrees and made the same prediction in March, 2008. His primary reason was most worthy of note: “Barack Obama is better likely to take America in another direction, where the American people feel the country should best go.”

He stated in unequivocal terms that Hillary has done more to help the Democratic nominee than anyone ever did in “the past forty years!” He added that he, and she, made it very clear at the Democratic National Convention that Americans are well advised to elect Barack Obama their next president, if they truly want change! He said Obama has what America needs at this time in her ‘world perspective.’

Regarding the immediate crisis the country is facing, economic woes and financial institutions failing, Clinton said Barack Obama is better able to manage workable solutions. “He is bright and clever and can lead the Country” in a direction that will address the weaknesses and deficits of the present administration–which John McCain would continue….

Clinton also made the case for his being “a working man.” This was in response to Larry King’s question of whether Clinton would “campaign all out for Barack Obama.” Clinton’s response was good, and affirmative. The American people were told, in no uncertain terms, that from the Clinton perspective, “Barack Obama is America’s better choice…for the country and for regaining our place of respect in the world.”

This writer has some issues with what Clinton did not say, with what show hosts do not ask him about.
This writer has lingering thoughts–unanswered questions about some 67 people, very close to the “White Water drama,” who died “mysteriously!” It is said that Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, “flew into a mountain in Korsovo…the day after ‘refusing to take the fall’ for Clinton on the White Water issue.” Perhaps I have not read the full account. I wish I could be sure. I like Clinton. Don’t you?

And, finally this: I continue to be outraged that billions of dollars are reportedly being spent around the world to address the so-called “HIV/AIDS pandemic.” I keep wondering why none of these great fund managers do not “see” that no one is catching “A.I.D.S.,” that people are of dying of starvation, of hunger, of malnutrition, of poisoned drinking water, of military campaigns, of bio-chemical warfare, of displacement from their homelands, of political persecutions, of enslavement, of neglect, of genocide, and of a motley of human variables.

In short, why don’t foundations, like the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation, tell the truth and represent their understanding of the fact that the problems the poor in the world experience are ‘controlled’ by the actions–or in-actions–by those who control the ‘plenty’ of our human resources? Norhm Lee, Ph.D.