The Bluebird of Happiness

I read an opinion piece by Cynthia Tucker, the Atlantic Journal-Constitution. It discussed how the Obamas are a model for marriage.

I’ve never really pondered the effect of ethnicity on a couple’s marriage. Statistically, African American children are at “a higher risk” because most are born out of wedlock. Sociology tells us these situations create a host of issues, from drug abuse to risky sexual behavior to poor academic success.

So why don’t African Americans marry?

I was talking about this with a black friend, and she said there are several schools of thought within the black community. Some black men think black women are only interested in material things. Many black men have a criminal background (no matter how great or small), and black women don’t want to be involved with a “gangsta.” I cannot recall her other explanations, but they weren’t encouraging.

So, why do children benefit from marriage?

Children require some structure in their lives to make sense of the world around them. Marriage provides a stability that cohabitation does not. It has a feeling of permanence. There’s a deeper commitment involved for a married couple. If you’re willing take legal measures to secure your relationship - you aren’t looking to cut and run. I’m sure there are other reasons why marriage benefit children; unfortunately, I’m not prepared enough to make those arguments now.

I’m not an expert in sociology, psychology or child development; however, I’m a product of a divorced family. I know how difficult it can be for a parent to raise a child on his or her own. I understand that a healthy marriage gives children a positive example of a romantic relationship. I understand that, in an imperfect world, the family is intended to be a safe, loving haven.

Tucker is hopeful that the Obamas will influence the African American community in this country. My hope goes a step further; I hope their example shines for all Americans - regardless of color.

I’m a huge fan of the First Amendment; I am a journalist after all. It protects us from ourselves and the founders of the United States were using their heads when they penned it into our constitution. For those who don’t know the amendment by heart, here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Los Angeles Times recently posted two op-ed pieces addressing the Prop. 8 controversy (in case you’ve been living under a rock, Prop. 8 would overturn the legalization of same-sex marriage in California). Dean R. Broyles argues that gay marriage and the first amendment are on a “collision course;” he is the president and chief counsel of the Western Center for Law and Policy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties. He writes:

While legal protections for free speech and religious liberty have been a critical component of our nation’s core civil rights protections for more than 200 years, laws granting special rights to those engaged in homosexual conduct are the legal “new kid on the block” — and this new kid is proving to be an 800-pound gorilla. The danger here is that by embracing the latter (homosexual rights) with such vigor, we risk the grave consequences of decimating the former (the 1st Amendment). Perhaps this consequence is intended by the proponents of homosexual rights who oppose Proposition 8; perhaps not.

Regardless, the truth is that the conflict is very real. There will be clear winners and there will be clear losers in this zero-sum game. I submit that we should therefore be asking ourselves a more fundamental question: Which better serves the common good or general welfare of our nation — free speech and religious freedom or gay rights? I stand firmly with our infinitely wise founding fathers on the side of the 1st Amendment.

Lorri L. Jean makes a counter-point; she is an attorney and chief executive of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. She writes:

Proposition 8 would not have any impact at all on anyone’s free exercise of religion any more than allowing interracial marriage does. Back when the California Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, opponents of interracial marriage predicted exactly the same dire consequences that you warn of today. None of them came true. …

Contrary to how you view the world, Dean, civil rights are not a “zero-sum game.” Our state is great enough to treat everyone fairly. When women won the right to vote, it didn’t hurt male voters. When the law required that public school sports programs for girls be treated fairly, it didn’t stop the boys from playing sports.

I’d have to agree with Jean; the founding fathers built this country on freedom from religious persecution. Many felt their religious beliefs were attacked - much like religious fanatics attack homosexuals presently. Slice it any way you like; it boils down to forcing everyone in the United States to legally hold the “belief” that homosexuality is an abomination. This is diametrically against the First Amendment.

The proverbial “they” say opposites attract. Most couples have differing attitudes on a variety of subjects. For example, my husband enjoys ultimate fighting and I don’t. He can’t stand pumpkin-flavored treats, while I love pumpkin pie/ice cream/coffee.

These aren’t deal-breaker issues by any means, but what happens when politics collide?

This subject is popping up in articles all over the Internet. Writers are weighing-in with their opinions and suggestions.

For me, politics and religion came up almost immediately when I met my husband. As a divorcee, I knew finding a mate with similar views was important to me. I’m a liberal and my ex was a mega-liberal; it didn’t work. Likewise, I knew getting involved with a staunch conservative wouldn’t be a good fit either.

We went into our marriage knowing that we agreed on ideas and beliefs that were important to us. That doesn’t mean we don’t differ every now and a again - but we (mostly) see eye to eye.

For some couples, different political views gives married life an added spice. Maybe they don’t talk politics or perhaps politics aren’t important. I have married friends whom agree “on the important issues,” but don’t agree on much else. Some of these friends are self-proclaimed “drama queens” and aren’t happy without a “good conflict.”

Ultimately, it’s about knowing what works best for you.

If the election has you and your spouse at each other’s throats, remember the following:

1. Don’t let your attacks become personal. You don’t want to be in the dog house over who you think belongs in the White House.

2. Use political discussions to learn about your spouse or issues, not to win a fight. In the end, politics can’t be categorized into “which party is correct;” it’s about opinions.

3. Know your limits. If it gets too heated, take some time out to regroup. Sometimes, you have to draw the line in the sand and respect your (or your spouse’s) boundaries.

4. Remember to have fun with the election. There’s likely some common ground or you wouldn’t have married one another. Find humor in the situation and temper your discussion with love.

Oh yea - and don’t forget to vote Tuesday (if you haven’t voted early)!

-S-