Dear Friends of Life Mission Associates:

I'm a big fan of the LA Times. Every morning, the first thing I hit is the Opinion Page, where the pulse of the times is to be found in the Letters to the Editor section. Recently, the Times ran the following letter of mine regarding Gay Marriage:

Mainstreaming for Gays

Re: "Gays: Assimilated and Asexual?" Commentary, Jan. 26:

I wholly agree with Patrick Moore's point that gays are rushing into a burning house if they think that marriage will solve our problems with straight society. In fact, many straights would rather burn down the house than let us in. This issue is a can of worms, creating a great social divide and a states' rights crisis. The debate forces us to reconsider the marriage itself - a social institution securing the ownership of property and children. Marriage also implies certain rights, expectations, norms, restraints, privileges and responsibilities, which our leaders claim falsely that all gay people want. I, too, fear that if we are expected to marry this will become an uncomfortable norm for the rest of us. Not all gays have a stake in a marriage contract, and it is possible that we operate as well or better without it.

As a fairly typical lesbian, I have been in eight different relationships and was sure glad I didn't have to drag my partners and myself through a messy court proceeding with all the attendant public shame and mutual recrimination when it was time to say goodbye. We threw furniture, shed tears and divided the property, all without the help of lawyers.

But, of course, the civil rights argument holds some weight for many gays - those who want children and want the protection and spelled-out rights (to health insurance, etc.) that a civil union provides. Perhaps a partial solution to this knotty social dilemma would be to differentiate between marriage and civil unions and make civil union or domestic partnership an option open to all. Those who want to keep marriage a sacred heterosexual rite could confine their peculiar ceremonies to a church where the rest of us don't have to watch.

Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2004

Part of my job as a Life Missionary is to guide people through these precarious times, by challenging assumptions and provoking creative thought. Predictive ability has great survival value, but you have to pull your head out of the sand to look ahead. .

Can anyone deny that the earth is heating up? A possible unforeseen consequence of our love affair with the automobile. And what are the unforeseen consequences of our invasion of Iraq? Of our insatiable consumption of coffee? Of gays insisting on marriage as a civil right? Of NAFTA? Of a guest-worker program to import cheap labor from overseas? Of banning smoking in nightclubs and bars? Of the privatization of health care?

The result of healthcare privatization: Our health care system (or non-system) is in shambles, hospitals are closing down, millions are uninsured. To many, this is a greater terror than any Jihad from abroad. For example, a fine local Ojai artist, Nancy Rupp, died needlessly of an embolism, as a result of poor follow-up after what seemed like a minor auto accident. And yet, we collectively torpedoed the Clinton administration from the outset for their support of Universal Health Care.

What are we so afraid of? The red pinko threat is passed, who can possibly still believe that Universal Health Care is a commie plot? Seniors are forced to cross the border to buy their pharmaceuticals in Canada or Mexico, which of course Congress, at the behest of the Drug Lobby wants to blockade. Apparently, the notion that a computerized, single-payer health system, in which a person from Arizona suffering a heart attack in Los Angeles would receive an equivalent quality of care, with instant access to past treatment, is apparently beyond the imagination of most folks who eat up Harry Potter. Who benefits from our current system? You know who. The HMO CEO's and the Drug Companies. Certainly not the docs, certainly not the nurses, nor the patients.

So my applause to Chant Yedalian, featured in Column One of the the February 11 issue of the Times. Chant decided to take on Kaiser Permanente, California's Premiere Health Maintenance Organization, in a wrongful death crusade. His mother, whom he calls his closest friend, was denied a bone marrow transplant, which might have extended her life. She died four years ago. Since then, Chant sent himself through law school, so that he could more effectively dedicate himself to the fight. Most such cases end up in long and entangled arbitration, in which Kaiser (and other such private monoliths) have the money and power to wear down their adversaries. Chant has found a way to circumvent this dead-end procedure. Hooray Chant! Go for it! The Times quotes Theresa Brunasso, Chant's good friend: "His mother's last gift to her son was that of a career path. The candle has never failed, the light has never gone out. This is his life's passion." So has many a Life Mission been borne out of adversity.

And incidentally, thanks to Sheila Kuehl, our California Representative from Santa Monica, who introduced a State Bill for a single-payer system. Right on, Sheila.

Now back to Gay Marriage, and my foreboding about where this is all headed. It looks like soon we may be facing the Gay vs. Straight States of America. Flag-makers, get ready. We need a Rainbow Stars and Stripes. All you straights who are offended by Gay Marriage can move to Ohio, Texas or Florida (or how about Irag?), and Gays can migrate to Vermont, Massachusetts and other Gay friendly states. The court battles coming up? Not a pretty picture. The USA is rapidly losing its middle ground, its middle class, its national consensus. All it takes is a campaign like this to expose the deep rift that underlies our cheery "United We Stand" slogans. On this and many other important issues, united we do not stand.

We would be delighted to hear your thoughts on these and other subjects. Please add your comments to our new LMA Guest Book Page.

Sue Carroll Moore, LCSW, ASCAP