creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Connie Schultz icon
Connie Schultz
23 May 2012
Catholic Leaders Must Dial Down the Rhetoric

As a non-Catholic, I wrestled with an internal conflict over the birth control battle of the bishops. Part of … Read More.

16 May 2012
Dear Young Mothers: Ignore Time Magazine

In February 1989, I ended a phone interview for a magazine story I was writing and looked up to find my 21-month-… Read More.

9 May 2012
Finally, the President Says 'I Do'

This was going to be a different kind of column. My friend Jackie, through a mutual contact, arranged for me … Read More.

The Look of Love

Share Comment

As a Midwesterner who likes to brag about our heartland ways, it's rare for me to envy New Yorkers.

This week, though, I'm as green as summer clover at the sight of all those beautiful same-sex couples exchanging vows in New York.

How I wish every state valued marriage this much.

Online photo galleries told the story of bliss in all its forms as lesbian and gay couples finally got the chance to make their love official.

You could tell by their faces that some of them had been in committed relationships for decades. Love someone long enough and you start to look like him/her, too.

Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage, one man's joy is still another man's apoplexy. It didn't take long for Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty to unravel over all that knot-tying in New York.

"I think it's a bad idea," he told CNN's Candy Crowley.

Crowley is one of the brightest lights on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. She tried her best to get a straight answer from Pawlenty as to why he thinks gay marriage is such a threat to America.

He was so awkward during their interview that I couldn't stop wincing, and I don't even support the guy.

An excerpt:

Pawlenty: I think, when society devalues traditional marriage by saying all other domestic relationships are the same as traditional marriage, you then dilute and devalue traditional marriage.

Crowley: And it's a cultural thing to you that — just culturally or religiously you don't believe that and won't believe that?

Pawlenty: Well, it's more — yeah, I mean, it's certainly a social and cultural and moral issue. But it also has practical effects. I mean, I think, you know, obviously a man and a woman together are the traditional family. That's how children are born and raised, traditionally.

Crowley: There (are) plenty of single parents.

Pawlenty: Of course.

Crowley: There are plenty of gay couples with children that have, you know, adopted or otherwise, you know, had surrogates, whatever happens.

Are those not families?

Pawlenty: There are many examples of single parents and others who heroically and lovingly raise children. Obviously, an example would be somebody who, you know, lost a spouse and is working two jobs and has children.

A few disclosures on my part:

1) I'm a straight woman married to a straight man. His name is Sherrod Brown.

2) Before we married, both of us were longtime single parents. Neither of us, though, was widowed, nor did we hold more than one paid job at a time. By Pawlenty's standards, I guess that means we were inferior versions of single parents.

Despite our deficiencies, our kids turned out just fine.

Whew.

3) Sherrod was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives when he first asked me out for a date.

Unlike Pawlenty, he's a Democrat, but there are plenty of Democrats who don't act like it when it comes to gay marriage. So before I agreed to date him, I looked up his vote on the Defense of Marriage Act to make sure he didn't fall for that stunt.

Whew again.

4) On the day we exchanged marital vows, the Rev. Kate Matthews Huey officiated. She's gay. She's been in a committed relationship with the irrepressible Jackie for 17 years. Our only issue with them is that they have six grandchildren to our one. We try not to hold this against them.

Regarding Pawlenty's dilute-and-devalue argument: My husband and I were crazy in love before lesbians and gays could marry, and we're still silly for each other no matter how many gay couples say "I do."

We have, however, noticed one change in our relationship since gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, which was the first state to do so, in 2004. One of us looks way grayer. We blame this on marriage, but not a gay one, and thanks to hair colorist extraordinaire Rosie Rosalina, it is so not my problem.

Ah, love.

It's in the air in New York.

May it waft across the heartland, and soon.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and an essayist for Parade magazine. To find out more about Connie Schultz (cschultz@plaind.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
POLYGAMY IS ACCEPTED, TODAY, BY FAR MORE COUNTRIES, WORLD RELIGIONS AND CULTURES,--- HAND'S DOWN-- THAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES.
IN FACT, MORE THAN A BILLION PEOPLE SAY YES TO POLYGAMY--BUT MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR HOMOSEXUAL EXPRESSION. AN ACT OF PROTECTIVE HUMANITY? NO!! AN EGREGIOUS DISPLAY OF AN EVIL ELEMENT OF INHUMANITY.
HOW CAN WE SAY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS SAME- SEX UNIONS BUT DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY-- WHICH IS, CONTRASTINGLY, GREETED BY AN AMERICA WITH A PROBABLE PRISON SENTENCE.
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS HOMOSEXUALITY CHAMPIONED AND POLYGAMY CONDEMNED? I DON'T CHAMPION EITHER-- NOR DO I CONDEMN EITHER. BUT MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THAT QUESTION HAS NO IMPORTANCE ON THAT QUESTION.
THAT WHICH IS CENTER HERE IS: “CAN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BE BLIND TO THE FREEDOM OF RADICAL POLYGAMOUS UNIONS--BUT, EXTEND OPEN ARMS TO THE RADICAL SAME-SEX UNIONS? “
CAN WE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES, IN FACT, ALLOW SAME- SEX UNIONS, BUT DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES, RATHER, IS GREETED BY AMERICA WITH A CRIMINALLY PREDICATED PRISON SENTENCE..
AGAIN, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, IS HOMOSEXUALITY CHAMPIONED AND POLYGAMY CONDEMNED? I DON'T SUPPORT EITHER-- NOR DO I CONDEMN EITHER-- BUT NEITHER DO I CHAMPION PATENT POLITICAL INEQUALITY AND, AND OBVIOUS JUDICIAL HYPOCRISY. 
 
Comment: #1
Posted by: Beth Harbin
Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:43 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Connie Schultz
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

23 Dec 2009 Amazing Grac(ie)

13 Nov 2007 A Few Tips About Tipping

31 Dec 2008 Enough About My Hair Already