RuthAnnHarnisch.com

Ruth Ann,
This is a tough one to tackle for several reasons…
On one hand, these issues cause such a social schism that I don’t think there’s a possible middle ground that would be acceptable to both sides. You can’t water down equality (gender, sexual, or racial), and I don’t see a clear middle ground with reproductive rights either.
Certainly those on the right wing or in the religious fundamental group in the United States seem like they wouldn’t be willing to compromise on “family values” and religious beliefs.
At least on the issue of gay rights, the Tyranny of the Majority has prevailed nationwide. If a gay marriage ban can’t be struck down in California, what hope is there for a countrywide legalization of gay marriage.

On the other hand, splitting up would leave the United States (or whatever the two parts would be called), incredibly vulnerable economically and in the larger scheme of the world. This would be fairly dangerous.

On hopeful note I suppose is that our society seems to have gotten far more open as time has gone on. Forty, fifty years ago, gay culture was very much underground and taboo, and people would never dream that a black man could become President. Perhaps my generation can help continue to push forward socially. Certainly this last election was a good sign.

That’s my two cents. Very interesting post Ruth Ann.

Emigrate to Canada. It’s not as farcical a suggestion as it sounds, and they appreciate the fact that many of the best and brightest of this country are finding it quite lovely in the North.

People get locked into polarities–either/or, this/that, that/not this, this/not this…
Sometimes it wouldn’t be so hard to just drop the preconceived polarity categories and start over. Go to a deeper place to start, a more fundamental premise. Like this, for example: Get the government out of the marriage business altogether, as in some countries in Europe, for example.
Let the government give licenses for civil unions (and/or domestic partnerships)–a legal acknowledgement that two people have entered into a partnership that includes such and such and such and such legal rights (such as currently all the legal benefits that extend to those legally married). The government doesn’t call it marriage. It doesn’t call *any* civil unions marriage, even those between heterosexuals.
If a couple also wants a marriage certificate, signifying something else and having no legal status, e.g. it may signify a lifelong commitment to each other, a sacred bond–whatever marriage means to the couple and the organization or entity providing the marriage license–they do a separate ceremony and/or get a separate piece of paper from a church or other entity that offers marriage according to their definition.
In some countries, it has been long established that you get married at City Hall to establish your legal rights, and if you want a religious ceremony, you do it again at a church. We could do the same, except we wouldn’t call the government certificate “marriage.” As I said above, it’s a civil union or domestic partnership that grants the same legal rights, as recognized by the state, to any couple who chooses to establish that sort of union.
This wouldn’t of course immediately solve all problems, but I bet it would help. A lot of the opposition to “gay marriage” has to do with what the word “marriage” means to people. Lots of people would be willing to grant legal rights to gays, as long as they don’t have to call it marriage. Why make people change their definition of a word they hold sacred? Why insist on shoving THAT down their throats? Isn’t it enough to grant the same legal rights as heterosexuals have, and treat them the same in the eyes of the law (by also giving civil unions, not marriages, to heterosexuals?)
So give the rights, without making people give up the word. And let the churches and other organizations figure out their own stance on the issue.
And by the way, why not let churches with strong differences of opinion split? I agree with Ruth Ann that the value of majority rule when there are such strong and clear differences on point of view is limited. In these cases (such as the Episcopal Church), let people form their own groups, either within the larger church itself or as two (or more) separate churches (the dreaded “schism”!). There really is no common ground here, when it’s seen as a question of fundamental morality and theology. So don’t try to make everyone over into the image and likeness of those in power at the moment. There has long been a tradition in Christianity of multiple groups (denominations) with different interpretations of scripture and understanding of what it means to be a Christian. And when the denomination finds an irreconcilable difference within itself, let some members form a new group, with the dominant group’s blessing.