So...

[Count Duckula]

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)

I'm surprised nobody's gone after this.

(This post is also going to read a little like James Burke's Connections. I was waiting until my schoolwork was all presented and over before responding to this, so my mind could take on the right frame of eloquence.)

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister in 1892 and was published in a Christian-themed social magazine called The Youth's Companion. The original Pledge was as follows:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

In 1923-24, the pledge was revised at the National Flag Conference, changing "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America. It was around that time when schools instituted the practice flag-raising and flag-saluting before the school day, so the Pledge seemed like another good way to respect the flag and was added to the mix.

During the early days of the Cold War, the pledge was edited to contain "under God." The Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge was a dedicated socialist. (He also considered adding the word "equality" to the original pledge, but he feared he would lose his position as chairman of the National Education Association as most of the board members were against women's rights and black rights.)

I respect the flag. I know of at least two relatives who died in military service fighting under that flag, and for what that flag stood for. I know the proper way to display and salute flags, as do my parents. I don't say the Pledge, and neither do my parents. (Well, I know my mother doesn't.) Does this mean I hate America? No.

I don't say the Pledge for two reasons: I don't worship the flag, and it has nothing to do with religion of any sort.

Yes, the United States was founded by Christian religious peoples and has a grounding in religious faith. Is it based on Christianity? It's not supposed to be. (And before somebody mentions our currency, the whole "In God We Trust" stuff came about in the 1950s as well. Remember the Cold War and the atheistic Communists we were 'fighting'? McCarthyism? Good.)

I'm bisexual. However, my private life only becomes anyone else's concern when and if I wish to share it, and the fact that--gasp!--I've had sex with women is one of the thousands of things that makes up who I am. It doesn't completely define and encompass my life any more than Judaism, Melungeon culture, anime, and the fact I eat Chef Boyardee cold and straight from the can do.

I also have a habit of sidestepping arguments for different conclusions. For example, I'm not pro-life or pro-abortion, I'm pro-adoption, and all for acceptance of consequences. In my mind, it's not so much of an ethical or medical dilemma as "Does the Christian church think this is okay?" I mean, if you're going to give a #$%& about the kid, give a #$%& about the kid. There are thousands of childless couples in this country who can't conceive. I'm a healthy young woman. If something happens and I get pregnant, I'm making sure that child has a loving home with loving parents and will never be treated as an accident or bad decision. In short, I made a third choice that fits my opinion rather than just choosing between the obvious and popular two.

To relate it to gay marriage, I'm not for it or against it. I see this whole argument as "Does the Christian church think this is okay?" According to what I know of Christian religion (and very little, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the whole idea of marriage is to have children and recreational sex--sex without the making of children--is sinful. Christian religion is against homosexuality. Christian religion is also against adultery, beastiality, direct incest, sex out of wedlock, etc., because all those options are considered recreational sex. I've heard the argument that if gays could have children, then marriage would be okay. Why? Because Christian religion believes marriage is for having children, sex is for having children, and sex done without the purpose of babymaking is sinful.

I'm all for a nationwide law permitting civil unions between two consenting adults 18 years of age and older. This would be something official done before a court of law and for the government, and where both parties would get tested for HIV/AIDS and other blood diseases (Tay-Sachts). Civil unions would also be free of charge or as low-cost as possible. If a couple wished to have a religiously-sanctioned marriage under any denomination, they could still do that. However, that marriage would NOT be considered legal under the law, as a government-sanctioned civil union would be necessary to be legal (and get all the tax breaks). Take the religion OUT of the government and realize that people regardless of race or gender can raise fine and morally-upstanding kids.

Before Doc speaks up, let me remind him of how our Southern brethren dragged their heels on equality before the national government stepped in. Hell, some of the very Southern (and VERY scary) states are still too antebellum, to put it nicely. National governmental regulation may not be perfect at first, but it's a start.