The subject, of course, is passage of the bill to grant all citizens of the State of Vermont equal civil rights in marriage, regardless of gender identity. This would follow by about nine years the legislature’s creation of a first-in-the-nation “civil unions” law, enacted at the time as a compromise that could pass, and now considered inadequate and ready for change.

Predictably, consideration of the bill has evoked passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. But it hasn’t fanned the flames into the heat we experienced during the debate a decade ago. As of this writing, the Reverend Mr. Fred Phelps and his flock from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, have yet to return to the State House lawn with their exciting signs describing God’s opinion of homosexuals; and a public hearing last week at which religious leaders expressed their opinions of the legislation was poorly attended by the public. Now, though legislators apparently are still being flooded with e-mails and letters supporting one side or the other, the only major question left – and, again, this may be moot before the week is out – seems to be whether Governor Douglas will sign or veto the bill, or let it become law without his signature.

So why (you might well ask), with the tumult and shouting dying, am I still flogging this horse? Well, because I think it important that we consider and reflect at length about who we are as a society, and how and why we got this way. Also, I’m appalled, as are many moderate Muslims, at the extent to which my religion has been publicly hijacked by radical conservatives.

There’s a poem in the delightful book archy and mehitabel, in which mehitabel, an aging feline prostitute who claims to have been Cleopatra in a former life, is living in an abandoned steamer trunk with a retired theater cat. The old trouper laments the state of the modern world (no capital letters or punctuation; archy, the writer, is a cockroach and can’t operate the shift key): mehitabel he says both our professions are being ruined by amateurs

Which is pretty much the way I’m feeling. All around us, people who bear the same label that my wife and I do are exercising their right to free speech to persuade legislators to restrict the rights of others. This flies in the face of history; no amendment to our Constitution imposing restrictions has stood the test of time. Besides that, they argue that the restrictions are the express will of God, a dubious and presumptuous proposition at best. We have but to look around the world at other countries that are ruled by the presumed will of God to see the danger in that.

What the argument is at heart attempting to do is legitimize an ancient taboo. For all the smoke and mirrors of the righteous – homosexual parents raise disturbed children; the traditional basic structure of our society will disintegrate; our children will be exposed to unseemly displays of affection on public streets; traditional gender roles will disappear – the basic objection is a visceral revulsion disguised in socio-legal eyewash and pious references to Biblical authority.

There are actually at least two types of homophobia that I’ve seen in my lifetime. The first is what I call locker-room homophobia. Masculine bullies often seem to feel the need to tease less aggressive boys with feminine labels. Adults have done it, as well, especially in warrior or hunting societies. The ancient Norse used homosexual taunts as invitations to mortal combat. Interestingly, it was not considered shameful to be the aggressor, only to be the passive victim. The Chipewayans of Canada used the taunt to keep some individuals from going “soft” when brutal decisiveness was required. In societies where gender roles are more specific than in ours, homophobic taunts and sanctions are used to impose uniformity.

During the current State House hearings, I’ve been looking up the origins of the taboo with which we’re all familiar, and discover that it was not generally considered a sin except by Western religions. It was important, during the earliest days of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for believers to distinguish themselves from the pagans and infidels all about them. Witness the cry of the psalmist who lifts up his eyes to the hills (which were crowned with Canaanite fertility shrines) and asks rhetorically whence his help is coming. Rules governing diet, worship, sexual practices, and hygiene were easy ways to separate the newly godly from the ungodly.

The books of the Old Testament to which gay marriage opponents often refer forbid eating shellfish or pork more frequently than they condemn homosexual behavior. They don’t mention lesbianism; the founding fathers of Western religions – like many religious folks today – were more concerned with male relationships.

Biblically based arguments have been used to deny citizenship to African-Americans, deny the franchise to females (preachers used to show up at women’s suffrage rallies and try to persuade the lovely ladies to go back to their sinks and children), and delay granting civil rights to members of minorities. They have all failed, as will this latest round. Civil marriage for everyone is an idea that’s finally here. By large margins, younger people are less opposed to it than are we old-timers. It will happen, and the country will be the better for it. I should think that, with all the lip service we pay to our principles, both civil and religious, we might get off each other’s cases, live our own lives as best we can, and get our noses out of the lives of our brothers and sisters.