This is gonna be a shorter post because I think this topic is quite simple. If a man wants to marry another man, he should be free to do so. It's a free country, right? It doesn't harm me in any way if two lesbians get married. So let them do it!
Say I want to marry my boyfriend. Has the government impinged on my freedom by not allowing me to do so? I think yes, it has. But oh, your religion thinks it's sinful for me to be a homosexual? Kindly get your religious beliefs out of my government.
I believe in a separation of church and state. It's alarming to me the number of religious people who don't. The Constitution, my supreme argumentative reference, even says this at the end of Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Catch that last bit? The Founding Fathers made sure that people of any religion could hold public office. Maybe they believed in a strong union of church and state but in fairness allowed people of any religion to hold public office and pass certain laws concerning religious issues. Maybe they agreed with me in thinking that church and state should be separated, the government not making any laws concerning religion. Is gay rights a religious issue? Sure. Is it a freedom issue? More so, in my opinion.
I think the Founders believed in a separation of church and state. The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Congress can't adopt a certain religion or stop you from practicing yours. The leads me to believe that the Founders wanted government do it's job completely separate from the church. Then why are all the religious people shouting at the government to outlaw gay marriage? Because they don't understand this.
I've got more thoughts about this topic than I thought. I might write more about it later. Get those comments flowing; I wanna know what everyone thinks.
The problem is that people get their panties up in a bunch when you use the word 'marriage'. Obviously the Catholic Church is not going to recognize gay marriage. But does that mean that my hypothetical boyfriend and I who are going to live together for the next forty years shouldn't get the same rights as my straight parents when it comes to taxes and adoption, etc? If you answer yes to that, I think you are infringing on the rights of some people.
ReplyDeleteWell said Nick, and I completely agree. Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, even if the Catholic church doesn't want them to.
DeleteHey Owen, I've been brought up in the Eastern Orthodox Church and my dad is a priest, just to give people some perspective on my thoughts. Also, below, it seems like I assume no gay people/supporters are religious, which I do for simplicity, not realistically. And, while it may be unfair for me to group the whole gay community together, it is equally unfair for others to group all of anti-gay rights Christianity, let alone all of anti-gay rights religion, together. There is a stark distinction between religion as an organization and the people who populate a religion. I’ll try to stay on point, but there is so much I could say about gay rights, religion, and gay rights and religion.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, I agree that church and state should be separate. After all, I don't want my religion corrupted by any government any more than most people want their government influenced by my, or any, religion. In practice, however, that does seem to be more tricky as everyone has some sort of religion, creed, or other belief system regardless of how it is oriented.
I think as our generation ages, we have a chance to make government and religion more separate and our people more tolerant. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle any more than I agree with many other lifestyles, but I agree that I (and the government) have no right to dictate how a pair of people live their lives (to this extent). I don't think any less of gay people, as I believe they are living in sin the same way people who lie, cheat, or steal (especially without repenting) are living in sin. To me, it is simply a fact, and no one sin is greater than another.
That being said, yes, as Nick says, the use of the word marriage does raise concerns among religious folk because marriage is holy and a sacrament. But, there are many people who get married in a church/religion who have no real commitment to any faith beyond the minimum required to get baptized, communed, confessed, married, and buried (or the other religion's equivalents). Forgive me if I sound judgmental, but after 20 years seeing "behind the scenes" of church life, it's really just a fact, not a judgment.
So, maybe the government should actually award the rights that follow marriage to any couple, regardless of whether people are heterosexual, homosexual, or “other-whatever that may be”. Then less people would feel required to get "married" when they don't mean the religious half of it, non-religious people wouldn't face any stigma that might exist for not being religious and being married (I have no idea if this stigma actually exists), and homosexual couples could "marry" as well.
As a final thought, the opposition to gay rights by many religious (and maybe some non-religious people?) may not actually be an opposition to gay rights, as much as it is to the gay lifestyle. It seems like the gay community seems to gear their discussion (or lack there-of, it's more like shouting) with anti-gay rights people towards these people's disapproval of their lifestyle. Maybe I am naive, but I think that if gay rights activists used an argument purely for freedom and devoid of mudslinging (you people are ignorant and hateful and dumb for not voting for gay rights, etc), more progress would be made toward finding a law which would please a majority of people's desires for freedom (barring extremists-but when are extremists ever pleased?). It may not work, but it’s worth a try because, from my perspective, both sides are guilty of hateful speech without offering any olive branches.
This is also me just thinking outloud, and I hope this is enough of a flowing comment for you :)
Mary, you raise some great points in your post. I'm glad to see people be openly religious and speak unashamedly about their beliefs; it takes great courage in our day and age.
DeleteI agree that it is very hard to separate church and state. When I speak to people about abortion, this fact becomes very relevant, but let's leave that conversation for another time. In any case, the position of the line between church and state is often the only factor that differentiates people's opinions.
On both sides of the gay marriage debate, there are plenty of people who engage in this "shouting" and "mudslinging." I find it repulsive. Can we not have a mature debate out this topic in our day? Apparently not. It's very sad. I agree that if both sides became a little more mature, we could actually come to an agreement on this issue. Or at least some progress would be made.
I really appreciate your insightful comment. Thanks for reading!
Religion has nothing to do with it. The reason the militant gays are pushing for "marriage" is so they can access the money, benefits and retirement heretofore reserved for spouses. Those benefits were traditionally provided to wives - because their task was to bear and raise the children and care for the breadwinner and the home.
ReplyDeleteNone of these roles apply to a homosexual couple.
I'm not at all homophobic, but homosexual marriage is simply a contradiction-in-terms.