Gay Marriage - I reluctantly weigh in
Gay marriage. I have studiously avoided this topic for two reasons. I don't want to give additional ink to a wedge issue and I frankly don't understand the fervor with which people oppose the idea. Even when Minnesota narrowly escaped having to vote on the issue, I wrote nothing. But yesterday, as the AP reported, 500,000 people signed a petition in Michigan demanding the state constitution be amended to ban Gay Marriage. Who are these people?? And what are they thinking?? It is a mystery to me.
In all probability, there is no resolution to this issue. I do not think people will change their minds about Gay Marriage. Most Americans do not believe it should be legal for two people of the same sex to marry. However, according to this USA Today poll, 61% of people 18-29 believe it should be legal. In the 30 - 49 age group, that number shrinks to 37% who approve of gay marriage.
Given these facts, here is what will happen: In twenty years or so, enough of the people who really hate the idea of gay marriage will be dead. The people who don't object to the idea will be in the majority, and it will become legal. All bets are off if the rapture happens in the interim.
We could save ourselves a lot of time and useless shouting in the wind if we used our noggins to think this through for a couple of ticks.
As far as I can tell, the roots of the issue rest in an individual's definition of the origin of sexual preference. Either you believe that being gay is a matter of choice or you believe that it is genetic. In the first case, a person wakes up one day and says, "self, thou shall be gay today and evermore" and gayness ensues. In the second case, the gay person is born gay, and, well, gayness ensues.
Both cases pose serious challenges to thinking Americans.
If a person is born gay, why should we punish them for the way they come out of the womb? We do not punish other people for the way they come out of the womb. There is some evidence that some people are born gay. Does anybody really dispute this? I think there is at least one person alive in the US right now who was, irrefutably, born gay. How can we deny this person the right to marry, which is the natural enactment of the human desire for love and family? How can we really consider ostracizing that person in our national or state constitutions?
If a person chooses to be gay, who are we to say he or she does not have the right to form a loving relationship wtih whomever they so choose? What does it matter to me whether my neighbor marries a man, a woman, or neither. I am neither robbed nor injured by it. If we deprive citizens of this choice, then what is the meaning of liberty? If my neighbor marries a man or woman or nobody, how does it affect me? To outlaw a relationship between two human beings is the antithesis of good government. True conservatives should rebel against government grabbing this power. Believe me folks, you don't want the government in your bedrooms. If I am wrong about this, I want to know. Someone please tell me.
The only legitimate argument against gay marriage is that it may be in direct contradiction to the principles of one's religion. It is legitimate because it is irrefutable. Unfortunately, it is unconstitutional to make a law regarding religion in this country. Religious arguments are disallowed in policy discussions in the United States. Fortunately, praise the Lord, we have the right to practice our religion in any way we choose. We can ban or support gay marriages to our heart's content within the context of our churches.
It would be a really bad idea to allow the Republican party to hold sway on this issue. Not only is it terrible policy and a frightening expansion of government power, it's also a lot of work to amend the constituion. I don't want my kids to have to undo this forty years down the road, when all the people who voted for it are dead.
3 Comments:
"The only legitimate argument against gay marriage is that it may be in direct contradiction to the principles of one's religion. It is legitimate because it is irrefutable. Unfortunately, it is unconstitutional to make a law regarding religion in this country."
I'm on board with most of what you say, although the section above is a bit weak. There is quite a bit of controversy within the various religions, in fact, even within specific churches about gay marriage. Rather than being 'irretutable,' it is in fact a topic upon which reasonable people can have a decent theological debate. Take the situation with gay bishops within the Anglican church - the ordination of one created a church-wide dialog. It may result in a schism, but the debate was healthy and reasonable.
The other topic for theological discussion, especially within the christian community, is a libertarian one; where in the New Testament does it require that christian morality be enforced by government? The separation of church and state isn't just a secular idea, it can also rightly be considered a christian mandate "Render onto Caesar..."
Finally, there is nothing 'unfortunate' about the unconstitutionality of making laws regarding religion; otherwise we'd probably have had at least a few bloodbaths in this country stemming from religious extremism.
You are absolutely right, Green Boy. It is fortunate that we cannot not make a religious law in this country. It is unfortuate for those who wish to do so. I do not.
I disagree about the refutability of religious arguments, however. What I mean when I say that a religious argument is irrefutable, is that there is no logic that can be applied to refute a religious belief. If someone says, "I believe such and such because it is the holy word of God and my religion tells me so," the only response I have is. "Oh." It's legitimate, but it can't be refuted. It is what it is.
My post refers specifically to the argument against Gay Marriage in the formation of public policy. I know there is an abundance of controversy within the various religions on this issue. It is very healthy. But none of that controversy has any relavence to US law. It all takes place within the religion. Even the notion of separation of Church and State within a religion, as in "Render unto Ceasar," is a religious construct. Reasonable people can have a great theological debate. But that is not a policy debate.
I'm certainly agree with you 100% about the separation of church and state.
But getting back to religious doctrine; you can refute it, using logic. What you can't refute is belief. Theology and doctrine are all built upon a tower of logic and reason - founded on a bedrock of irrational belief.
I generally describe myself as an atheist, as it's a convenient term that can be used to make evangelists go away (if put vehemently enough), but it doesn't accurately describe my real position on the subject of religion. In the book "The Varieties of Religious Experience," American philosopher William James argued that there was an underlying religious experience in the mind that, whether as an actual apprehension of the supernatural or an emotional state, was a real, powerful thing in the mind of the apprehender, and one common to all religions.
On that point I agree with James, and would best be termed an Agnostic. However, the apprehender of such an experience needs to absorb it into his/her conception of the world - were they possessed by an Orisha? Was Jesus talking to them? The core beliefs form around what makes sense in the context of a variety of factors, most importantly his/her culture.
On top of these beliefs come the 'mediators' of religion, the priests, shamans, rabbis and imams of the world, who define logical theologies based around these beliefs, then establish doctrines and dogmas around these beliefs for the more casual co-religionist to follow.
It is precisely this last bit that brings so much woe to the world. The professional religious class isn't content to merely let the beliefs stand on their own, but must in fact treat the interpreted doctrines and dogmas as the literal, unarguable truth as well. Worse, cynical or political religious mediators seem compelled to meddle in world affairs for their own gain, invoking the supernatural powers to issue edicts in defense of self-serving doctrines.
Fortunately, it is at this point that such attempts can and should be refuted. If this weren't possible, religion would never change, but judging by the innumerable christian sects (for example), there have been plenty of disagreements and changes over the last two thousand years.
Post a Comment
<< Home