Tue 10 May 2005
Republican acknowledges “gays and lesbians are human beings”, wrath of God withheld pending review by Holy Trinity
Despite a nation-wide effort by conservatives to turn back time (say to about 900-1400 AD?), Oregon Sen. Ben Westlund (R) is part of a small number of Republicans lining up behind a measure to create civil unions within the state. This somewhat bipartisan action comes on the heels of an Oregon Supreme Court ruling that invalidated nearly 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued during a wedding whirlwind inspired by the Massachusetts ruling on the same issue. No doubt that somehow, before passage, some other inflexible conservative senator will tack on language to the bill reaffirming the state’s commitment to usurping the authority of Webster’s New English Dictionary in defining such words as ‘marriage’ and protecting the souls of good Christian Americans within their borders. Homophobia, like cleanliness, is next to godliness, apparently.
I don’t want anyone to think that I condone in any way the spreading or publication of false stereotypes about certain demographics. That being said, Christians have a recurring tendency towards being bigots on the issue of homosexuality. Recall I said ‘false stereotypes.” It’s not a stereotype if it’s true. A member of a religion like Christianity can’t consider themselves separate from the kind of behavior I am talking about when they choose to ignore this issue. Silent consent is consent nonetheless. And while we’re at it, let’s remind ourselves what silent consent has brought to the world. In Germany, of course, it was the Nazism. The citizens went along to get along. In American, it’s brought us the war on terror. In the world at large, nations bow to America’s will to reap economic benefits despite questionable acts committed by our soldiers that verge on being crimes against humanity.
When a recovering Catholic and sometimes-Buddhist like myself is the one reminding Christians that their Lord and Savior encouraged countering senseless hate with unconditional love because those Christians forgot, the world has become a pretty screwy place, my friends. I find it ironic that we can be force-fed a stream of cable news “interviews” about the hijacking of Islam by the fundamentalists that blow our soldiers up without once stopping to see how other extremists have climbed to power within religions that influence the highest members of our government. Fundamentalist Islam? I’m more worried about Fanatical Protestantism or Zealous Evangelism, to be honest. More on the Dominionists later, that’s something scary enough for its own article.
In the meantime, I’m calling on moderate or progressive Christians to take back their faith. Reclaim your religion and return it to its principles. Show the world that while gays were attempting to redefine “marriage” that some small section of ignorant fanatics didn’t succeed in redefining “love”. You religion is based on love, supposedly. Right? God’s love for you? And me? His gift of His Son to redeem humankind from original sin? All humankind? IS ANY OF THIS RINGING A BELL, DAMNIT?? Do yourselves and America a favor, and don’t let corruption happen to your religion. Or will you just sit back and let some rabid zealot put those words of hate into Jesus’ mouth?
Love your neighbor. Love your black neighbor, love your white neighbor. Love your old neighbor. Love your creepy-guy-with-a-lazy-eye neighbor. Love that ex-con neighbor with the tattoos up his arms and all over his back that you find so intimidating. Love your pagan Wicca neighbor who’s religion is thousands of years older than yours because she already forgives you for the millenia of repression her religion has suffered. It’s even OK to love that gay neighbor too. Love all your neighbors, everywhere, every day, because it was (and is, last time I checked the Bible) Jesus’ will that everyone show love to each other.
May 10th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
That thing about Oregon Senator Westlund and civil unions interested me so I Googled for news about it. Looks like things went really well at a recent hearing:
http://basicrights.blogspot.com/2005/05/hundreds-testify-in-support-of-senate.html
Even some religious groups are behind it. Good signs considering how many states banned even civil unions in November.
May 11th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
A few thoughts.
The point of a religious marriage, I suppose, is to sware marital fidelity before a god. The contentious issue for same-sex marriage, I imagine, is that a minister and/or congregation is telling the married couple that the god accepts and perhaps smiles upon the marriage.
Clearly people of any sexual persuasion or identity can be religiously married, so long as there is a minister willing to marry them (or they can go through whatever ritual the particular religion requires). Whether the congregation accepts this as a sanctioned marriage under their god is a different matter.
If people are troubled that ministers are marrying members of these communities before a god, then they should try to persuade the ministers not to perform the ritual, or persuade the couple seeking to be married that they are committing a sin and to forebear.
If they believe the marriage is illegitimate and in sin, then they should have no reason to care what the government does, as it can only deliver legal rights, not have any direct influence on religious doctrine. If members of a religious community desire that the same-sex couples go to hell or suffer whatever fate the religion says will befall them, then surely they are getting what they want (I doubt any religious person wants people to go to hell, and would much rather reform them). If they want to save the souls of these married people and the souls of the complicit ministers, then they can try. Prohibiting them from acquiring legal rights as a married couple has no bearing on the spiritual well-being of the couple.
The question is not whether we are corrupting religious values, beliefs, traditions, etc. by allowing the state to recognize legal marriages of same-sex couples. This is because if there are ministers willing to do it, the religion is already “corrupted” to some extent, and it is the followers of the religion that need to debate the merits of different religious positions within their religious community. The government merely attaches certain rights to the couple that do not have any serious religious implications of which I am aware.
And the implications should be obvious: there is no reason for the religious to fear state-recognized same-sex marriage, and there is no reason for the religious to differentiate between state-recognized civil unions and state-recognized marriages. Furthermore, it is clear that the religious people who are opposed to same-sex marriage are misplacing their efforts. They should be pressuring their own religious communities and ministers to stop performing and/or accepting the marriages. They should not be pressuring the government to stop recognizing the marriages, as the government has no say over religious doctrine.
If, by governments recognizing same-sex marriages, there are real implications towards a particular religion or religions in general, I would appreciate it if someone tells me what those implications are. Then I can continue my dull analysis.
May 11th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
That’s why I think all “marriages” as recognized by the government should be “civil unions”. Let the word “marriage” apply solely to religion. Thus once you’re married in a church (if that’s what you want), the state recognition of that is the civil union.
As far as the implication towards religion, I think they just think that by allowing gay marriage (or even civil unions) the government is condoning homosexual relationships, which they don’t want. It’s the same reason these people don’t want the United States to support condom distribution in Africa to combat AIDS (they preach abstinence only).
May 11th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
But it seems quite clear that, for instance, a gay man will still have sex with another man, and perhaps even marry that man without government recognition. By government recognition of legal rights for same-sex couples, there are no new “sins” being created. It is nothing more than a legal label. The sex and the love is still happening without the rights. And maybe even the religious ceremony will occur.
It would be quite a logical leap to say that the government’s recognition of same-sex marriages would result in more people having same-sex relationships. They are going to do it anyway, unless perhaps it is outlawed and really enforced, which isn’t going to happen.
You state the “condoning” argument rightly. I’m just hoping my argument shows that there is no reason for the religious communities (who think there is a problem with it) to be concerned about the government condoning the marriages, because (1) the relationships, many of which are marriage-like, are going to continue anyway without recognition, and (2) a government ceremony is not a religious ceremony, and even if it smacks of religion, they can simply condemn it as against their god, and (3) the religious ceremonies that do take place are matters for the religions themselves to sort out, and show that the real battle should be at the pulpit and not at the government.
Naturally, if civil unions could carry every single right that comes with being designated as “married,” etc., then it makes perfect sense to take that route pragmatically. I haven’t done the research, but I have heard that in many cases it does make a difference whether or not you are in a marriage or a civil union (of course, all of these quirks could be changed, I presume… might be harder if it is state constitutional). But, as far as I know, there is no direct implication on religious doctrine by a government recognition, as the government has no such authority, and never could have such authority (as far as a religious person is concerned).
Though I have nothing yet to base this on, could not the distinction between “civil unions” and “marriages” create “separate but equal” situations, a la Plessy v. Ferguson? Certainly nowhere near as dire, but by making the distinction we could open the door for abuse… people with discretion abusing that discretion and creating de facto inequality between the two labels.
But I rant.
May 12th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
The interesting thing is that when states, such as Louisiana proposed optional “Covenant marriages” for people who believe who wanted their own marriages to be more restrictive and based in religious idealogy, very few people availed themselves of this choice. This suggests that people have a very strict view of what a marriage vow should entail - as long as it is not necessarily ther *own* marriage vow. Just read a witty article about it in the nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=pollitt