The entire gay marriage thing has really gotten me thinking about the intersection of religion and politics. I can’t quite come up with a legitimate reason for discriminating against homosexuals in the institution of marriage that is not religiously based, and I have come to believe that all arguments, even those masquerading as secular are actually faith based. Commonly made arguments that attempt to avoid religious bases in their “defense” of marriage include those surrounding tradition, procreation, and the government interest in protecting traditional families for economic reasons. None of this really seems to make sense to me, and all seem a façade for what is actually a religiously based argument.
Tradition? The people of the United States have been changing tradition since the beginning of our nation. It used to be “tradition” to consider people of races other than white as inferior…. But that was obviously not a reason to continue. Most people would say that the traditional way of disciplining your children with a strong belt has long gone out of style – and for the better. In the Wild West, there was something involving taking a number of agreed upon paces in the opposite direction of your opponent before turning to fire your gun (or at least that’s what Hollywood would have us believe). Tradition hardly seems to hold much water in the face of progressive change.
Procreation is the next common argument… but the last I checked, there hasn’t been anyone out there suggesting that there should be some sort of fertility pre-screening in order to qualify for marriage. In fact, I would think there would be great uproar at the idea that there should be a contractual agreement made at the time of application that the couple will provide the state with a child within a specified number of years, else the marriage be voided by lack of offspring. Look out childless couples, the gay marriage issue may yet put your union in jeopardy.
On to economics. It seems to me there is a great economic interest for the state in locking people into obligatory care relationships. Fewer single parents, and a larger number of people with another potential provider in cases of injury / illness would clearly benefit the state economically…. And I can’t see how including same-gender couples in this arrangement wouldn’t be for the benefit of all taxpayers. Many children are being adopted by gay individuals (hooray! – what a better place than our foster care system!) – and in the view of the state, those children clearly benefit by having two adults with some economic earning power to support them… not to mention the benefits of having two adults to raise screaming toddlers or sex-crazed teenagers… Hoping at least one head will remain clear in each distressing moment and upping the chances of raising a strong individual who will not need the state’s support in their own lives.
There are many faith based reasons for discrimination, though I doubt that’s the way many of the pious would like to have it said. Religion by its nature is a discriminatory institution. Many faiths have a dogma that should be adhered to if its followers are to participate fully in the benefits of the institution. It really isn’t open to everyone – though if you’re willing to consider believing, most will do their best to convince you. Nonetheless, only members of the Latter Day Saints crowd can attend a temple wedding. Catholic.com lists five different requirements for receiving communion. I don’t think anyone is arguing religions can’t discriminate. If a religion decides that God has deemed to bless only heterosexual unions, well – that is their right, whether or not we disagree. Maybe they even want to work on a new marketing campaign – don’t just be married, be joined by God.
The phrase, “separation of church and state” is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists. In his letter, he explains that man “owes account to none other for his faith or his worship” and that “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only”. Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers owe some credit to John Locke, who believed that man alone could govern his own conscience which naturally exists in a state of liberty. Upon this foundation was born our freedom of religion, and the separate states of government and personal religious belief.
Here is where some insert the…. “one nation under God” baloney – in the name of tradition no less. Well, “One nation under God” is proof that tradition can change. I have heard this phrase used by a radio personality (who probably was better informed but looking for rile up the audience for ratings) to justify the founding of the United States as an essentially Christian nation. However, it was actually inserted into the pledge of allegiance in 1954 long after it was first written in 1892, and widely adopted by school children in the 1920s. Incidentally, also during the 50′s “religious-revival” the words “In God We Trust” were added to paper money and replaced our un-official motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” or Out of Many, One.
Well, maybe then I’m wrong, and I’m actually casting a vote in favor of tradition – the tradition of our founding (not the Wild West). Out of many voices, opinions, religious beliefs, family structures, and yes – that includes gay couples – One nation. Freedom of your consciousness… judgment by your creator – not your fellow citizen. Separate states – religion and politics. Stop the masquerade.
Sara,
I agree with so much of this post. Loving same sex couples should have right to marry just as I do. I can’t help but wonder, though, will polygamous couples cry foul once gay couples have the right to marry? Will we be able to stop at allowing only two people the right to marry? Would that be fair?
Also, I am disgusted by the thought of an ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Constitution should detail the rights of its citizens, not take them away.
Your friend,
Jen State
Comment by jenstate — September 10, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Jen,
I’m so glad you commented, and you certainly make an interesting point. With polygamy, it can get a little thorny – but I think the fact that we may creep closer to the edge of a slippery slope doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what is right. I’m really not sure about the issue of polygamy – two consenting adults yes…. but 4 or 5? Economically, I’m thinking it would be a clear drain on society. And of course the cultural practice of polygamy often involves children which is totally reprehensible.
Thanks for reading!
Sara
Comment by saracallow — September 10, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
I have to say that for someone who seems so “enlightened” you are very narrow minded when it comes to the rights of those that have opposing views. If homosexual couples deserve the right to marry then why not polygamists. Going off of your earlier comments isn’t it better that children go to homes where they are loved and cared for better than going to foster care or homes where they are abused? Are four or five mothers not better than one or two? So really you are only advocating Gay rights, not rights for everyone. I’m not sure where you went to school, but obviously you did not get your moneys worth. Here are just a few quotes from the founders of this country that refer to something greater than themselves:
Christopher Columbus , whose name means “bearer of Christ”, upon his first landing knelt in the sand, prayed,and gave thanks to God for their safe passage. Then named the island San Salvador, meaning “Holy Savior”.
“The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.”
-General George Washington
“You have persevered until these United States have been enabled, under a just Providence, to close the war in freedom, safety and independence…And for you, we address to Him our earnest prayers that a life so beloved may be fostered with all His care…”
- Thomas Jefferson
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
-Alexander
In a rare speech to congress, the revered Benjamin Franklin recalled that when the Continental Congress sat in days of great danger, they had asked God’s help in prayer.”Have we forgotten our powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance?” Franklin said he had lived a long time-he was the oldest delegate-”And the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aide?” Franklin concluded quoting the Bible:”Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”
I do have to say I am thankful for your opinions because they have only reinforced and made me even more excited about proposition 8 and its passing. I am so thankful to know that God lives, that He knows each of us, and has a well defined plan for all of us. I know that we have a Savior, Jesus Christ, who loves us more than we can ever comprehend. I know that by following the commandments of God our lives will be blessed. No professor, no college, no amount of money in the world can give us this knowledge. Believing that we are somehow greater than our creator is an idea that Satan would gladly have us believe. Only true faith in Jesus Christ, humility, repentance and obedience to His laws can give us the knowledge required to return back to Him and live in His sight. My hope is that all of God’s children will come to this light and knowledge. Thank you for engaging me.
Natalie
Comment by Natalie — September 11, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Actually Natalie, I am not sure that I am against the right of adults to enter into ANY relationship that they choose… gay, polygamist, heterosexual, etc. But I do think the polygamy idea can get more complicated, and I am not exactly sure how it fits in with all of this. I guess in my “enlightened” state (which by the way I do not proclaim to be) – I can only say I don’t know about polygamy, and that I do think that ALL legal contracts, marriage or otherwise, should be made by legal adults, and polygamist marriages sometimes do not include adults, which is something I find reprehensible. I also think that pragmatically, the economics of polygamy get more complicated. However, if 4 adults want to build a family together, I do not personally have a problem with it – I am just not sure what the correct legal status should be – so please don’t presume to know my views.
I can say I am thankful that we have freedom of religion. I don’t believe that Jesus or Christianity should dictate the laws of this country – on that point we obviously disagree. For my part, I will continue to fight to keep this a democracy rather than a theocracy. I will continue to advocate for the rights of women and men to enter into a legal and binding relationship with the person they love.
I actually have to say that it is a demonstration of the great HUMILITY I feel to our creation that precludes me from KNOWING the one true religion, answer, correct path – and from proscribing it for others. If there is a creator, it is obviously so much more powerful than I, that I would not presume to know exactly what it has in store for us, or what the right answer on this issue is. Therefore, I believe each person should have the freedom to make their own choice, and be judged in the end accordingly.
I also wanted to let you know that in this blog I will try to refrain from discussing my particular educational pedigree, because I do not believe that a person’s education or personal background should detract from / or in any way lend support to their opinion. We are all entitled to an opinion. Though I appreciate your comment as to the value of my education. Maybe I’ll take it into account should any of my children be interested in my alma mater! (j/k) But a little humor in the debate is appreciated.
I am glad you have been engaged.
Comment by saracallow — September 11, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
I encourage all to read the link above. I am from Georgia and feel fortunate that this is not an issue here….yet. I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that goes against nature. Anyone who disagrees needs a refresher course on human anatomy. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and has been since the beginning of time. Anyone is welcome to prove me wrong. I have been married to my beautiful wife for four years now. To have a law ANYWHERE that redefines what a marriage is absolutely redefines what my wife and I have. It is degrading. I don’t believe passing proposition 8 would lead this nation to a Theocracy but would embrace what we have as a Democracy. That is having wonderful Americans voting on issues that affect the very core of this nation. That core being the family. You redefine the family you redefine the nation. These are my views and just so you know Jesus and Christianity HAVE dictated the laws of this nation since it was founded which is why it is the greatest in the world.
Comment by Adam — September 11, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
A friend suggested your blog, actually an older entry on your view on gay marriage. As a Christian the other “Christian” comments have me confused. . .
Natalie typed, “Just the biology alone tells us that it takes a man and a woman to create life. Not two of the same.”
- Why quote biology here, then blast it later by saying, “. . .if we thought about everything in life logically we would be a bunch of cyborgs who thought that we evolved from pond scum!” Are you OK with the ape theory? Who’s to say who/what “guided” that scum into us?? (How can there still be apes if God didn’t “help” us evolve?) Besides, who gave us the brains to think logically?
“I am saddened that so many people have come to accept something so easily that is so contrary to the laws of nature or laws of God.”
- First, how is “this” easy? I can’t count how many gay-bashings there’ve been and can’t remember how long gays and lesbians have been trying to get “this”. Second, what happened to love thy neighbor? Judge not lest ye be judged? Isn’t that God’s job?
“I find it even more reprehensable that the people who are preaching tolerance have zero tolerance for people that don’t want to agree with them on this issue.”
- I preach tolerance – as a Christian, aren’t we taught to? You don’t want to agree, fine – that’s your right as an American, and I believe, as a human. Basically, in the US, do what you want but don’t hurt others, right? From what I’ve noticed, it’s the “other” side that has zero tolerance. If you don’t agree with this type of marriage, then don’t marry a woman and teach your children your values.
“I know that you would like to believe that the whole country feels the same way that you do,”
- It seems like you are the one who wants this. What a boring place this would be if that were so! Variety is the spice of life.
By the way, some “Christians” tend to get emotional about moral issues when their faith isn’t strong or when their contradictions are pointed out. They get upset when someone uses facts that disprove any of their arguments.
– As a Christian who works hard to live and act as one every day, I say, bring on the facts since it’s called “faith” for a reason!
Comment by Elizabeth — September 13, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
[...] you choose. In fact, I would probably lean toward legalizing prostitution, drugs, and maybe even polygamy. As long as Espresso Gone Wild is complying with the local codes, I believe they have as much [...]
Pingback by Bachelor Parties with a Shot of Espresso « Broken Corset — September 18, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
hi
0ntiec6vpjskio70
good luck
Comment by Rosa Hernandez — January 9, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
[...] doesn’t carry the column… and I was happy to read its support of my views of thechurch/state separationin regards to marriage equality. It is heartening to think that across the country, 8 year olds [...]
Pingback by Thanks to Dear Abby « Broken Corset — February 20, 2009 @ 3:53 pm