It should be clear that Prop. 8 supporters are not being targeted because of their religious beliefs, but because of their political action. It goes without saying that vandalism is a bad thing, whether you carve "KKK" or "Jesus Loves You" in the paint of a car. In the example of the Klu Klux Klan, an African-American--or enlightened and compassionate person of any other race--have it well within their rights to let folks know that a proprietor of a business is a Klan member, and they should avoid spending money there because it helps subsidize cross burnings and lynchings. Likewise, I can take my business to establishments that support my rights, and I appreciate those who are willing to make public the donors to Prop. 8.
If anyone should take the time to read through the California Supreme Court decision on the matter, they would find a reasoned argument disentangled from the religious issue. Most of the rub comes not from "gay marriage" but from the word "definition." It is the nature of language that words have different meanings in different contexts, and for those on both sides of the marriage issue it's about controlling the boundaries of one word.
A point overlooked in the California Supreme Court ruling is that their opinion did not support the granting of gay marriage rights, but was focused on the use of terminology to name the union between two people. In the recent past the beaches in California were segregated. Having "separate but equal" access to surfing did not fly under the equal protection clause, and neither did calling one part of Santa Monica bay "The Inkwell" and set aside for Black people.
According to legal precedent and common sense, no group has the right to restrict the use of language (beyond using brand names for similar products). That's why Catholics, Scientology, and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all get to use the word church, and on the secular side, all get to claim tax exempt status. In America, we take pride in our tolerance of difference, and extol it as a virtue.
One other possibility under the California Supreme Court would be to give the name civil unions to all marriages, have it confer the same legal standing as marriage in other states. By threading the needle this way, the equal protection clause is upheld, and religious institutions get to marry people "in the eyes of god".
There are plenty of gay-friendly houses of worship that will join two people together--no matter what their gender--as there are churches and temples that won't. For the brief six months that same-sex couples could get married, what happened at religious institutions did not change. Likewise, if a person is baptized, there is no civil aspect or equal protection requirement to the spiritual prestidigitation.
Unlike other faith-based ceremonies, there are separate fiscal and legal reasons that two people might want to form a union. In California, there are nearly 500 laws that reference and effect marriage in one way or another. On the federal level, there are 1500 more. I hate to generalize--or paint a diverse group with too broad a brush--but most gay men I know fiercely value their independence. For the most part we were born into heterosexual families, and often were forced into self-reliance when the realization (or fear of the same) meant that we wouldn't be receiving the same familiar support or unconditional love as our heterosexual brothers and sisters. Marriage is not something we would enter into with frivolity; there are rights, but there is also responsibilities. On a personal note, my four-year relationship is strong, supportive, loving, and I believe enduring; but even with the opportunity--and with much discussion--breeder-style marriage was not something we were both willing to commit to. Now the conversation is moot.
God knows we've been there for friends and lovers in the past. Through the worst years of the AIDS crisis we fed and wiped the asses of our comrades while we helplessly watched them suffer and die. Whether out of fear, loathing, or institutionalized hate, our friends' straight families had mostly abandoned them. Yet when they were taking their last breaths in a hospital, their absent family had permission to visit but we didn't. I wonder how many gay men died frightened and alone, thinking their gay family had abandoned them too, while in reality a bunch of sad and angry queers were being kept outside by "family values?"
Over the past 150 years, the equal protection clause has been used to break the chains of slavery, give women the right to vote, and allow access to jobs for folks with disabilities. Since the writing of the Constitution, the circle of justice have been spreading, like the ripples from a rock thrown in a pond. For the first time in my life I have seen the equal protection clause rescinded for one specific group of people. In the dark days of the 80's and 90's we weren't asking for Christian compassion, but why should we need the permission of a heterosexual majority to express love for each other?
All faiths have some form of the golden rule. I was raised in the Catholic faith, and was taught about a new covenant with Jesus that focused more on loving and forgiveness than on the old testament's judgement and retribution. One of my reasons for leaving the church was its schizophrenic inability to let go of an agenda of judgement and hate, which it wrapped in a transparent veneer that paid lip service to an all-loving god. Later in life I felt that Buddhism did a better job at promoting the golden rule under its teachings of mindfulness. By putting oneself into "another persons shoes," we can act in a way that leaves other people esteem intact.
So for a moment, I wonder if you can imagine a group you identify with--be it a religious group, your gender, or something else--what it would feel like to have your rights specifically voided by the government? In Nazi Germany it happened to the Gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, Communists, and the Jews. This speaks to a larger philosophical issue on freedom and rights, and whether they are universal, or if a slim majority gets to pick and choose who to bestow them to.
Over the course of recorded civilization, marriage has taken on different forms and has been defined in different ways. In the Middle Ages, the Christian faith sanctioned unions between same-sex couples, as well as marriages with limited spousal rights, and those without the consent of the betrothed. In the past century some faiths have seen civil marriage as irrelevant or even detrimental to their sacrament, to say nothing of those religious institutions that endorse marriage between a man and multiple teenage girls. I mention these variations only to point out that marriage is a mutable even under religious institutions, and that the form it takes today is a cultural fashion that will keep *ahem* evolving.
I worry when laws are made to strip away freedoms, because they are often there to protect the sensibilities of the majority. This becomes worrisome when a particular faith's beliefs are used to inform civic and criminal law. I think about a place like Iran, where their religious institutions control their political system, so that homosexuality is punished by death.
That is well within the abilities of a majority to bestow upon the population at large, but it also flies in the face of universal justice. I can imagine the anxiety of being a small minority living under the rules of a majority that has no political incentive to protect one's rights. It's a feeling shared by Falun Gong in China, Women under Sharia law, The white minority in Zimbabwe, and myself, a gay man in California.
Frankly I would rather have my lawn sign ripped out than have the equal protection clause rescinded for me--or any other group.
I have had my house egged, my porch light broken, and my car keyed by homophobes in my neighborhood. I've had a knife held to my throat and been mugged by two men that I later found out from the police were targeting gay men. This I can live with. I would gladly give my home address to any Christian who would like to take their anger, fear, or hatred of the gay community out on my home or car. Please, cast a stone; cast many. But promise me you won't vote to take away my civil rights.
If anyone should take the time to read through the California Supreme Court decision on the matter, they would find a reasoned argument disentangled from the religious issue. Most of the rub comes not from "gay marriage" but from the word "definition." It is the nature of language that words have different meanings in different contexts, and for those on both sides of the marriage issue it's about controlling the boundaries of one word.
A point overlooked in the California Supreme Court ruling is that their opinion did not support the granting of gay marriage rights, but was focused on the use of terminology to name the union between two people. In the recent past the beaches in California were segregated. Having "separate but equal" access to surfing did not fly under the equal protection clause, and neither did calling one part of Santa Monica bay "The Inkwell" and set aside for Black people.
According to legal precedent and common sense, no group has the right to restrict the use of language (beyond using brand names for similar products). That's why Catholics, Scientology, and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all get to use the word church, and on the secular side, all get to claim tax exempt status. In America, we take pride in our tolerance of difference, and extol it as a virtue.
One other possibility under the California Supreme Court would be to give the name civil unions to all marriages, have it confer the same legal standing as marriage in other states. By threading the needle this way, the equal protection clause is upheld, and religious institutions get to marry people "in the eyes of god".
There are plenty of gay-friendly houses of worship that will join two people together--no matter what their gender--as there are churches and temples that won't. For the brief six months that same-sex couples could get married, what happened at religious institutions did not change. Likewise, if a person is baptized, there is no civil aspect or equal protection requirement to the spiritual prestidigitation.
Unlike other faith-based ceremonies, there are separate fiscal and legal reasons that two people might want to form a union. In California, there are nearly 500 laws that reference and effect marriage in one way or another. On the federal level, there are 1500 more. I hate to generalize--or paint a diverse group with too broad a brush--but most gay men I know fiercely value their independence. For the most part we were born into heterosexual families, and often were forced into self-reliance when the realization (or fear of the same) meant that we wouldn't be receiving the same familiar support or unconditional love as our heterosexual brothers and sisters. Marriage is not something we would enter into with frivolity; there are rights, but there is also responsibilities. On a personal note, my four-year relationship is strong, supportive, loving, and I believe enduring; but even with the opportunity--and with much discussion--breeder-style marriage was not something we were both willing to commit to. Now the conversation is moot.
God knows we've been there for friends and lovers in the past. Through the worst years of the AIDS crisis we fed and wiped the asses of our comrades while we helplessly watched them suffer and die. Whether out of fear, loathing, or institutionalized hate, our friends' straight families had mostly abandoned them. Yet when they were taking their last breaths in a hospital, their absent family had permission to visit but we didn't. I wonder how many gay men died frightened and alone, thinking their gay family had abandoned them too, while in reality a bunch of sad and angry queers were being kept outside by "family values?"
Over the past 150 years, the equal protection clause has been used to break the chains of slavery, give women the right to vote, and allow access to jobs for folks with disabilities. Since the writing of the Constitution, the circle of justice have been spreading, like the ripples from a rock thrown in a pond. For the first time in my life I have seen the equal protection clause rescinded for one specific group of people. In the dark days of the 80's and 90's we weren't asking for Christian compassion, but why should we need the permission of a heterosexual majority to express love for each other?
All faiths have some form of the golden rule. I was raised in the Catholic faith, and was taught about a new covenant with Jesus that focused more on loving and forgiveness than on the old testament's judgement and retribution. One of my reasons for leaving the church was its schizophrenic inability to let go of an agenda of judgement and hate, which it wrapped in a transparent veneer that paid lip service to an all-loving god. Later in life I felt that Buddhism did a better job at promoting the golden rule under its teachings of mindfulness. By putting oneself into "another persons shoes," we can act in a way that leaves other people esteem intact.
So for a moment, I wonder if you can imagine a group you identify with--be it a religious group, your gender, or something else--what it would feel like to have your rights specifically voided by the government? In Nazi Germany it happened to the Gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, Communists, and the Jews. This speaks to a larger philosophical issue on freedom and rights, and whether they are universal, or if a slim majority gets to pick and choose who to bestow them to.
Over the course of recorded civilization, marriage has taken on different forms and has been defined in different ways. In the Middle Ages, the Christian faith sanctioned unions between same-sex couples, as well as marriages with limited spousal rights, and those without the consent of the betrothed. In the past century some faiths have seen civil marriage as irrelevant or even detrimental to their sacrament, to say nothing of those religious institutions that endorse marriage between a man and multiple teenage girls. I mention these variations only to point out that marriage is a mutable even under religious institutions, and that the form it takes today is a cultural fashion that will keep *ahem* evolving.
I worry when laws are made to strip away freedoms, because they are often there to protect the sensibilities of the majority. This becomes worrisome when a particular faith's beliefs are used to inform civic and criminal law. I think about a place like Iran, where their religious institutions control their political system, so that homosexuality is punished by death.
That is well within the abilities of a majority to bestow upon the population at large, but it also flies in the face of universal justice. I can imagine the anxiety of being a small minority living under the rules of a majority that has no political incentive to protect one's rights. It's a feeling shared by Falun Gong in China, Women under Sharia law, The white minority in Zimbabwe, and myself, a gay man in California.
Frankly I would rather have my lawn sign ripped out than have the equal protection clause rescinded for me--or any other group.
I have had my house egged, my porch light broken, and my car keyed by homophobes in my neighborhood. I've had a knife held to my throat and been mugged by two men that I later found out from the police were targeting gay men. This I can live with. I would gladly give my home address to any Christian who would like to take their anger, fear, or hatred of the gay community out on my home or car. Please, cast a stone; cast many. But promise me you won't vote to take away my civil rights.
Well said. Consider your link cited on Facebook. Hope that's OK...
ReplyDeleteI love your strength.
ReplyDelete