A few weeks ago, I got a rather large response to a post I made on the subject of marriage equality. I hinted then that it was really only the tip of a large iceberg of things I could find to say on the subject. And since dozens of people on my Facebook feed have been talking about marriage equality today, it seemed to me like this would be an almost required occasion for me to join in.
It's been a crazy 24 hours for marriage equality in the United States. It started last night with North Carolina voting in favor of the hateful Amendment One. Not to be outdone, Colorado followed a few hours later with Republicans in the state House shutting down all voting on 30 pieces of pending legislation, just because one of them happened to be a law to allow civil unions for gays and lesbians (that was already confirmed to have enough votes to pass). Then today, President Obama went on the record as the first sitting U.S. president to endorse full marriage quality -- no exceptions, no half-measures. And in Colorado, Governor Hickenlooper announced he would invoke his power to schedule a special legislative session, in which the state House will be required to vote on some of the issues tabled at the deadline last night, including the civil unions bill.
People on both sides of the issue have had their passions inflamed by all this. A lot of the same arguments against marriage equality are now being trumpeted. Tonight, I want to focus on one in particular that I find especially egregious: the argument that people against marriage equality are actually the ones being oppressed, that their religious liberty is threatened by the supporters of same-sex marriage.
Oh, where to begin?
Supporters of marriage equality are not pushing to require same-sex marriage, only that it be permitted. Just look at the six states (and Washington D.C.) in which those marriages are now legal. You'll be unable to find one single case of anyone being forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will or beliefs. And this isn't just out of respect for people's freedom of religion -- no minister is ever required to perform any kind of marriage.
I've heard of a fair number of ministers requiring a form of pre-marital counseling session(s) prior to giving their consent to perform a marriage between a couple. And if the couple refuses to attend, or if they do attend and the minister doesn't like what he or she sees? The minister isn't forced to perform the ceremony against his/her will. And the couple, if determined to get married, must go look elsewhere -- another minister, a justice of the peace, whatever.
And that's the crux of the issue here. They can go look elsewhere. People who oppose same-sex marriage are arguing that because they personally are against the idea, same-sex marriage should be impossible everywhere. Proponents of same-sex marriage are saying that no church should be required to perform a same-sex marriage it doesn't condone, but that there should be somewhere that marriage can be performed. See the difference?
Some people will then double down on their position at this point, declaring that the existence of same-sex marriage anywhere is indeed an affront to their religious freedom. Setting aside the question of whether Christianity or any other religion does in fact condemn same-sex marriage (a subject worth an entirely different post), this is still an unreasonable and intolerant stance.
The position is that marriage that isn't in accordance with your religion is wrong and should be banned. One problem with that is that the world is full of marriages that aren't in accordance with any given religion's particular beliefs. I'm going to use Christianity as an example. If you're a Christian, every marriage in accordance with Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc. beliefs are not in line with your religious beliefs. But somehow, Christians seem to get along fine without advocating laws that Muslims, Buddhists, etc. should be banned from getting married in the United States. Why tolerate all those other kind of assaults on your religion in the form of marriage, but focus all the rancor on this one area? Because you know those other marriages aren't assaults on anything. No one is ever going to force a Catholic priest to perform a Shinto wedding. And no one for marriage equality would require a religion to accept tenets it doesn't believe in; proponents just ask you to coexist with this one more thing you don't believe in, along with the countless other things and people in the world you also disagree with.
Of course, as long as the First Amendment and freedom of religion is being flaunted as a trump card here, I should conclude by pointing out the obvious, that it cuts both ways. Yes, the First Amendment does indeed guarantee religious freedom in our country. But actually, the very first words of the amendment are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Quite literally and succinctly, there can be no law in this country based upon the desire of one religion to the exclusion of other religions, or to a lack of religion, or to others who interpret the same religion differently than you. No law is allowed to prohibit the free exercise of your religion, and in turn there can be no law because of your religion.
It's that simple.
4 comments:
Very well written Evan. I am proud to be your friend. I keep trying to remember that a woman's right to vote was not won overnight, that civil rights for African Americans did not happen in a year, a woman's right to choose is still constantly being threatened and on the list goes. This is simply going to be one more fight for equality, it's our fight and just as men fought to help women get the right to vote and white people fought for equality for black people, so too will straight people stand up for gay rights and equality.
I'm going to say two crappy words, but hear me out. Civil Union. Upset? Hang on... we know that separate but equal doesn't work, that's not what is on the table here. How about we take the government out of ALL "marriages". Have the government issue "Civil Union" licenses with all the same rights/responsibilities etc. to ALL couples that want to ruin, er, join their lives... gay or straight. That way churches or whoever gets to keep the term "marriage" and hopefully that will make them happy. Everyone has the same rights under the law, the religious wingnuts (which, to be clear, I do NOT lump all religious people in that category) can keep their word that means so much to them. Win/win? This is not my idea, just something I read. It seems okay to me, but since I'm not the oppressed one here I thought I'd ask how it sounds to you. I was going to do that in a more private forum, but it might as well be here.
To my anonymous visitor -- Thanks for recognizing the inhertenly unfair nature of "separate but equal" in civil unions. That's yet another aspect of the topic I could get into. But taking marriage away from people who already have it to leave it for religious people isn't really practical either. Even if people would be voluntarily willing to relinquish their married status, they really shouldn't. It's STILL "separate but equal" -- it's just inviting straight married couples to be in the same lesser class as gay couples.
Theree was a judge in one of the Southern states not long ago who was removed because he refused to perform a same-sex marriage. Just saying that his personal beliefs (which he exercised his "right to say No") cost him his job. "State officials then declared that justices of the peace would be required to perform such marriages or face possible legal action for discrimination."(https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=61+Ala.+L.+Rev.+847&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=e11370b6a1ec25b363c818a180c5de30). I did not pay for this article, but it was in the news. If they are given the option without fear of prosecution or job loss, then Ok. If they refuse and face retrobution, then this is wrong.
Post a Comment