Same-sex civil unions are "separate but equal" and will not stand (lemon_lime's Write-Off)May 24 '05 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line As long as the governments of the United States and its states define marriage, legal same-sex marriages are inevitable.
_____ Some opponents of same-sex marriage use language that echoes from horrible history. They say that marriage must be "defended" from the "threat" posed by homosexuals. Violent segregationists once said that white women must be "defended" from the "threat" posed by black men. Restrictions on the right to same-sex marriage will go the way of restrictions on the right to interracial marriage. This is an entry in lemon_lime's Homosexuality, Marriage, and Religion Write-Off. Information about the write-off and links to many other entries are included in this essay. (Optional) What are your spiritual beliefs or religious affiliations? Agnostic. My parents taught respect for all religions and I like to think that stuck. They raised me in the United States, a country that protects religious liberty, including the right not to be religious, thankfully (or, maybe, thank God). What is your sexual orientation? Innately, absolutely homosexual, although I like the old joke: I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is. How do you see your own religious/spiritual views as influencing your opinion of sexuality? Just as I resent efforts to impose on adults what is acceptable religious belief, I resent efforts to define what kinds of sexuality are not acceptable among grownups. I don't believe anyone has found an absolute truth, and so we must be free to look for truth as we see fit. It was wrong when religion was used to justify slavery. It is just as wrong to use faith to try to justify discriminating against people whose sexuality does not conform to a majority standard. (Required) How do you define marriage? By the numbers. It's a union between two people who pledge to love each other romantically and sexually to the exclusion of all others. What thoughts or reactions do you have to these two pictures? (all completely safe for work, home, etc.) 1. http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/03/10/ba_knight01.jpg 2. http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/02/13/ba_gaywed_01_lm.jpg In the first, two men look into each other's eyes and hold hands. In the second, two women embrace as several people around them applaud. Apparently, the men have just exchanged wedding vows and the women have done the same. Not long from now, such photographs will be as pervasive and as unremarkable as pictures showing opposite-sex marriages. How does one of Christian faith reconcile these two pictures? Is one "right" and one "wrong"? What reactions do you have to seeing these signs? 1. http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/boston_common_031104/dscn1373.jpg 2. http://www.sushiesque.com/photos/boston_common_031104/dscn1419.JPG In the first, two men are carrying signs. One says, "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve." The other highlights that the first letters in the following spell "Gay": "God Abhors You." In the second photo, one sign reads, "Justice for all once and for all. Leave our Constitution alone." Another sign reads, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters you do unto me. Jesus." I don't know how a Christian would reconcile the two because they cannot be reconciled. If there is a God, that being either loves people or does not. I've been around many people like the two men carrying the anti-gay signs. In 1992, I was part of a pro-choice force that kept open women's health clinics that Operation Rescue tried to blockade. Since then, I've been an escort helping women get past anti-abortion protesters and into their doctors' offices. I've had people who proclaim they are doing the Lord's work yell at me that I'm going to burn in hell because I'm a baby killer and I'm gay. Their angry tones make it clear that they relish the prospect of my suffering eternal damnation, and believe they'll be spared that fate. Many of these people are like white supremacists. Their lives haven't worked out as they'd hoped. Economic and educational opportunities have passed them by and because it can't be their fault, they look for someone to blame. Scapegoating queers is handy because there are religious leaders eager to fuel such hatred, which they no longer feel so free to do when the hatred is targeted at Jews or people of color. Why do you think the topic of homosexuality is so polarizing in religious communities? Because some faiths teach discrimination against people who are not heterosexual while others do not. The notion of "love the sinner but hate the sin" is too complex for many people. Those who claim that Jesus condones discrimination against queers have missed vital parts of his message of love for everyone. Should the government be in the business of defining marriage? Why or why not? Yes, unless it seeks to define it so that some citizens can take advantage of its privileges and protections but other citizens cannot. Would you support the legalization of gay marriage? Yes, I do. If you answered no, what are your fears behind its legalization? If you answered yes, what are your fears behind it remaining illegal? Denying same-sex couples the right to marry assumes that the majority has the right to dictate what freedoms a minority may enjoy. We've stopped doing that with racial minorities and women, and this has brought us closer to living up to the ideals we claim. We will stop doing it with sexual minorities as well. Would you support government-sanctioned civil unions between homosexual couples? No. Even if such unions guarantee all the rights of marriage, not calling them marriage establishes them as something "separate but equal," which of course is not equal at all. We recognize that doctrine was wrong when we applied it to race. We will come to recognize it is wrong to apply it to sexuality. Do you see any way of bridging this current divide in our country over "wedge issues" like gay marriage or abortion? Or should we even be trying? Preserving liberty demands that we as individuals recognize that we might not always be right. We must try to foster that recognition in ourselves and in all citizens, if we are to enjoy any kind of societal civility. Strident certainty leads only to conflict with others who are as stridently certain of their beliefs. What do you see America's view of homosexuality and gay marriage being in 100 years from today? What will those future Americans think of us in 2005, as they look back? Homosexuals will be integrated as openly and fully into our culture as people of color are today. Gay marriage will be universal, routine and unremarkable. Future generations will look back on us with the same distaste or pity with which we look back at those who discriminated against people because of their race or gender. Final thoughts or ideas: There was a time in the United States when people of African descent were property. Then there was a time they were technically free citizens but were segregated and denied their right to vote. There was a time when female U.S. citizens were disenfranchised. There was a time when U.S. citizens could be imprisoned for having Japanese ancestors. There was a time when U.S. citizens could be prosecuted and persecuted for having unpopular beliefs. And there was a time when U.S. citizens were denied the right to marry outside of their race. Every time we have denied to some of our citizens some of their freedoms, we have come to regret it. We have always rescinded the restrictions we've imposed. Sometimes our commitment to individual liberties has been merely rhetorical, but that has never been permanent. Our denial of full marriage rights to U.S. citizens who are homosexual will not be permanent, either. Opponents of same-sex marriage may enact some legislation restricting such marriages, but those are victories they cannot sustain. Opposition to same-sex marriage erodes as people learn that people they know, trust and even love are gay. This process is speeding up as people see growing numbers of same-sex couples raising children and raising them well. Time and demographics are against those who favor reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples. Our growing understanding of biology also is against opponents of same-sex marriages. It should not matter whether someone chooses to be gay, just as it should not matter if someone chooses to be a Communist. But it does matter in the political climate that prevails at the moment in the United States. There is a small but growing body of science to confirm what most people who are gay or lesbian know instinctively: The only choice possible about one's sexual orientation is how honest one is about acknowledging it. When the innateness of homosexuality is established, those who seek to deny rights to homosexual citizens will be impeded even further. People in the United States who believe marriage must be maintained exclusively as a union between a man and a woman have only one way of ensuring that: Get governments out of the business of recognizing marriages. If marriage is left to the churches, the right to restrict its definition is protected by our deep and abiding respect for religious liberty. As long as it remains a function of government, denying to some citizens the right to marry conflicts with our commitment to equal protection under the law. We have never resolved such conflicts conclusively in a way that brands some citizens as less than others. We are not going to resolve the current conflicts in a way that brands gay men and lesbians as lesser citizens, either.  |
| Read all comments (6)|Write your own comment |
- Top 500|
Ads by Google
|
