"'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?' He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'"
--Luke 10:36-37 (NRSV)
What is my major reasoning for starting this journal?
I was raised in Southern Baptist church in the "Bible Belt." For the past couple of years, my wife and I have attended a Baptist church in the Inland Empire that has, until very recently, seemed rather forward-looking. I've been able to overlook the putrid music (I much prefer the classic hymns to the inane, repetitive blather of "Christian rock" that is so common in churches now) in order to attend a church that hasn't been quick to judge others. Or so I thought.
Two weeks ago, the pastor gave an excellent sermon on a passage from Galatians, a New Testament book that deals mainly with the early Christians (and, by extension, those of us today) no longer being bound by the Mosaic Law. The wages of sin may be death, but God recognizes that all people, by nature, commit sins, which is why Jesus died for everyone. No one is perfect. The Law is actually constricting to our spiritual growth, as it comprises ethical, social, and even hygienic rules which are difficult, if not impossible to maintain, and the penalties extremely harsh. They were useful in keeping an unruly bunch of former slaves in line to form a strong nation without giving in to the temptations of the various religions already found in Canaan.
By extension, the pastor said (and I cannot agree more), one cannot maintain that some laws apply and some do not (a sort of "picking and choosing"), nor can one attribute more import to one law over another. What is important is to recognize that no one can achieve perfection, and therefore not to judge others for sinning.
Excellent sermon, all said. The trouble is, he gave it as my mind was still reeling from his encouraging the congregation to go to a "No on 8" rally later in the day.
For those of you who do not live in California, Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The argument has grown quite heated, and those groups in favor have resorted to some truly despicable tactics that would make Swift Boat Veterans for Truth blush. Rallies at churches are only the tip of the iceberg. Most obviously, they've been charging that churches would lose tax-exempt status for not performing same-sex marriages (untrue), and that schools will be required to teach them (also untrue, and, besides, are people worried about their kids learning tolerance?).
I won't deny that Leviticus calls for the execution of homosexuals. It also, however, denies women of pretty much all rights and condemns eating quite a few animals that are commonly found on menus today. Some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy border on ridiculous--for example, if a man has sex with his wife during her period, the couple is to be cut off from society altogether. (This raises the obvious question of how anyone other than the husband and wife could ever know this, once society moved beyond the point where women had to sequester themselves during their period.) There's nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, nor in the teachings of Jesus. The Law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was important for its time, and still historically significant to the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is no longer the law of the land. (If it were, I'd be stoned for marrying a woman of a different ethnic background.)
Homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identification are not choices anyone makes. Simple common sense should tell us this. Who would ever willingly choose to embrace a lifestyle that, if discovered, has meant until very recently ostracization, or, more likely, death? (Without the promise of an afterlife to make up for it, I mean.) And, if it's a choice, how does one explain gay animals, which don't have the capacity to reason and make such choices?
And, if it's not a choice one makes, it can't be a sin, as sin is contingent upon one's willing disobedience to God. That's my belief. One does not choose their skin color, and, thankfully, our society has finally realized (for the most part) that skin color should be neither a hindrance nor an asset. Hopefully soon we'll realize the same thing about sexual preference.
However, if someone wants to believe it's a choice and a sin, they're free to do so. They are not, under the Constitution of the United States, free to infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If Ellen DeGeneres wants to marry Portia de Rossi, and that's what will make them happy, no one has a right to interfere. It simply does not affect anyone else. Well, except for those who watched Arrested Development and had crushes on Ms. de Rossi, but, hey, did you really think you had a chance anyway?
Our rights as Americans aren't contingent upon everyone else's belief. Regardless of one's own beliefs and feelings on the issue, it is wrong and un-American to strip others of the rights we enjoy. It wasn't right to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II because of where their ancestors were born, it wasn't right to condone and encourage slavery and segregation because of skin color, and it isn't right to take away the legal benefits granted to married couples because they happen to be of the same gender. This isn't a redefinition of marriage as it exists. It isn't an attack on marriage. It's a fight for the rights granted to all Americans by those men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the men and women who have fought to end inequality based on gender and race. Vote for a gay marriage ban and, bluntly, you are voting against the ideals of heroes like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
You're also voting against the ideals preached by Jesus. This was a man who avoided the religious establishment and hung out with adulteresses, tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves. He didn't have to agree with them; He saw them as needing love and compassion. Even if one believes that homosexuality is a sin that has to be dealt with by the church, it certainly won't do much good to alienate an entire community from said church.
Jesus said on several occasions that we should give to those in need, and provide for the Lord's work. I agree. That's why I used the money I would've given to the church as offerings for the next month, donating it to the anti-Prop. 8 movement. It may not be much, but if my measly donation helps air one TV spot that sways one person's opinion, it was well spent.
And, besides, if those people and organizations opposed to gay marriage are so concerned with "protecting the sanctity of marriage," then why don't they push to outlaw divorce?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Religion, politics, pop culture, and whatever random thoughts link them together
3 comments:
Nice thoughts on this. I'm actually having a class discussion on this tomorrow, and I'm going to find the California State Supreme Court ruling and excerpt it, along with the Prop 8 text, and some of the other state marriage amendments, just so students can see the language used. As a card carrying queer (it's true! in Washington state, you get a special card when you register your domestic partnership), I have to say, thanks for being so insightful.
You raise a point, though, that I've been wrestling with for a long time, and it's this: choice. I've felt, for a long time, that the issue of whether or not being queer is a choice is somehow missing the point. I've not tried to actively articulate this before, so bear with me (and know that any vehemence is not directed specifically at you, but to the cultural discussion at large). Whether or not I choose to be with a man, or if I'm driven to it by instinct, brain chemistry, upbringing, or DNA, I can't help but feel that the motivation doesn't matter. What matters is the manifestation. What matters is what ensues.
Also, I have to say that I find it just a wee bit insulting that, when taken to its logical end, biological (or environmental) determinism results in "Look at the homos who can't help themselves." I don't *have* to have a boyfriend. I don't *have* to have sex. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. You don't choose who you fall in love with. But I do believe that you can choose not to fall in love, full stop. You can choose not to engage in pair bonding. Will it change your human experience? Sure it will. Will it make you better somehow? No, just different.
Being queer is just a mode of human expression. Why isn't there an equal concern with whether vanilla heterosexual sex drive is genetic or a choice or formed by upbringing? Frankly, I think it's a political move--if queers can be kept in an othered state by scrutinizing difference, you can keep them disenfranchised by continually redrawing the line between the normal and the abnormal. I have grave doubts about how common the assumed normal is. That assumed normal is something that dramaturgs call Scheinwissen--ghost knowledge. It's a commonly held assumption that is, in fact, incorrect.
Everyone is different. Relationships are all emergent negotiations. Yes, generalities can be made, but stories are more interesting, more compelling, and describe more facets of truth than simple statistics and statements of stereotype.
So, whether we choose who we're with or not, it misses two main points: a) it's nobody's freakin' business unless we choose to share it, and b) under the law, issues of choice (whether active or determined), in this instance, should be transparent.
If I choose to drive a red truck instead of a blue sedan, what difference should that make? Should I not be allowed to register my red truck just because it's a red truck (the answer is yes, if it has a pair of those annoying truck testicles...wait...I think I may have just disproved my point...scratch that last thing...hee hee...I mean *disregard* that last thing...not scratch...)? Is this a false analogy? Maybe not: Red vehicles are more likely to be involved in accidents, and trucks use more gas. Doesn't the state has a vested interest in the types of vehicles that are operated on its roads? Why should the state allow the use of a vehicle that has so many more drawbacks than something more reasonable? What if my parents always drove red trucks? Should that matter? What if I saw the truck on the lot and was so drawn to it that I had to buy it?
But, on a more general note, I think that most straight-identified people are simultaneously fascinated and repelled by homosexuality. By repelled, I mean that their minds veer sharply away from casting themselves in any sort of imaginary homosexual interaction. The discomfort generated by being attracted to something that repulses you is, understandably, disconcerting, and may lead to unpredictable behavior. If you're out of touch with yourself, and don't recognize the energy generated by that kind of internal conflict, ugliness may result. I'm not saying that all straight folk are out of touch or fearful, but that lacking a personal center can lead to an unhealthy outward focus. Just a thought.
--Tom
No offense at all intended. I've never considered that this position in the debate, however intended, can be taken to the extreme you describe, and I can't deny that you're unfortunately right. It doesn't matter what makes any of us gay or straight, ultimately, only that we all respect one another (or, at least, keep our mouths shut when we don't), and neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality (nor, for that matter, bisexuality) should be seen as inherently better or worse.
But, for most people, consciously choosing not to fall in love is not the "pursuit of happiness" we're all guaranteed by the Constitution, and, if we choose to pursue that happiness, no one has the right to interfere so long as it does not harm anyone else, and the idea of amending a state constitution to deny this right--especially after it's been explicitly to be granted by the US and state constitutions--downright disgusts me. Sadly, I think there will always be people who will hate people who are different from themselves, regardless of what that difference is.
And 110% agreed that one's personal relationships are no one else's business.
Great thoughts, both of y'all. Tom, I agree particularly with your comments on choice. It shouldn't matter one bit (would these same people, I wonder, insist that childless straight marriages all be terminated because they don't involve sexual reproduction? Actually, I don't think I'd like the answer to that).
Four years back, Michigan had a similar measure on the ballot which regrettably passed. I wound up passing out literature at a Michigan game--one of the most bizarre experiences of my life, and one of the most eye-opening. Just about every other "conservative" position I can think of I either partially agree with or understand in some way. I have theoretically conservative stances on the death penalty and gun ownership, but both are modified by real-life nuances (racist application of the former and the overwhelming preponderance of domestic gun deaths for the latter). While I don't agree with the position of "pro-lifers," I can at least see how they arrive at it. Being against gay marriage, though, is the one position which seems to have no other conceivable purpose than hurting people (unless straight proponents somehow believe that it'll strengthen their own marriages, which is even more loathsome--even vampiric, in a way). And that I'll never, ever understand.
Post a Comment