Being so adamantly Pro-Life may lead some to the belief that I am a "Conservative."
However, an issue I feel equally passionate about is equality. Equality in the workplace and in the bedroom, and in every niche of society between the two. Equality in race and age, in gender and body types, in educational opportunities and socioeconomic status, and in sexual orientation.
Yes, this is a post about Marriage Equality, or more specifically the Defense of Marriage Act- the latest "trendy" social hot topic that has Facebook turning red, whether with a pink equality sign in support of Marriage Equality or images of the equality signs perverted into a cross to show opposition of overturning the law preventing government recognition of same-sex marriage.
Earlier in the week, I texted Jason to ask if he knew why so many folks on Facebook were changing their profile pics to the red & pink equal sign. He asked if I knew about DOMA. So... of course, I did a quick Google search and replied, "oh yeah, Defense of Marriage Act, I just didn't know what the sudden impetus was."
The truth is, even though I only learned about "DOMA" a few days ago, this has been an issue that has confused me for a long time. It confuses me both politically and religiously.
Politically. We are a patriotic family. My husband is a retired veteran, and the first 10 years of our lives together were spent with him deployed as often as he was home. I truly believe that our family dedicated our lives to the pursuit and defense of American freedom. However, that is in direct conflict with defending a government that strips so many citizens of a very basic human right- the freedom of choosing who we love.
I don't want to get into the debate of whether people are "born gay" or "choose gay." Although, I will throw something out there. I had a "girl crush" on Madonna for most of my teenage years, to be later replaced by Sandra Bullock. I can look at a woman and think, "Wow, she's beautiful." Yet, I do not feel a sexual attraction towards her. I did not "choose" to create that barrier; the attraction simply doesn't exist. Likewise, most of the people in my life for whom that barrier does not exist, for whom the object of their attraction is their own gender, I don't feel they made that "choice" either. On the contrary, most people I know struggled not to associate themselves with that ostracized sector of society and "chose" to shove away those authentic feelings until they just couldn't be contained any longer.
Thankfully, we are a society becoming slowly more tolerant of variations in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, as a government, we are not. My fundamental confusion on the issue politically is... Why is the government given the power to determine who we can or can't marry? I can marry someone of a different race. I can marry an illegal citizen. I can marry someone of a different religion, or no religion at all. I can marry a convict in prison. I can marry someone twice my age, or more. I can marry someone half my age, or even a minor with parental permission. I can marry someone that has been divorced again and again... and again. I can marry any human being on this Earth that I wish... unless we share the same number of X and Y chromosomes.
I am just at a complete loss on how this is possible in a country founded on principles of freedom. I don't even know HOW to debate the legality of such laws because it is such a flagrant disregard of the constitutional rights on which all laws of this country should be based.
A government that is allowed to create laws determining who its citizens can and cannot marry is just one step removed from a country that controls how many children a family can have. If you are unsure how that story ends, Google "female infanticide."
For me, the government issue is black and white. We are in the wrong, and it needs to be made right.
Religiously, this topic has so many twists and convolutions that there is no end to my confusion. The most common argument I saw against homosexuality this week involved Levitican law. Leviticus?! Just today, I sat down for Easter dinner with my husband (of my second marriage), he having been recently shaved and myself having had my hair cut just last week. We had ham for Easter dinner... with the fat... oh, and our clothes were of mixed fabrics. Ah hell, we just broke six Levitican laws right there, why even worry about sexual immorality?
To pull some antiquated Old Testament scripture out of context to defend an argument is futile to me. It's the same thing that happens when someone wants to use the Bible to tout the virtues of women being subservient to men, or the the "right" to beat children. Read just a few scriptures before or after the one being referenced and often the entire context of the argument will change.
However, let's say that's not always true. Let's say that there are many scriptures in the Old Testament referencing God's disgrace towards homosexuality. Let's say that God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah purely based on the sins of one man laying with another. Even if we could say that, what does it matter? Unless you are of the Jewish faith, why are you using Old Testament arguments to defend Christianity?
I will be the first to admit that I have tried to read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations many times, and failed every time. I will be the first to admit that I am of wavering faith often, and by no means exalting myself as a Biblical scholar. However, isn't the very essence of Christianity based on the premise that Old Testament law is no longer relevant? The crucifixion of Christ is what opened the doors to all, not living in allegiance to antiquated laws.
So then, let's carry this discussion into the New Testament. I imagine there are scriptures there too that could be used to defend morality against homosexuality. And if there are not, I am sure there are scriptures that are vague enough to be twisted into such. I'm sure this is true of many acts of immorality, from which we only want to highlight those that don't apply to our own lives. (Well, homosexuality must be a bigger sin than pre-marital sex, right?) However, when did the Christian God become one of such exclusion and hatred?
Jesus lived among the sexually immoral. He brought others into his faith by inclusiveness, not judgment and damnation. Today, Jesus would be in hospitals and hospices visiting AIDS patients. He would be volunteering in homeless shelters, talking to women who believe their only option for survival is prostitution. He would be driving by the strip clubs that proliferate around military bases, offering rides home to the drunken Sailors stumbling out of their doors at 2 a.m. He would be offering love and compassion, not only to those who lived like him and believed like him, but more importantly, to those who did not.
Ultimately, I believe in tolerance. I think the person who believes homosexuality is immoral and same sex marriage is an abomination has every right to his or her opinion. Likewise, I believe those who support Marriage Equality are equally deserving of their opinions. I do not believe that either side of the argument should be judged or persecuted for their beliefs. I see just as many Christians being condemned for their close-mindedness in social media as I do Equal Right supporters being bashed for Pro-Gay views. Neither side of the battle is in the right. Tolerance is the only answer.
The most truthful statement I have seen from this whole debate came from Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who authored The Purpose Driven Life:
Disagreement, fear, hatred. Agreement, love, compassion. No matter which side of the argument you do or do not support. No matter which side of the argument I do or do not support. That is our belief. That is our right. And I do not believe the government should sit in a sovereign position to determine it for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment