Here's my response . . .
You should be wary about supporting this kind of effort. What you are advocating for here is using the power of the government to curb the actions of a group of individuals, so the philosophy behind the strategy is immediately faulty. It should not be the purpose of government to interfere with a person's religious activities or with a group of individuals' rights to speak freely and influence public opinion.
It's ironic that gay people think that politicians should stay out of marriage, but that politicians and bureaucrats should have their nose in the business of religious organizations. We of all people should be the first to know that the cult of the omnipotent state is something to be opposed, not encouraged. If we learned that lesson, we'd know why the whole crusade for gay marriage wastes a lot of time. That's why, politically, I'm not for gay marriage. (Mind you, I'm not against it in any way at all, and I always will vote against any anti-gay ballot measures whenever I have the opportunity.) As far as politics goes, I'm completely against state marriage of any kind- it's not the job of the state to decide who should get married and who shouldn't.
Some are surprised to know that there are a fair number of gay people who join me in my skepticism about gay marriage. When well-meaning people want to expand the definition of "marriage", which much of our society believes is the union of one man and one woman as a foundational institutions of our society, you're fighting a battle against what's perceived to be thousands of years of history.
Really, it's a battle over semantics. And for what? Yes, we've made tremendous progress - but at a price, and we're still going to lose a lot of battles for the near future. Sadly, the only way I think we'll win the fight won't have anything to do with rational arguments in our favor. It will happen as our culture becomes increasingly secular and finds religious ideas ("traditional" or otherwise) irrelevant at best and oppressive at worst. When the idea of marriage as a sacrament (or a sacred, binding, holy, lifetime commitment) vanishes from our corporate consciousness, that's when we'll get the right to marry - in the eyes of the State.
Marriage is undermined through this whole process, because the religious ideals that promote Christian marriage are being eroded in the eyes of the public who are tired of a religious perspective that is increasingly seen in a negative light. While blame for this can be placed squarely on the doorstep of religious institutions that have failed to understand the core of their message, those who fight for gay marriage exacerbate these prejudices unnecessarily when we fight over the definition of marriage, no matter how much we see state recognition of civil unions as a "separate but equal" issue.
Why do we let the State - this instrument and promoter of war, theft, greed, and oppression - define who we are? We may be bedazzled by words like "reform" or even a nebulous idea like "change". And let's face it - these lofty ideals really do speak to us in very anxious times like these. We all know that now.
But we also know that the more things change, the more things stay the same - we have lots of promises that things will be different, but then things really aren't different - because powerful politicos can't help themselves from gobbling up more authority. They encourage this mindset by saying that every problem should be and can be addressed by State-sponsored "solutions". The cures are always worse than the problems, feeding the monster of expansive government in the name of reform and change.
The reality is this - reform just means that government gets bigger and more intrusive. Change just means a blank check to let those in power do whatever they want to do, even if we only vote for and support them when we agree with half of their agenda.
This is why we have to make a difference by not offering typical liberal platitudes, as inspiring as they are. We in the gay community would have more success - and get more buzz - by putting aside socialism lite and saying something with the ring of a much deeper truth that is based on principle, not political opportunism. We instead should argue that the state doesn't have a legitimate interest in promoting one type of social structure and living arrangement over another, but instead better serves us by enforcing the promises or contracts individuals make between or among themselves.
Do not get distracted by the red herring of "marriage". The fight is for equal rights for everybody, regardless of what you or anybody else calls any same-sex relationships we choose to have.
Isn't this what freedom is really supposed to be about?
And don't forget - if you go after the Mormon church, you open the door to similar attacks on the Religious Left, of which I consider myself to be a part. Soon, right-wing groups will try to use the power of the IRS to come after the United Church of Christ for trying to influence gay-positive legislation. They'll go after the Episcopal Church for its work to openly address racism and how white people have historically and presently benefited from the exploitation of Blacks and other people of color. They'll go after the Quakers for promoting pacifism and an end to war after needless war.
Is this the kind of America you really want? Because that's what kind of America you're asking for. I hope it's not the kind of America we're going to get!
0 comments:
Post a Comment