The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters,

Francisco Goya, c. 1799

 

Americans are Waking Up

 

Can you feel it?  Can you hear it?  The wind of change is here.

    
     It feels good to be a part of an awakening.  To see equality spread and acceptance grow.  Public opinion has finally shifted and public policy will soon follow.  Another disgusting layer of exclusion and bigotry will soon be shed by the American government.  Marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is just around the corner.
 

 

 The Great Gay Debate

   The debate over gay marriage is often talked about on religious and moral terms.  Sentiments like these are the norm from many religious groups:

One side sees a moral mandate to liberate marriage from its heterosexual limitation. The other side sees natural marriage as a liberating, God-given institution for human flourishing. There is precious little shared ground in this debate. CP

There are obviously very strong emotions and beliefs surrounding the gay marriage debate.  But the fact of the matter is, religion and morality have no place in the debate at all.

     LBGT couples are asking the government to allow their unions to stand on equal ground with the unions of heterosexual couples.  They are not asking that religious institutions change their stance on homosexuality (although it would be nice if all religions got rid of exclusionary doctrine).  The fact is, it does not matter if religions ever accept their unions.  Religion is not a necessary ingredient in marriage.  As far as the government is concerned, if you qualify for a marriage license, no matter what your beliefs are, you may enter into the civil union of marriage and as a result of that union are granted certain rites and responsibilities.  Marriage has been a foundational institution from early to modern American society.  But not for moral or religious reasons. 

Early Americans' understanding of marriage was closely tied to their understanding of the state: both were seen as institutions which free individuals entered into voluntarily and thus could also exit voluntarily. The basis of marriage was not religion, but the wishes of free, consenting adults. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Rite?

 

Modern America: Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.  The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Wiki

 

Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Rite?

     It is not necessary to debate this issue on moral or religious grounds at all.  Marriage is a civil institution first and foremost.  If you have a marriage license, in the eyes of the government you are married.  Whither or not that ceremony took place in a church, a temple, a mosque, a zoo, a forest, or under the ocean, is completely irrelevant to the federal or the state government.   Whither or not a marriage is between a man and a woman or a woman and a woman or a man and a man, should also be irrelevant.  If two consenting adults wish to take on the responsibilities associated with marriage, they should by all means also enjoy the benefits the government affords civil unions.  Those benefits, by the way, are pretty substantial.  (Check out this partial list...its pretty damn important!) 

     Society functions best when humans help one another and when we can hold individuals responsible to the commitments they make.  When two people commit to support each other, build a home together, and perhaps raise children together, it is in society's  best interest that we support them in their efforts.  And if either party decides to shirk their responsibilities, it benefits society and those individuals affected by such choices to be held accountable.  It is in our country's best interest to sail upon the wind of change now blowing through public opinion and finally give equal rights to all marriages. 

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 (If you still think your anti-gay marriage argument has a logical leg to stand on, here is some more food for thought...)

 

 

 

 
 

Gays and Religion Just Can't Get Along    

     Erick Erickson, a contributor on FoxNews.com's opinion page, believes that Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom are Incompatible.  In his article, he lists eight examples of "a fight" against religious freedom being wrought upon Christians by gay and lesbian couples.  He states, "The gay rights movement must drive from the town square those who disagree and must punish and silence those who refuse to surrender their belief that marriage is between a man and a women."  It is a fairly short article, but quite dense in several logical fallacies. 

     Since Erickson's intended audience is like minded, conservative Christians, he hit the main talking points that a certain segment of our population is tuned in to.  He knows just what to say to get their heads nodding in agreement and fingers shaking in disapproval.  All you have to do to get conservative Christians on your side of an argument is to play the Persecution Card.  Oh yes.  In America, where roughly 70% of the population identifies as Christian, Christianity is under attack!

     "The fight has only just begun," Erickson asserts.  Christians must be on constant high alert because all around there are people who want to take away their religious freedom.  Christianity, aka family values, aka morals, are under attack.  And the 4% of Americans who identify as LGBT, they are a huge threat to the poor, persecuted Christians just trying to uphold their faith in peace.

     In Erickson's list of examples, he perpetuates this favorite of Christian myths by painting a distinct picture of the two sides.  He uses words that depict the Christians in his examples as the innocent victims of a great villain.  The comic book version of this myth using Erickson's words would look like this:  (red indicates words he used to describe gay couples and blue for Christians)

The Big (4%) Scary Power-Drunk Gay Mob (aka "Agenda Impresarios") is ransacking American cities!  They are stomping on churches and Christian owned businesses!  They "must drive from the town square those who disagree and must punish and silence those who refuse to surrender their belief that marriage is between a man and woman." Meanwhile, stalwart Christians who merely disagree and politely decline and use only the weapon of op-ed pieces in their local paper, are having their freedoms trampled!  They are being evicted!  Customers are freezing business with their companies!  People are being fired from their jobs over the expression of their opinion!

   Honestly, even giving this article two minutes of my time is too much.  But here is one minute more...

    Is Erickson so drunk on this mythical fear of his religious freedoms being taken away that he completely disregards that 5 out of his 8 examples have nothing to do with religious freedom at all?  5 of the persecuted Christians were business owners who denied services to the gay couples they were later sued by.  The business owners were sued because they were violating the state's non-discrimination law!  A Photographer, a T-shirt shop owner, two bed and breakfast owners, and the owner of an inn, all denied services to these couples based on their sexual orientation.  There are laws against that, and yeah, when the law is not kept, lawsuits happen.  What other legal recourse does a minority group have if it is being oppressed or denied rights by the majority? 


 Example involving a religious institution:

A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.

     On the outset, this example is actually one that seems to raise a legitimate question about wither or not gay and lesbian couples should be able to demand that any church, regardless of their beliefs on gay marriage, permit them to use their facilities.  Oh, if only Google had not been invented though and a three second search could not produce the following facts:

The Methodist church violated the requirements of its "Green Acres" tax exemption, which required it to make its facility open to the public.
The church has since replaced the "Green Acres" exemption with an exemption specifically created for religious institutions, allowing it to continue discriminating against gay people. Fox News Fails To Prove That Marriage Equality Threatens Religious Liberty... Eight Times In A Row

     Just check the article for the explanation of the other two examples.  As the title of the article states, Erickson "Fails."  He fails to address an argument without resorting to ad homonym attacks.  He fails to get his facts right.  He fails to draw meaningful, logical conclusions about the issue.  He fails to convince me that his argument that "gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible", is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to rationalize religious sanctioned bigotry.