Hard Conversations - Gay Marriage

Disclaimer: I don't think I am a Christian. I believe in God, or... something greater than myself.

I like a lot of the stuff that Jesus said.

I like a lot of the stuff that the Buddha said, too.

I believe all religions hold some universal truths.

There are actually more things that these religions, and people in general, have in common than things that divide us.

I continue to be moved by the love, acceptance, humility, graciousness and kindness of some of my Christian friends.

My heart hurts. Big time.

I have been struggling and struggling to find the words to say, and struggling with whether to say anything at all, about the controversy surrounding the comments made by corporate CEO Dan Cathy.

I am conflicted.

I agree with the right: Cathy has the right to his freedom of speech, he can say what he likes.

I agree (much more so, let's not pretend this isn't subjective) with the left: By making statements that condemn gay marriage, Cathy is contributing to bigotry.

Mostly, I am tired of it. It honestly feels like a slap to my face every time someone uploads a photo of their chicken nugget box or the line outside the restaurant yesterday.

I am tired of the anger and aggression.

My first vitriolic response was to scream: "Could everyone please just grow a BRAIN? A frontal lobe would extremely useful right now."

But I'm trying to be reasonable here...

Why do I feel this way?

No, I'm not gay. I have friends who are, but that is the extent of the affect this issue has on me.

I believe, deeply, that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose; so long as both (or all) parties are consenting adults.

I think my lack of specified religion helps me out here. I don't see it as an issue of faith.

I also think it helps that I know some history, that a lot of other people know too, but I don't know that they made the connection. That's why this really gets under my skin and crawls around.

In 1967, here in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Loving v. Virginia.

This case involved a woman of African and Native American Descent named Mildred Loving, and her husband, Richard Loving, a white man. Virginia, along with many other states prior to the Loving v. Virgina ruling, had anti-miscegenation (intermarriage between non-whites and whites) laws in place. They had traveled to the District of Columbia, where their marriage was legal, in order to wed. When they returned to Virginia, a group of police officers invaded their home as they slept, hoping to catch them having sex (also a crime). On finding that they were married, they were prosecuted under Virgina's Racial Integrity Act. Both pled guilty, and were sentenced to one year in prison, deferred 25 years under the condition that they would leave the state of Virginia. The judge in this case said:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This is an example of a case in which religious beliefs were the background of the decision to infringe on the liberty of individuals.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) eventually filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings to have the verdict dismissed as a violation of the 14th amendment, which states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The supreme court decision ruled in favor of the Lovings, and overturned anti miscegenation laws in every state.

In 1967.

That wasn't that long ago. Only 45 years ago, my relationship with my boyfriend would be illegal; and you can forget about putting a ring on it.

The only argument made against gay marriage is religiously motivated. Bible believing Christians cannot accept homosexuality, and so then would not be able to accept marriage between homosexuals as right within their faith.

I understand that. That's fine. You can choose to believe what you will. I would like you to not be a hypocrite, however. If you oppose gay marriage on the basis of your faith, you should also oppose the following:

1. Round haircuts (Leviticus 19:27)

2. Playing football (Leviticus 11:8)

3. Fortune-telling (Leviticus 19:31, 20:6)

4. Pulling out during sex (Genesis 38:9-10)

5. Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)

6. Wearing polyester and other mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)

7. Divorce and remarriage (Mark 10:8-12)

8. Letting people without testicles into church (and tenth generation children of illegitimate children, Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

9. Wearing gold (1 Timothy 2:9)

10. Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)

11. Wives defending their husbands by grabbing their husband’s opponent by the testicles (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Click here for original article.

Here are a few more off the top of my head:

12.) Sex with a woman who is on her period.

13.) Associating with women who are on their period.

14.) Stoning your son when he talks back.

15.) Allowing women to talk at church.

16.) Not killing every living thing that occupies the land we desire to occupy because "God gave us the land".

My point being that there are lots of things that personal faith and belief prohibit people from doing, however, if someone chooses to do them, you cannot prevent them on the basis of your faith alone. Laws, ideally, should be that which we as a society agree are in the best interests of everyone regardless of religious affiliation.

Also, did you know that Chick-Fil-a donates money to organizations that promote "family values" and candidates who oppose gay marriage?

Did you further know that in 2010 the Family Research Council, a conservative organization funded by Chick-Fil-a spent $25,000 lobbying congress NOT to condemn Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill?

Yes, Cathy has the right to his free speech, to his opinion.

What I am resoundingly not okay with, is that his speech is louder than mine, and any other person who supports equality.

What am I talking about?

It's called Citizens United.

The supreme court ruled in 2010 that corporations have the right to unlimited, undisclosed donations to political campaigns because corporations are "people".

Disagree?

Me too.

This means that Dan Cathy's corporation, which donates money to anti-gay corporations, can heavily influence the direction of policy concerning gay rights.

One more thing. What if, the corporation donating unlimited funds to organizations of their choosing (without those organizations having to reveal the sources of their funds), was donating to say; an anti-christian organization?

I bet many would feel differently.

One reason we have separation of church and state, is to protect those in the minority from majority tyranny. You can read more about majority tyranny in James Madison's Federalist Paper #10.

The laws that currently prohibit gay marriage are discriminatory. And, dare I say, unconstitutional. They deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.

Not okay.

Marriage in the US confers many rights (1,138, in fact) that cannot be accessed apart from marriage.

For more information on the specifics of these rights click here.

Gays and lesbians and everyone else deserve these rights; unless you are saying that they are somehow not people. In which case we have bigger things to discuss.

I don't think a boycott is the answer. If it were we would have to boycott a whole whole lot of things.

I don't know what is.

I think knowing what you're talking about when you say you are against gay marriage, is part of it.