When it comes to personal issues, I’m a strong proponent of small government. I don’t believe that it’s the government’s place to exert their beliefs on people to the extent that it affects how we live our lives. This is where the idea of the separation of church and state comes in. Now I understand the core reason behind the support for Prop 8. The Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In Genesis, God creates Adam and Eve. In Mark 10:6-8, Jesus reiterates this: “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ ” So the Biblical definition remains clear. But not everyone in the country practices this form of religion and directly adheres to these beliefs. So is it really the government’s place to use this Biblical definition in the state or federal constitution?
Well, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As such, we’re all allowed to worship in whichever way we please, and no one religion will ever be forced on people. Faith is a deep, personal connection between a person and a higher power, not something imposed by the government. You can believe that marriage is the action of two people coming together and forming a lifelong union out of love, or you can believe that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. That’s the beauty of living in a free country: we can have our own beliefs and perspectives and not be oppressed and mistreated because of them.
At least that’s the idea.
If Prop 8 passes, then the state re-inserts a Biblical perspective to the state constitution, effectively saying “Sorry, your relationship doesn’t count, based on a perspective that you don’t adhere to,” thus taking a crucial right away from thousands and thousands of people (not to mention the legal state of limbo that it puts the state’s currently legal gay marriages in). I’ll paraphrase something that Jesse Ventura said on a cable news show a few months ago: “It’s not the government’s job to tell people who they are and aren’t allowed to be in love with.” Citybeat Magazine makes a similarly effective point: “Hey, while we’re at it, why don’t we just put in [the constitution] that left-handed women can’t drive in the fast lane on the freeway. And we can say that Asians can no longer sit down in public parks—they have to keep walking. It’s the same thing.” In a country that was founded primarily on the basis of escaping religious persecution, it makes no sense to enforce a statewide policy that will result in discrimination on such a grand scale.
On the same news show, Jesse Ventura also said that the government should only recognize civil unions, and that the term “marriage” can then be left to be practiced and recognized by churches and other religious institutions. I think that this is a good approach to the situation. I don’t think that state governments are going to go about completely redefining the nature of legal relationships anytime soon, but the point remains the same: This is a complex issue with deep-seated stances on both sides of the argument. It’s something that going to require some real, complex thought and discussion before it can ever be fully resolved. Simply imposing a ban isn’t going to fix anything.
In an amusing epilogue to my church and state argument, yesterday I saw someone on a street corner holding up a sign that read “Prop 8 Is Less Government,” which is hilarious because if the government steps in and exerts control over people’s lives, then that would technically equate to MORE government. It’s just funny that their message has become so muddled that they don’t even know what they’re selling anymore.
I’m opposed to Prop 8 not just for libertarian reasons, but for Christian reasons as well. As a Christian, I believe in treating others with respect and dignity. Now it’s true that there are a few verses in the Bible saying that homosexuality is a sin. But Christianity is built around the teachings of Jesus, who gives us plenty of great rules to live by: “love your neighbor as yourself,” “whatever you did for one of the least of my brothers, you did for me,” “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” In fact, pretty much all of Luke chapter 6 is filled with amazing advice about mercy, judgment, and hypocrisy. In short, it’s our duty as Christians to love those around us, whether we agree with them or not. We’re supposed to lead by example, whether that means helping out the less fortunate or simply treating others with tolerance and kindness.
Proponents of Prop 8 need to realize that supporters of gay marriage just want gay couples to have the same rights and respect as straight couples. And if you’re truly secure in your faith, then something like the state’s definition of marriage shouldn’t rattle your spiritual foundation. Regardless of opinions and religious beliefs, it should always be a priority to work for others rather than yourself, to act out of a desire for peace and compassion. If expanding this right brings happiness and respect to thousands of people, without taking away anyone else’s rights or attacking their beliefs, then I feel it should be in our best interest to tolerate a slight difference of opinion and welcome that happiness into people’s lives.
The campaigning for Prop 8 has obviously done more harm than good. Not only is it built on lies and discrimination, but claiming to do all of this in God’s name is making Christianity look bad in the process. And they might be stirring up strong support among the hardcore conservative base, but they’re driving moderate and liberal Christians like myself away in the process. (In my case, I’m referring to individual churches, not Christianity as a whole.) When churches focus this heavily on politics, these arguments about minor details often end up overshadowing the key tenets at the core of Christianity.
My girlfriend and I used to regularly attend a mega-church in San Diego called The Rock. It was a nice place: good sermons, good worship services, a very sizable and devoted constituency. But earlier this year, we started gradually becoming turned off to the church. On several occasions in the sermons, they would make reference to a bill that had recently been passed by the state as an example of the loosening moral structure of our society. This bill, we were told, forbids teachers from using the words “mother” or “father” in the classroom. We were also told that this bill also allows boys to use the girls’ restroom if they decide one day they feel like being a girl, and vice versa. Oh the outrage! What will those activist judges think up next? If you actually look at the bill, you’ll see that all that the bill does is make a few small amendments to the state education code to make sure that schools try to make an effort to ensure that kids aren’t being treated unfairly or discriminated against based on their “disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.” Somehow, the desire to give kids a fair and comfortable learning environment was interpreted by conservatives as an outrageous attack on morality of our society. Go figure.
This line of thinking has surfaced again in the Prop 8 ads. The main argument put forth by Prop 8 supporters is that if the proposition doesn’t pass, young children will be forced to learn about gay marriage in schools and be taught that it’s okay to be gay. (Learning about tolerance and something that exists in the world?! GASP!) This is a troublesome argument because it takes a viewpoint that likens homosexuality to some evil, brainwashing cult. It seems like many of the proponents of Prop 8 believe that homosexuality is not something that people are born with or develop in the earliest stages of life, but instead is the result of recruitment and indoctrination by extremists pushing the radical gay agenda.
Now I’m not a psychologist or a sociologist, so I don’t know how it all works, but I seriously doubt that straight people simply choose to make a life-changing decision to become gay because they were persuaded to by those godless heathens and their liberal media. To quote David Cross, some kid isn’t sitting at home thinking, “Everyone hates me, and the girls that I like don’t like me, and I don’t know what to do, and the thought of having sex with another man is physically repellent to me…but y’know, maybe it’s time I invited even MORE nonstop harassment into my life…”
And besides all that, the argument is completely untrue. Schools are not forced to teach students about marriage, neither gay nor straight. Since gay marriage was legalized, California schools have not adopted a statewide policy of teaching children about gay marriage. This argument is nothing but a deceptive PR campaign to convince voters that Prop 8 is about protecting the hearts and minds of innocent children, when in fact it’s about taking away people’s rights and has nothing to do with children whatsoever.
We tried to find a new church in San Diego after unofficially leaving The Rock, and we decided to go to a nearby place called the Skyline Church. The first half hour or so consisted of worship service, which was all good. Immediately after, a speaker starting talking about the legalization of gay marriage and the threat it poses to all of us. We tried to be open-minded: “Okay, we don’t agree with what they’re saying, but let’s hear them out and see what the actual service is going to be about.” But the political lecturing just kept going on and on. He went on about the activist judges…
(And honestly, anytime someone uses the phrase “activist judges,” I instantly tune out. I find that people have a very subjective definition of the term. If the courts change the law in the interest of fairness and equality, then they’re evil activist judges who want to push their extreme agendas with no regard for the Constitution or the will of the people. But if they change the law to restrict or discriminate against certain people, then they’re not considered activist judges? I just don’t get it. But I digress…)
He listed off websites for us to go to. He encouraged us to pray for 8 minutes every day at 8 am and 8 pm for the passage of Prop 8. He even took time to talk about how outrageous and inappropriate it was that schools want to recognize a Harvey Milk Day once a year (which isn’t technically true; a bill was passed in the state legislature but it was vetoed by Schwarzenegger). I found it odd that this church was taking the time to mock and berate a public official who was ASSASSINATED for being gay. After 10 minutes of political lecture masquerading as the Word of God, we got up and left.
I go to church to receive inspiration, to see how to apply scripture to my life, to learn how I can follow Christ’s example and become a better person. Being lectured and instructed to vote a certain way is not one of the reasons that I want to go to church, nor should it be for anyone else. It’s one thing to bring up political topics in church if the aim is to help people and spread the gospel. Semantics arguments and fighting to take people’s rights away do not meet those criteria. Last weekend, I visited californiansagainsthate.com, which has a list of all the major donors to the Yes on 8 campaign. Sure enough, what organization was credited with donating $25,000 to the Yes on 8 fund? The Rock Church in San Diego.
The first thing that came to my mind was “I’m glad we got out when we did.” If the politicizing was a little unsettling a year ago, I hate to think about what’s going on there now. Of course, the second thing that came to my mind was “Wow, $25,000. That could’ve fed a lot of homeless people.” I just find it disturbing that millions of dollars have been poured into this campaign by religious organizations when that amount of money could have done SO MUCH to help the less fortunate. But no, adding a couple of words to the state constitution is apparently more important.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when people who are well off go through their lives believing that they truly are victims in our society. It doesn’t matter if they have a secure, well-paying job, or if they’ve never been treated badly based on their race or gender, or if they’re part of the most prominent religious denomination in the country. Some people feel like they’re constantly under attack by all the people out there who have different beliefs and opinions than theirs. This mindset is at the core of Prop 8. When the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, a significant amount of the Christian community viewed that decision not as a gesture of tolerance and equality, but as a full-fledged assault on their beliefs and practices.
But in the midst of this heated cultural debate, the supporters of Prop 8 seem to overlook one important thing: Marriage is still a sacred bond, regardless of how the state defines it. If a man and woman want to get married in the state of California, as long as they’re getting married for the right reason (marrying for love would be an example of a “right” reason, marrying solely for tax benefits would not), then of course their coming together is still a meaningful union to God, themselves, and everyone in their lives. You don’t have to agree with EVERY decision made by your state, federal, or local government. Nobody’s going to force churches to perform gay weddings or go against their own principles.
If Prop 8 fails and the state upholds a definition of the word “marriage” that you don’t necessarily agree with, it’s not the end of the world, because that slightly-altered definition isn’t going to take your rights away or treat you as a second-class citizen. The legalization of gay marriage does not nullify the significance of traditional marriages or force people to adhere to any beliefs that they aren’t comfortable with.
However, if Prop 8 does pass, it WILL take people’s rights away and treats gays as second-class citizens.
So please, for the love of God and all that is holy, vote no on prop 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment