I am back on days and so I will be posting more often. Today I think I will address an issue that is coming up on the ballot here in the state of Washington. It is a referendum on gay marriage. I understand that this is a hot issue and that it will be hotly debated, so let me start with some facts. First of all, here in Washington state, there is the civil union law. This law gives any couple who apply for it (much like a marriage license) may enter a civil union. Those in that union receive all the same privileges and benefits of a married couple. In other words, no rights or privileges granted a married couple may be with held from a couple with a civil union. It also adds that this union may be between couples of the same sex.
Why did I mention that? Simple, it means that any move for gay marriage ceases to be about civil rights as no rights are being denied. It is about redefining marriage. The argument that we are trying to deny people basic rights is ludicrous at best. By law, if a same sex couple is denied something a married couple gets, then they have every right to bring charges and sue the person discriminating against them. The law that enacts same sex marriage is about definitions, not rights. I have yet to see any right or privilege that a married couple gets that a couple in a civil union is denied by law.
The one thing that has always bugged me as well is the idea that marriage is a right. The fact is, we can't call it a right. If we do, then we have been denying this right for years and the gay marriage law will not change that. I am referring to 2 consenting adults of legal age. I agree that the idea that enacting gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals or that it will legalize pedophilia is asinine at best. What I am talking about is relational marriage. If it is a rights issue, no two consenting adults of legal age can be denied this right, yet we continually deny marriage between close relations (1st cousins, siblings, father daughter, mother son, etc.). Don't get me wrong, I understand the implications of these marriages and don't agree with them either, but the fact remains that we discriminate against these marriages as well.
Call me what you will and be as angry as you want. The fact remains that this ceased to be a civil rights issue when the only thing being argued is a definition. Why am I concerned? Because it means that, in order for a religious entity to maintain its beliefs and convictions, it must, by definition, discriminate and go against the law. By enacting a law that redefines marriage, you force churches into a situation where they are forced to either run afoul of the law and discriminate, or go against their convictions and beliefs. There shall be no laws establishing religion or infringing the free practice thereof. How can a church fee free to practice its religion is against the law to hold on to their beliefs.
Now, to answer and argument that jumps up every time religion is brought in on this. Slavery is not directed by the bible. As I read the new testament, it is clear that it did not agree with slavery. In fact, every instance of slavery in the new testament that I have read has mentioned paying proper wages and treating them fairly. I am not a theologian, but it appears to me, the biblical definition of slavery can be paralleled with someone under contract today. Yes, it was twisted and used wrong in early America and elsewhere and I could never condone that, but I am not talking about early America. The fact is the bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is wrong according to the bible (new testament included) and since this is what my beliefs, and most Christian beliefs, are based on I cannot condone it nor agree with it.
That's about it for today. Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
No comments:
Post a Comment