I know we're all tired of politics, and I have much more to write about in future posts, but I want to say something that I don't see said enough, for all the good it will do on my tiny blog.
Near the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur stops to talk to one of his "subjects", only to get increasingly agitated when the peasant refuses to recognize his authority in any way. He eventually snaps and starts shouting at him and grabbing his arm, which incites the peasant to start shouting about how he's being oppressed. In the movie, King Arthur rides off non-plussed at the over-reaction. But what if he, while beating his peasant, had starting shouting about how his civil liberties are under attack because peasants won't recognize his authority and won't let him beat them? This is a little bit what the christian conservative reaction to the push for gay marriage is like.
I keep hearing from evangelicals, from churches, from family members, that gay marriage is a religious liberty issue. This is, of course, asserted but not justified. And honestly, I'm not sure what justification one could give. As far as civil liberties go, the LGBT are simply asking that their marriages be recognized by the government and given the same legal rights as straight married couples. No one is arguing that churches would be forced to perform religious gay marriage ceremonies in their churches (which would be a civil liberties issue), or that straight people must celebrate gay sexuality and find it wonderful, or that churches must now preach tolerance about gay people. The only thing we're asking churches not to do, is push for civil and legal restrictions on people who haven't opted in to their belief system. Especially, ESPECIALLY, since they have yet to provide a moral, logical, reasonable argument that holds up under any scrutiny as to what harm would occur to anyone if two people of the same gender chose to settle down and start a life together. It continues to boggle my mind that the religious community in this country seems to regard two men smiling at each other and holding hands as one of the great evils of this country in the year 2012. I would think a more steadfast commitment to marriage would include NOT blowing up wedding parties by drone overseas.
Yes, there are pushes from within their own churches to be less dickish about LGBT issues, as there indeed ample support from their holy books for tolerance and compassion for the less-than-perfect and the non-believer. Yes, many conservatives feel social pressure and discomfort because they don't love gay stuff. But no one in this country has, constitutionally or otherwise, promised any of us that we only get to see people who agree with us, or interact only with people with social arrangements that we approve of, or decide which consenting adults do and do not get to love each other. And it's strange that christians ever thought they had a right to not encounter anything that displeased them or disagreed with them or offended them. And absent demonstrable harm to society or individuals, an argument the christian right has yet to make with evidence that hasn't been thoroughly debunked by scientific studies and actual experience with gay individuals, they can't just demand civil laws conform to their religious beliefs just because. I mean, that seems obvious to me, but there seems to be some confusion on the matter.
The fact is, no one group gets a free pass as a moral authority to dictate to the rest of this country. If you think there is harm in a public policy, or the public good is served by restricting the rights of a minority, you have to show specifically how. And you have to be able to explain your moral reasoning in a way that makes sense to people who don't regard the bible as moral authority by default. And if you can't explain the moral basis for your proposed law in a way that makes sense to people outside your religion, and you can't explain the moral principle a biblical injunction is based upon, then you aren't much of a moral authority are you? And if you think the non-religious are incapable of being moral, or that the lot of us putting our heads together can't agree on simple moral principles like "don't restrict the rights and arrangements of others unless you can show the harm" regardless of religious affiliation, then we have a deeper problem and maybe THAT's the conversation we really need to be having.
No comments:
Post a Comment