I don't believe this issue is as cut and dry as people make it out to be. People are put in either the florescent rainbow camp or the brainwashed h8tr camp and I've never felt like I belong to either. After much thinking and discussing and several totally awesome gay friends (even in Utah, I know!), I have come to two main conclusions:
1. People are people.
Shocking, I know. This is the area where I agree with people when they say this is a "human rights issue" and not a "gay marriage issue." People are people, people. Whether they're gay, straight, white, black, addicted, annoying, ginger, athiest, Buddhist, whatever. Even the Scientologists count as people (well, most of them). But seriously, the fact that anyone is being treated any differently because of anything like that is disgusting and we as a civilization should be so beyond past that. Homosexuals specifically, they love just as genuinely as anyone else, they hate stereotypes just as much as anyone else, and they want to be happy just like anyone else. That is not new or shocking or unrealistic and shouldn't be. I have no problem if two guys want to live together and be happy and have things like hospital visitation rights and be allowed to do taxes together or will property to each other or that kind of thing. Again, I don't think any of this should be an issue. If you have a problem with someone else, its usually just your problem. I mean, on a general philosophical level, stereotyping is dangerous, and someone's sexual orientation is only one thing on a huge list of the things that add up to who that person is, and its not even the most interesting one. People. Are. People.
2. I have a right to a religiously based definition of marriage.
So, I'm pretty sure what I said above isn't gonna ruffle too many feathers. What I'm about to say might, and I'm sorry. But here's the thing, and I'm not quite sure how to say "the thing" in the first place, so bear with me. The comparison to interracial marriage and the calling people who would or did vote in favor of proposition 8 "h8trs" makes me really uncomfortable. For me this has nothing to do with "hating" anyone or thinking anyone is less than anyone else because they're gay or black or atheist or whatever else. We're all people, remember?
But. I still have a right to believe in a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. One of the founding principles of this country was freedom of religion. In John Green's video he talks about how even the religious...not just religious, but historical Christian definition of marriage is incredibly complex and he's right (remember Solomon?). However, as an LDS Christian, I also believe in modern revelation, that God still speaks to prophets and apostles, ("the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" and all that) and under the umbrella of that belief, modern revelation states that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. So whatever the complexity and confusion was before, that's where things stand, at least according to my beliefs.
Churches and people have a right to believe what they believe about marriage. I would even go so far as to say they have a right to defend that belief, and should not be forced to do anything they are morally opposed to doing, such as performing gay marriages, etc. But the largest tenet of Christian belief, at least according to, you know, Jesus, is loving God and our neighbor, and I've seen some pretty horrific examples of Christians doing a terrible job at that.
Are these two things incompatible? I don't think so. You might say, well, Sarah, putting these two things together basically just means that your only problem with gay marriage and the main reason you would vote yes on something like proposition 8 all boils down to a definition issue. You would basically be right. I believe people are people, I believe marriage is sacred, and I believe if you have a feeling towards anyone anyone ANYONE that is anything less than love, you have some work to do, and that's what you should be worrying about.
Including me. I'm still thinking about things and working on things, as we all are. I hope I can be allowed to be religious without being bigoted. I hope I can be allowed my faith and that everyone can be allowed love and happiness. I hope this isn't too much to ask, and again, I hope I haven't offended anyone.
What do you think?
Sarah Allen
18 comments:
Good post.
Having heard both sides of the argument voiced in exceptionally shrill and vitriolic tones, it's becoming harder not to dig my heels in and simply say that gay marriage isn't.
The problem that a lot of people and a lot of churches are having is that they're increasingly not allowed to have a choice in exercising their beliefs.
You either have to accept unconditionally or have us legally force you to accept it.
None of which is right.
While I choose not accept the concept of gay marriage (and probably never will), I also believe in live and let live.
So I do.
I was going to blog about this but never got around to it, maybe sometime in the near future.
I think the main thing I have a concern with is if marriage is supposed to be this sacred religious thing, then why do we allow people who aren't religious to get married? And if we ban gay marriage because of that fact that marriage is a sacred religious thing, then we need to ban it from all people who aren't religious no matter who they are marrying. And no one's going to do that, correct? Because that's crazy. (Or is it?)
For me, even being religious, I think human rights and equality trumps the definition of marriage.
Great entry. In Texas, a 2005 state constitutional amendment was approved by voters that basically defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The issue, however, was the constitutional amendment included a phrase that questions the legality of any marriage: "(b) This state or political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." It could be interpreted that anything "identical or similar to marriage" is marriage between a man and woman.
The thing is that people react and are determine to define marriage that at times fail to see any possible ramifications. In this case, the question of the legality of marriages between a man and a woman after 2005 in the state of Texas because of this rush-to-judgment amendment.
Warren Chisum, who is running for Railroad Commissioner, and the Texas Christian Coalition rushed to pass the resolution. That questionable section was added as an amendment by Chisum and was approved.
So, if the goal of our government is to define marriage, then it should be carefully studied by our legal experts before adopting such resolution. The ramifications of any error can be severe, even for those of us who are Christians and feel the need for a law to support what the church has already defined.
This is a well thought out post. I'd say you have expressed your beliefs well enough.
For me, I completely believe in a live and let live philosophy. While I consider myself a Christian, I don't really care if a Jewish person wants to marry a Christian. The same philosophy applies to gay marriages as far as I'm concerned. I honestly don't care if two people of the same sex want to be together "until death do they part". I wish them luck in fact, as marriage is tough at times.
As for who marries them, I don't see an easy answer. While the concept of marriage might be defined (which may be arguable, but I won't get into that) as man and woman, I don't necessarily agree that a priest can turn anyone away because of his personal beliefs. If two Christian gay men want to get married in a Christian manner, I figure the priest ought to just do it and let these two people go live their lives. If nobody wants to attend the wedding because they disagree, that's their right too.
The bottom line is we all have to face our maker at the end (or face oblivion and self-inspection for those athiests out there) and be okay with our own choices. Not the choices of others, just our own. If I'm wrong and gay marriage is truly an abomination according to God, I can honestly say when I die that I didn't marry another male. For those who wish to, that's their own burden (or celebration) to carry. Live and let live. And let God worry about whether everyone else is living by his wishes.
We already have two kinds of marriages in this country - marriage through the church (or any religious institution) and civil marriage (available to those who do not choose to be married in the church). Both of these are recognized by the state as valid contracts with specific legal rights.
Since the argument against same-sex marriage is based on religious doctrine, it is reasonable that the church may choose not to recognize such unions. But in our "separation of church and state" society, what is the basis for the state to deny the civil contract of marriage to any two adults who want to enter into it?
What makes this even more incomprehensible is I know a same-sex couple who were married in their church. So their church recognizes their marriage but the state does not.
Makes no sense.
Well just like many of my cynical friends say, "Hey, why not let gay people get divorced like the rest of us?"
With that said, I don't have a heavy footing in a specific religious belief of the idea of marriage. I respect people's choice in standing by that, though, so good for you for standing up for what you believe in.
Thanks for the level-headed, well thought out post.
It's such a breath of fresh air to see the love and acceptance and lack of hate and intolerance in your thoughts - and in the thoughts of the rest of the commenters as well.
I personally say live and let live - I don't want my rights infringed upon by others' beliefs nor do I want to tell others' how they can live their life based on my beliefs. Anything others do in their lives, they're ultimately responsible for the consequences - to their God or whomever else.
For some, it's such a hard line to walk allowing for equality and at the same time not trespassing on religious rights and freedom.
I wish there were more people in the world like you, willing to honestly look at the issue, discuss it civilly and at least leave the discussion open. :) It just makes me so sad when I see people completely close up on an issue, not willing to even think about what it would be like to be in others' shoes. As you said, people are people; if we all try to see the world from different perspectives, it leaves the door open for more tolerance, love, and acceptance, and less hatred.
I've heard several more-moderate stances like this, and there is something to it. I am very against legislating religious beliefs, but I am equally against forcing religious groups to do something against their beliefs. Why cannot marriage be something that everybody can do, but at the same time without the federal/state gov't forcing religious groups to perform religious marriage rites for couples against their beliefs?
It just gets so messy with religion/government overlap.
I am totally in agreement. The whole concept of marriage was ordained by God, established by the Church, has been between a man and a woman since time began.
So why does the government need to step in? Stay out of it. This IS a Christian-Judeo-Muslim-Buddhist-whatever issue.
Gay couples can form Civil Unions. That is legal and accepted in most states. Why push for marriage? Push for the whole historical definition to be slashed? For religious reasons? I don't think so.
Civil Unions are not federally recognized. Nor are they recognized by all states. The moderate response would be to have civil marriages recognized by the government (state and federal) separate from religious marriage ceremonies.
Excellent thoughts, and well said. I don't think people (who are, YES, people!) should be forced to do things either way. It's too easy to be labeled as extreme either way. I too agree that marriage is for a male-female relationship. While I don't agree with a gay lifestyle, I certainly don't "hate" the people who do have that lifestyle. It's their choice, as is other things in life.
Sarah, I have to agree with you. The gey marriage thing is a human rights issue.
You know, in Isreal, in order to be recognized as a truly married couple,under God, it must be done in an Orthodox Synagogue. However, the state government still does marriages. But the religious see it as living in sin. I hope I maed that clear. I'm pretty exhusted right now.
Ah, I just love controversial posts.
I have to agree with you, here. It's one thing to hate the people (which I do not); it's another to believe in the sanctity of marriage and want to see it upheld. I'm all for civil unions; I'm anti gay marriage. And it's not because I hate the people. I just believe that marriage is for a man and a woman.
And like many have said, those that are gay, lesbian, bi, etc. get angry because we're "trying to tell them what they can and can't do." But by telling us that we have to be okay with it, and if we're not we're haters, that's just as bad. We shouldn't tell them how to live; they shouldn't tell us how to feel. It goes both ways.
Harmony feels like such a lost cause sometimes.
I found Sarah Allen's comments to be well thought out and completely unconvincing. Like Sarah, I am heart broken by the many stories of heartache faced by my homosexual neighbors. Also like Sarah, I am a Mormon, and I believe that marriage is ordained of God and is presently defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
But it is well known that our Mormon predecessors experimented with the commonly held definition of marriage by introducing polygamy into the landscape of the American West, believing that they were following the example of Abraham. The people of the United States found this practice so horrifying, that they actually murdered the church's leader, and the United States government was not the slightest bit supportive in protecting our rights to redefine marriage.
I think the current prohibition regarding gay marriage is less like the former prohibition regarding interracial marriage and more like the former prohibition on divorce. Well, maybe there was never an actual prohibition on divorce, but I think everyone knows that it used to be a lot harder to get a divorce than it is today. It's almost as easy to get a divorce today as it is to get married (not quite, but almost). Why is that?
Well, I think it is because as a society we decided that unhappy marriages were worse than broken marriages. I haven't read enough history to be sure, but I suspect that the religious leaders and religious people of the time spoke out with great emotion as the divorce laws became softer and softer. Jesus Christ was quite clear on his low opinion of divorce, but eventually we got to where we are today.
Some religious communities such as the Mormons and the Catholics, do not recognize certain civil divorces within their own communities, and I suspect that we will eventually reach the same place with gay marriage, and I just can't seem to get worked up about it being such a bad thing.
Ok, so I'm a couple of days late, But thanks for a wonderful post Sarah. Very well said.
Just one phrase: separation of church and state.
You have a right to a religious definition of marriage, within your religion. You don't have a right to stop people who live in the U.S. from marrying, legally. ANY people.
One thing I can say without a doubt is that when I state I'm married on a form, I don't want to have to answer the next question: Which gender is your spouse? When I state my ethnicity on a form, or my personal gender, or my education status, it's a done deal. Splitting hairs on this issue bothers me.
People are people, you're absolutely right, which is why some people should not impose their agenda on others. Come up with a new word or something, but don't make me redefine or specify what gender I married, as a part of giving equal rights to all, when it comes to health benefits, rights of survivor, community property and all the other stuff. I'm married. That should be enough to know that as a woman, I'm married to a man.
Sarah i took no offense to your post whatsoever, I am infact gay. It's always so hard for me to initially mention that upon meeting new people. I feel like people have made it a part of the standard introductory procedure when introducing one another. Sometimes people know that fact about you before they even know your first name. And that to me is very sad. I know people don't always intentionally do it, but its the way some have become accustomed to. I guess what really didnt sit well with me was that I saw comments left by others on your post referring being gay as a lifestyle. The fact that I date men, to me, is such a small factor in regards to the other elements that make me the person I am. My life is definitely not centered on the fact
that I date guys. And frankly I don't understand how its incorporated into my lifestyle or personality. So, what If like presently, I am not dating anyone? Do I suddenly stop breathing? Does it make me more/less of a person? No! When i was born life was given to me, therefore I didn't choose it, and to me a lifestyle is somthing u choose. Being gay has nothing to do with the fact that i workout or not , am dependible or not, comapassionate or not, whether I get enough sleep or not, etc. I'm just so tired of hearing all of the hype and controversary and categorizing of hetero/homosexual. It is a characteristic trait to me, but not by any means the definition of me. Are married couples define by their husbands or wives? When im described I hope im described as: honest, reliable, good friend, great son/big brother, loyal, funny, witty, easy to talk to, down to earth, trustworthy.
Post a Comment