I really should be writing a paper on left and right-wing evangelicalism......
So I'm going to deviate a bit here from my usual musical ranting and raving to talk about the current drama surrounding Prop 8 in California. You know the one I am talking about, repealing the right for same-sex couples to marry.
Let me set the record straight on this: I support the legal union of homosexual couples under the eyes of the law. I strongly believe they deserve and it is their right to be joined legally regardless of religion, in what we define as marriage. I do however think so much of this battle is for the ownership of a title. Same-sex couples have lived through the same defining characteristics of marriages for decades, so ideally this one step should not be hard to reconcile. Ideally being the key word in that sentence for those of you just joining us at home. I wish that the idea of marriage could be redefined. Being neither gay nor married I can't truly comprehend the importance either label is. That being said I still feel that legally same-sex couples deserve constitutionally the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Marriage under secular law, not religious. Never would I support the idea of allowing secular law to dictate religious customs and beliefs.
All of that being said, democratically I support the decisions that were made by the voting constituents of California. The sad fact of the matter is that no matter how regrettable the outcome, a decision was made by a majority. By the people, for the people. Sure the American public got a bit confused back in 2000 about the concept of majority with that grey area surrounding the electoral and college votes, but they are convinced they have a grasp of the value and necessity of a democratic system. Their current invasion of the Middle East is evidence enough of that. And please no e-mails about how they are fighting a war and not invading, pull your head out of your ass and realize that.
What saddens me in all of this is the absolute blind-eye that the majority (though small it may be) of Californians took to the concept of the separation of church and state. They are allowing a fundamental yet religious concept of "marriage" to supersede the actual ideals of a union. Why is it that being joined by someone in a religious authority is such an important defining factor in your union? In 20 years of living with someone, toughing it out through the bad times and living it up through the good ones, will your marriage be defined by who joined you, or will it be defined by how you lived it? If it is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, how is the term marriage going to change your union? That question is directed at those who supported Prop 8 not the other way around. Restricting marriage under religion is one thing, but under secular law now that's jumping right into refusing fundamental rights.
In all of this however there is something in the backlash that I cannot stand: blaming the whole of a religion for the outcome of the vote. Recently media whore and he who is unable to spellcheck Perez Hilton called a personal boycott on the Sundance Movie festival in Utah because an article in the New York Times outlines how the Mormons in the U.S. are what gave the fight for Yes on Prop 8 it's final push. He says, and I quote "We CAN NOT in good conscience support or give money to people that see us as second-class citizens." Now disregarding his misuse of the first person plural, he is using nothing more than the same pathetic logic in boycotting that the fight for No on Prop 8 denounces. He defines an entire populace by a religion with no thought to the reality than many in the state of Utah may be moderate or liberal Mormons, or even Mormon at all. It is a slap in the face of both the intelligence and integrity of a population, as well as to the spirit of independence the festival stands for. If I were Robert Redford I would publicly denounce Perez Hilton, but Bob may have bigger fish to fry.
One of the good things about democracy and the world of politics is that you are able to voice discontent, well except in China. But they had lipsynchers at the Olympics so they don't count, right?
People have to want to change, and it would seem that they are not ready for it, as disappointing as that is.
Let me set the record straight on this: I support the legal union of homosexual couples under the eyes of the law. I strongly believe they deserve and it is their right to be joined legally regardless of religion, in what we define as marriage. I do however think so much of this battle is for the ownership of a title. Same-sex couples have lived through the same defining characteristics of marriages for decades, so ideally this one step should not be hard to reconcile. Ideally being the key word in that sentence for those of you just joining us at home. I wish that the idea of marriage could be redefined. Being neither gay nor married I can't truly comprehend the importance either label is. That being said I still feel that legally same-sex couples deserve constitutionally the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Marriage under secular law, not religious. Never would I support the idea of allowing secular law to dictate religious customs and beliefs.
All of that being said, democratically I support the decisions that were made by the voting constituents of California. The sad fact of the matter is that no matter how regrettable the outcome, a decision was made by a majority. By the people, for the people. Sure the American public got a bit confused back in 2000 about the concept of majority with that grey area surrounding the electoral and college votes, but they are convinced they have a grasp of the value and necessity of a democratic system. Their current invasion of the Middle East is evidence enough of that. And please no e-mails about how they are fighting a war and not invading, pull your head out of your ass and realize that.
What saddens me in all of this is the absolute blind-eye that the majority (though small it may be) of Californians took to the concept of the separation of church and state. They are allowing a fundamental yet religious concept of "marriage" to supersede the actual ideals of a union. Why is it that being joined by someone in a religious authority is such an important defining factor in your union? In 20 years of living with someone, toughing it out through the bad times and living it up through the good ones, will your marriage be defined by who joined you, or will it be defined by how you lived it? If it is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, how is the term marriage going to change your union? That question is directed at those who supported Prop 8 not the other way around. Restricting marriage under religion is one thing, but under secular law now that's jumping right into refusing fundamental rights.
In all of this however there is something in the backlash that I cannot stand: blaming the whole of a religion for the outcome of the vote. Recently media whore and he who is unable to spellcheck Perez Hilton called a personal boycott on the Sundance Movie festival in Utah because an article in the New York Times outlines how the Mormons in the U.S. are what gave the fight for Yes on Prop 8 it's final push. He says, and I quote "We CAN NOT in good conscience support or give money to people that see us as second-class citizens." Now disregarding his misuse of the first person plural, he is using nothing more than the same pathetic logic in boycotting that the fight for No on Prop 8 denounces. He defines an entire populace by a religion with no thought to the reality than many in the state of Utah may be moderate or liberal Mormons, or even Mormon at all. It is a slap in the face of both the intelligence and integrity of a population, as well as to the spirit of independence the festival stands for. If I were Robert Redford I would publicly denounce Perez Hilton, but Bob may have bigger fish to fry.
One of the good things about democracy and the world of politics is that you are able to voice discontent, well except in China. But they had lipsynchers at the Olympics so they don't count, right?
People have to want to change, and it would seem that they are not ready for it, as disappointing as that is.
posted by Matsie at 5:15 PM
2 Comments:
The Mormon Church is a racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti atheist hate group that devotes a major portion of its resources and energies to promoting discrimination and violence against those who they are prejudiced against.
People have an inalienable right to fight back against hate groups, including religious ones.
That being said, even as an atheist I think we need to take a little more of a moderate approach to dealing with such groups. Using the same tactics and langauge does nothing to resolve the situation, and just perpetuates the negative relationship.
Post a Comment
<< Home