Well it's official. As of 8/4/10, Proposition 8, a California proposition that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, has been overturned in San Fransisco (natch). For the LGBT community and their representatives and allies, today marks a historic victory in the fight for Gay rights. For religious types and conservatives, today is a dark day in the fight against homosexuality. Would it kill them to be gracious and concede defeat? No, but righteous indignation is so much sexier these days.
I think it's time I finally made my peace on the subject. Express my views and justify them: thru clear, logical discourse. Before I begin: Yeah, I know this issue is polarizing, and most likely I'll be called either a homophone or a gay-lover. I respect your opinion if you disagree or agree with my opinion. I will not, however, be intimidated, shouted down, or bullied out of it. I have to put up with enough of that crap in real life, and I'll be damned if I'll put up with it in the virtual world.
Fellow blogger Moviebob has nicely pointed out that the old "I don't hate gays but..." defense won't fly, especially if you're a fan of Ayan Rand. Well Bob, I'll be happy to say that 1) I won't be using that defense and 2) I'm not a fan of Ayan Rand, the pretentious, fascist, git. No, I'll get straight into it: as a California native, I voted yes on Proposition 8. Why? It wasn't for religious reasons, as I'm practically agnostic on the grounds of indifference. No, I voted for it for something bigger than that: separation of church and state.
Under the first amendment, we have religious freedom here in the US. The catch? Neither religion nor politics can interfere with each other. Birth control is legal and religious displays on a public courthouse are not because of the separation of church and state. By repealing Prop 8 and deeming Same-Sex marriage legal, we have an interesting conundrum here: what about the churches who refuse to recognize/do gay weddings? I'm talking Mormons, Catholics, and a few of the other more conservative denominations out there. Worst case scenario: they'll get their tax-exempt status removed and face lawsuit after lawsuit until they're bled dry.
I can hear them now: "But Benny, if this is a constitutional matter, why are so many people in favor?" Simple: money and politics. Wedding planners get more commissions, divorce attorneys get more cases, lobbying groups get more clout and clients, the state gets more tax income from marriage silences, and Hollywood can look LGBT friendly while using gay stereotypes as a lazy way of characterization (see every effeminate villain, character, etc.). As for the churches like the Lutherans who accept gay clergy/members and host said weddings? I'm not one to get into the semantics of theologies, but I'm pretty sure that the Bible is explicit in that homosexuality is a sin, and that they're to love the person, but disagree with the lifestyle. But to each their own: after all, as a private institution, a church/denomination has the right to accept or not.
And that's the point of it all: you can't force a private institution into accepting a certain group or identity. That's imposing. A recent case on a Christian club not allowing gay members was ruled in favor of the club, since they're a private entity and have the right to accept/decline members as they see fit. Why aren't churches the same way? See the above. The less churches involved, the less tax income. The affiliated groups who are not explicitly LGBT are in it to exploit. There's money/power to be had, and what better way than to exploit a minority cause in the name of human rights? Because it's the churches who are discriminating, not them.
As for the LGBT community, I'll say this: I understand to a certain degree why they want gay marriage. Power of attorney is one of the most important and sought-after rights within couples, especially gay couples who can't get it thru traditional means: marriage. Oh, wait: domestic partnership already does! Why, then, should the LGBT community push for gay marriage when domestic partnership is already does grant many if not the same rights that traditional marriage does?
Because marriage is sexier. Nothing says "acceptance" or "progress" like having your enemy "accept" you thru the law. After all, Atheists could not recite the pledge, but trying to get "Under God" out of the pledge grants more attention. Gays have come a long way from the dark days of HIV where Gays were seen as carriers of an incurable disease during the 80's. They've become a successful minority group with real, effective advocacy. Unfortunately, like every group, there's a point to where advocacy turns to imposing. On the right we have the Westboro Baptists who claim our current conflicts in the Mid East is God's punishment of our tolerance towards gays and regularly protest military funerals. On the left: the playing field has been leveled to the point where Affirmative Action isn't really needed, but opportunists claim its still needed. There's a fine line between expression and imposition. Two wrongs don't make a right, and imposing yourselves upon Christians and other religious types looks petty.
Oh, you don't think that Christians are being imposed? Explain, then, how after Prop 8 was passed, how the local Mormon Church was protested, despite the fact that 69% of Black people voted in favor. Now, by that fact, why didn't the LGBT community and supporters initially make a bigger effort to reach out to the Black community instead of protesting Mormons in the wake of it being voted in, and still protest Mormons such as recently announced documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition? Two reasons: First, and most justifiably so, Mormons where the primary backers and financiers for the Prop 8 Campaign. But secondly, it's not PC to protest Blacks. It's so much easier to go after the Mormons because they're a natural target: White, middle-class, and conservative. Now, protesting them is more acceptable then, say, protesting a local predominately Black church in which its members voted for Prop 8.
To be fair, conservatives and backers of Prop 8 haven't been completely blameless. There's plenty of homophobia to go around the Prop 8 supporters. Most of the dialogue on their side has been morality: how marriage is a sacred institution that must be defended, and such. While that's a valid claim, black-and-white indignation sucks all the air out of the conversation, and only widens the gap, undermining any hope for compromise. Yeah, nobody gets exactly what they want in compromise, but at least both sides can come to an agreement. If the dialogue was changed to how there's a definite concern over the separation of church and state, how they feel that if Prop 8 is overturned, the state might impose that every church should observe gay unions. Maybe if the dialogue was done that way, Prop 8 would still be instated, or at least it'd be modified to say that Churches have the right to refuse to host or participate in gay unions. Again: righteous indignation is so much sexier.
So, in short: a private institution can't be forced into recognizing something they refuse to. The law can't impose on religion, just like how religion can't impose on the law. Denominations like Catholicism, Mormonism, and the like can't be forced by the law to recognize what they feel isn't morally right, even if morality can be subjective, or if it seems "homophobic". If gay marriage should be recognized on a state-wide basis by the will of the people, then so be it. The recent repeal was against the will of the people since the law passed with 52% of the vote: a slim but valid majority. However, maybe Prop 8's repeal isn't a bad thing: maybe it'll give Prop 8 proponents time to go back to the drawing board. Prop 8 should be redefined as a Separation of Church and State issue as opposed to a morality issue. If, however, Gay Marriage should pass with a clear majority, then there should be a rider attached that individual churches and denominations have the right to refuse to participate. If homosexuals should want to have their vows done by a church, there's plenty that will accommodate by their own choosing, such as the Lutheran Church which recently made efforts to welcome Gay clergy and members.
Let's hope that someday we'll come to an agreement, and the will of one group won't impose upon another.
Well that's it for my Devi's advocate part. I'll be doing this again in the upcoming weeks. Until then, to those who agree/disagree, I respect your opinion. You can't change a person's opinion, but maybe hope to persuade them thru discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment