I would ask anyone who reads this to refrain from inferring any of my other beliefs.
The issue of marriage between two homosexuals is extremely controversial. That's because it deals with sex, right? I assume that far more people will be judged harshly for their greed, intolerance, wrath, adultery, dishonesty, and selfishness than for their gay relationships. But I don't see a proposition 8 type fight over banning selfishness. I also assume that the judgment for promiscuity and fornication will be similar to the judgment for gay sex. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Barney Stinson were judged more harshly for his heterosexual relationships than Neil Patrick Harris will for his homosexual relationship. But I don't see a proposition 8 type fight over banning fornication.
The Gay-Marriage battle-waters are murky. It's unclear exactly what the strategy is or what benefits the warriors intend to reap.
The waters are murky because:
Gay sex is legal.
Fornication is legal (or laws against it are not enforced)
Adoption by one gay person is legal
Contracts between Gays are legal
Gays can have power of attorney for one another
Gays can live together
Gays can jointly own property
Gays can devise all of their property to another gay person in their last will and testament.
Do members of the anti-gay-marriage crowd have a problem with any of those items listed above? If so, why not legislate against it? Why not have a "don't-ask don't-tell" policy for property owners. "You may share real estate so long as you don't tell anyone you are gay." Why did Lawrence v. Texas effectively end the public debate over sexual privacy? I don't hear calls for a proposed constitutional amendment making gay sex illegal.
It seems clear that for many things, like fornication, LDS church members and others of similar faith have no problem separating morality and eternal law from the legislative and judicial system here on earth. In the past, some Christians have sought to enforce laws against unmarried cohabitation. They have tried to force unwed mothers to get married or give up the baby. They have enacted legislation allowing police to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of sodomy.
But in this day and age, the majority of the country chooses to determine what is "right" and "wrong" independently of what is "legal." It is possible to believe that two unwed partners should not have kids together without making a law against it. It's possible to believe that men should not have sexual relations with other men without making a law against it.
Currently none of the sanctity of marriage laws are effectively stopping any actual behavior. Gays still live together, love each other, are intimate, adopt kids, start businesses, own property, and care for one another in the hospital, yet the line in the sand has been drawn at the "symbol" of marriage. The concern must be over the acknowledgement by society that gay unions are equal to straight marriage, and I don't see anything in the constitution that gives marriage a higher status than any other type of relationship.
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that personal opinions about morality and spirituality can and should be involved in political discussions. But the current debate has forced many believers to engage in straw-man arguments, put forth faulty logic, and cherry pick misleading data. That type of justification strategy undermines the credibility of its source. I don't think anyone should be afraid to stand up and say, "I believe God wants us to pass the following law: _________" yet so many engage in "logical" debates about things that are of a spiritual nature. If you want to convince the voters that they should follow God's will, discuss God and Jesus Christ with them, not Caesar.
No comments:
Post a Comment