Over the weekend, there were several protests around the country about Proposal 8. A Balloon-Juice contributor, Michael D, had a short post about it this weekend that is worth the few moments it will take to look at. The Episcopalian minister in the embedded video clip has some reasoned arguments to make as to why there is biblical justification for gay marriage (we'll get there in just a moment...don't go nuts yet), and Ashton Kutcher stumbles his way through an endearing "Prop 8 is bullshit" diatribe. It's both of their points that really got me thinking about the role of the government and religion in the gay marriage issue.
Religion
First, the minister. He warns, before he starts, about "throwing scripture at each other." From there, he makes the case that biblically, divorce is the worst aspect of relationships; that Jesus spoke much more of divorce and adultry than any other part of marriage. From this minister's perspective, one does well to encourage monogamy and stability. It is the support of monogamy and stability that represents "conservative family values." In general, I agree with his statements.
What really got me thinking was his initial statement: "if we're going to start throwing scripture at each other, which is always a dangerous thing..." I recall an old email that went around some time ago that railed against "Dr." Laura Schlessenger, who had a show a few years back in which she heavily quoted scripture as justification for her viewpoint. This email quoted other parts of scripture that we ignore in modern times, like when it is okay to chuck stones at people or kill them. The point is this: if we are indeed to use biblical justification for public policy, we should be careful what we wish for. I think this is the Episcopalian minister's point, in a way: the overarching lessons are what we should be concerned about. Stable, happy families are what we should support, not one type of religious law.
On a whim, I googled "religious jutification for slavery." Lo and behold, plenty of references.
Genesis 9:25-27:And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.[King James version]
This appears to be the basis from which all other justifications for slavery and/or segregation arise. A curse is put on generations of one guy, who if I remember correctly, saw his dad naked, laughed about it, and told his brothers. From that horrid mistake, generations were seen as slaves (it appears that there was some opinion that Canaan settled in Africa).
In fact, there are several passages in the bible that specifically regulate slave ownership in some way, shape, or form. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, waffling back and forth between agnosticism and Presbyterian-Lite as I do, but whereas the bible seems silent on prohibiting slave ownership (save for, of course, The Golden Rule), it lays out sets of rules specific to the conduct of slave ownership. Some examples:
--Exodus 21:20-21 - And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
--Leviticus 19:20-22 - And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
On and on...I found at least 10 examples where the conduct of a slave-owner is laid-out, from emancipation of the slaves to punishment of the slaves.
I bring this up, because we either agree that we pick-and-choose what aspects of the bible are relevent to
modern life, or we take a literalist view. We accept everything that it has to say as The Truth, literally, or we agree that it serves as a guiding light to help us each individually make important, morally-based decisions. The key is
individually. "Dr." Laura certainly uses it as a moral compass, but the hole in her argument is all of the canon law she chooses to ignore (various demands on the appropriateness of stoning, killing, beheading, drowning, and the like)
because it is not relevant or even normal or moral in modern society.
Eventually, in the Mid-1800s, we largely agreed as a nation that slavery was bad, despite many impassioned speeches by, among others, Jefferson Davis, about the biblical and moral imperative of slave ownership ("[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."). Yeah, we had to kinda fight a war over it, but the point was made: slave ownership is immoral in modern society. In the 1920s, women could finally vote, despite much biblical evidence to womens' supposed inferiority (which we now know, according to Mrs. Smitty, that the opposite is true). In the 1960s, further discrimination, however biblically justified, was legislated away. In 2008, we elected a black President.
Like the Episcopalian minister in the video clip referenced above, we should be careful to start throwing around bible verses, and recognize religion as an individual's guiding principles alone, and not some source for the justification of legislation
that discriminates against people or creates a 2nd class citizenry. If I put my mind to it, I could justify anything...any behavior...by picking the biblical verses that suit my needs, however out of context they may be. One has to take the bible as a whole, which is globally about treating our fellow man with respect and to be a friend and neighbor when people need it. Obviously, God did not and would not condone slavery. We can say that now, though one hundred and forty years ago, people might not have been so sure that He didn't. But, as we now disregard biblical passages either justifying slavery or laying-out rules for the ownership of slaves, perhaps we should look at a similar disregard for any passage that advocates for the discrimination of anyone. Discrimination, no matter how justified in the bible (which again I don't think any of this stuff is), just doesn't, or shouldn't, apply in modern society.
GovernmentNow, Kutcher's statements. His whole point, however rambling, was that Proposal 8 is discriminatory. The height of irony to me in the Proposal 8 battle was the aftermath. According to the
Los Angeles Times,
"an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters sided in favor of the measure by margins of more than 2 to 1."[November 6, 2008] A group that has fought discrimination at all levels just voted in massive numbers (statistically speaking) to discriminate against another minority group. Some else's turn, perhaps?
All snark aside, Proposal 8 creates a class of citizenry that does not get to enjoy all of the privileges afforded to every other American. Marriage is one of those funny things, in that it has both State as well as religious implications. Ostensibly, marriage can happen in a religious setting without State-sanction. But it's the question of the State's involvement in marriage that I am looking at.
If you subscribe to the view that the reason for marriage is procreation, then should we disallow sterile couples from marrying?
If you subscribe to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a union before God, I would say that in the affairs of State, God and religion have nothing to do with marriage. The State does not grant a license to marry based on your standing as a Christian. If memory sevres me, you can get a marriage license so long as you have the $50 is cost me here in Michigan. I was never asked my background, my religious belief, or my moral code.
Restricting a right OR a privilege (both of which people have argued marriage is) based on whether or not it aligns with my religious belief is
not something the U.S. Constitution protects. Then why not allow rape or murder? Because rape and murder violate the victim's right to keep living and enjoying their rights and privileges, as well as the fact that they are morally wrong. All gay marriage is, to some people of faith, is morally wrong. It doesn't violate
my rights that two guys (or women) get married.
So, again, California (and Michigan 4 years ago) has passed a referendum that removes the ability for one self-selecting group of individuals to enjoy the same thing that everyone else gets to do on a whim.
Simply stated: from a religious standpoint, anyone is allowed to believe that homosexuals should not get married and that God will not recognize that union (and in fact may "punish" it). But as soon as that person backs laws that disallow homosexual marriage, they are a supporter of discrimination. There is no philosophical difference between forcing blacks to use different drinking fountains, and actually passing laws to that effect, and disallowing gays the benefits of monogamous, loving marriage.
Read more...
My little Obamamaniac. She can read two words: her name and "Obama."
