I recently made a rare political post here on the blog. Thanks to a couple of reports by friends on Facebook, I had the busiest single day of my blogging career. It inspired me to expand on the smallest point I made in the post, how I think the Republican platform against same sex marriage is logically and ideologically wrong. I’m going to expand on that here.
If you’re a demagogue who thinks SSM is a moral outrage and should therefore be outlawed, I ask you to stop and think for a minute. Think about what you are really saying, how desperately you want to legislate your own morality onto the public.
I think most Americans and surely a vast majority of conservatives would not wish to live under Sharia Law, the Islamic form of jurisprudence. So why do these same conservatives who bristle at the thought of being forced to live under the dictates of an “alien” religion find absolutely no problem enforcing their own sharia onto others? I’ve never understood that.
I also believe that the people who think we live in a Christian Country have a fundamental misunderstanding of history. The fundamental religious freedoms sought in this country by our founders belittle that notion. To imagine that today’s religious intolerance is justified by the alleged Christian Roots of this nation is unsettling.
It is quite clear that a majority of the early American populace was Christian. It is equally clear that the various and wildly divergent denominations; including but not limited to anibaptist, baptist, Catholic, Deist, Lutheran and Quakers; wanted a secular and not religious government.
I’m not even convinced that a majority of American Conservatives understand the moral objection to same sex marriage. The most common objection is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. Beside being a bit archaic of a concept, it’s not even historically or biblically accurate.
On the one hand, does that mean an infertile couple has a morally objectionable marriage? I certainly hope not.
Biblically, marriage was not a prerequisite of parenthood. Multiple instances throughout the bible couples procreate outside of marriage.
So I’m less than convinced that the procreation objection makes sense.
Another objection is that the bible condemns homosexuality and dictates that a marriage is between one man and one woman.
First off, using the bible in a political debate is fundamentally wrong. Your bible shouldn’t tell me how I’m allowed to live by law. Again, that smacks of sharia.
Second, the bible isn’t quite as clear on the one man one woman concept. Multiple wives can be found throughout the bible.
And finally, I think the biblical attack on homosexuality isn’t as strong as many conservatives think. Many people have discussed this at far better depth than I ever could, and I point you to them instead of poorly imitating them here.
I had a very open and intelligent conversation with a true Reagan conservative about SSM last night. Interesting to me, his thought’s weren’t as morally objectionable as you might think. Actually, his major concern with SSM is the term Marriage.
When I asked him why, he gave a well thought out answer. “I don’t want to teach my daughter that her religion is wrong and it is okay for two women to marry.” He fully supported the idea of moving to civil unions, the only difference being a marriage is a religious union and a civil union is the governmental recognition and bestows the legal rights and obligations of the union.
In other words, it’s the semantics involved. And I think advocates to SSM should be sensitive to these concerns. Here is a die hard right winger who supports your concepts but can’t get over your vocabulary. Stop and think about that.