You know what folks are talking about these days? The gay marriage. Here are my 2 cents, given as reluctantly as if I were a miser:
I believe that God does not approve of gay marriage. That being said, our government has a separation of church and state, and therefore should be able to make laws despite the Bible or any other religious texts.
["Wait, what did she just say about God? Who does she think she is?"] Now, before you get too angry with me, please notice the words I used and the words I didn't use. I did not say that God doesn't love homosexuals, or that I don't like gays, or down with freedom and individuality, or nuke the whales, or sex is evil, or gay-love makes hurricanes, or get out of my life if you don't agree. I know that God loves His gay children. He knows them, He cherishes them, He created them. They are His. I don't know why He would give someone same-sex attraction and also make a rule that she isn't allowed to act on it, or why He would make the rule and then give someone the preference, or which is the chicken and which is the egg in this scenario. I don't know. I've struggled with that question for a long time. I still struggle, but I have come to accept it as "above my pay grade." I don't understand it, but I know that I don't have the best view of the universe and eternity and the whole big picture from where I'm sitting now. I've had to ask myself if I trust God, if I trust the scriptures, and if I trust my church leaders, and I've found that I do trust them. I have to continuously pray for humility and patience and trust that someday I'll be granted a better understanding. It's still very vexing in the mean time.
It's hard for me to talk about gay marriage. People will say it's not a religious issue, it's a human rights issue, or vice versa. Really it's both. The word "right" keeps coming up. Is marriage a right? If so, I should probably apply at the local marriage welfare. Marriage is more of a rite than a right, isn't it, which implies roots in religion rather than politics, but that's neither here nor there. At this point it matters in both sectors. It's difficult for me to talk about religion and it's difficult for me to talk about politics, and if you put them both in one supercharged, hot-button issue, you can pretty much forget about me opening my mouth.
I have been very uncomfortable with my church's stance on this issue. Well, not their stance, but their active opposition to it. I believe people should have the right to marry who they love despite anyone else's opinion about it. I didn't understand why the church couldn't be more, "Live and let live," about this, especially in light of our own history. We had some funny ideas about marriage in the past that others didn't approve of and thought immoral, and we wanted to be left alone about it. Aside from that, gay people exist in and contribute to our society. Whether or not they have the right to marry each other, they will be in our lives and our children's lives. Denying them the right to marry won't make them go away (not that I want them to) and it won't prevent them from adopting or procreating or starting families any way they can. Whether a same-sex couple wants to refer to their commitment to each other as a partnership, union, or marriage, I don't see how it makes much difference in the long run. It all means the same thing: they are together. Why does it matter what they call it? More than that, I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. If 2 men spend 60 years in love with each other, living together, building a life, of course they should be considered each other's next of kin in all legal situations. They have to be the ones choose whether to pull the plug, how to run the funeral, and what to do with the inherited property. They've chosen each other. We can't choose someone else for them. We shouldn't want to.
This is why it felt so awkward when the church was advertising so much about Prop 8. I was against Prop 8 (or for it, I can't remember which now; I was for allowing gay marriage). Adamant opposition to letting gay folks marry each other made us look like bad guys, and that made me uncomfortable. It was also hard to be encouraged to oppose something that I'm not really opposed to. The church's stance is, "Don't approve of sin but love the sinner anyway. Be nice to everyone, let others choose their own beliefs, but don't falter on your own in an effort to be accommodating. Be firm, but kind," (that's not a direct quote, y'all, I'm paraphrasing). It's hard to understand how we were being kind by actively trying to deny this right, and even harder to explain it. Is it kind to say, "I'm allowed, but you're not?" No. However it is kind, or at least kinder, to say, "I want you to have all the rights with your one-and-only that I have with mine, but I want you to call it something else," which is what the church has said. That may not be enough according to some gay rights activists, but it is much more accepting than, say, "Burn in hell, queer, this town's not big enough for the both of us," which is the rather un-Christian stance some other churches took. In any case, the church is trying to strike a balance between standing up for what it believes and letting others choose to believe something else.
In light of all this, I expected to be glad that the Supreme Court has repealed the federal law against same-sex marriages, allowing each state to choose for itself. I was shocked to feel a tiny twinge of fear when I read the news. What the? FEAR?! I'm not afraid of homosexuals! I love them, both individually and as a group! What's going on?
I figured it out. There is a little part of me that is worried that this legislation is the first step in a process that will make it so that my church will somehow be forced to accept gay marriage. Just as I believe that gay folks should be allowed to get married if they want, I also believe that individual sects should have the right NOT to approve of or preform same-sex marriages within their own walls and congregations. Even if the law recognizes these unions as marriages, no one should be required by law to endorse or preform one. I realize that nobody is asking for that. No one is saying, "I want to marry my gay boyfriend, and I want YOU to officiate, now hop to it!" Most people want a more supportive environment on their wedding day; they don't want to have to twist your arm to get you to participate, and they don't want to have to look at your judgey-face all day long. Still, the more it becomes an accepted part of American life that homosexuals in love can get married to each other, the more strange and unfair it will seem that some people don't think they ought to. That's fine, everyone can have their own opinions. You can think your pastor is a jerk for refusing to marry your Aunt Edith and her friend Rose. You can think he's behind the times. You can even stop attending his meetings because of it, but no one should ever say that he is acting unconstitutionally, or that he is infringing on their right to marry by refusing to marry them himself. I think this is what most people who are against gay marriage legislation are afraid of. They don't want to open the door on that can of worms and have it slide all down the slippery slope, as it were. They don't want to be penalized for choosing to follow their own beliefs any more than the Out-and-Proud members of society do. I don't think this is very likely, or that it will happen very quickly, but I do think we should be prepared to guard against it. Humans are notorious for over-correcting.
The other news item that has me scared (and more than a twinge) is this: The vote on Prop 8 way back when determined that gay marriage would not be legal in California. Not long after that, a judge overruled that outcome, and the supreme court has recently decided to uphold that ruling. My concern is not about gays in California being able to marry each other, it's about the processes to decide whether or not they can marry each other. It doesn't matter who was campaigning for which side of the argument, how hard they were working, or how much money was spent, the bottom line is that the voters in California went to the polls and voiced their opinions. All those opinions were then overruled by 1 person. Since when can a judge, or any person, say, "That didn't turn out how I wanted / expected --" or even, "I don't think everyone who meant to vote my way got themselves to the polls, so I'm going to throw it out?" That's pretty much the exact opposite of how this democratic republic of ours is supposed to work, isn't it? Regardless of your stance on the gay marriage issue, I hope you can see that this isn't ok. I'm not saying that he and the other supporters of same-sex marriage should've just given up. I just think they should've gone through the proper channels. I mean, let's pretend the vote was about something else, like whether we're having pancakes for breakfast tomorrow. Ok, so there's a reunion going on and the whole extended family is supposed to vote about pancakes. About a third of the people don't bother to vote for whatever reason, and the results come up against pancakes. Then your 3rd cousin's wife decides no one else's opinion counts because she really really likes pancakes, and Grandma and Grandpa back her up. What the heck, lady? It's a dangerous precedent to set. Can any judge now overturn any vote? I don't know, but he or she can sure try, and they now have this Supreme Court ruling to cite as backup. It starts to unbalance the balance of power, and it disregards the voice of the people. Even if the people are idiots, who gets to say so? Who watches the watchmen?
It's hard to be a grownup and have it be my responsibility to care about these things. It's hard for it to be my responsibility to know and care and act, but to still feel so insignificant and ill-equipped.
