I posted this on my churches Facebook page. The discussion has been lively.
…
I am a heterosexual male. The vast majority of people who may read this (the number of which could possibly run literaly into the TENS!) are heterosexual as well. Gay marriage is the topic du jour. It is fun to talk about, but really is not going to impact our lives. It is even fun to be passionate about it. Its like arguing about how yummy or crappy Starbuck’s coffee is. Either you think they burn the beans or you think they are gourmet roasters. But ultimately you drink what you want and the discussion fades into the background and you go on about your life.
Soon we will forget about the gay marriage debate. But we shouldn’t.
First of all, let’s dispense with the “gay” moniker. It is simply marriage. A doctor doesn’t “finger”-stitch, or “scalp” stitch. The process is called stitching, no matter where it is done. Or suturing. You know what I mean. Tacking “gay” on the front of marriage, implies that it something other than…marriage. That means that even when it is legal a different class is implied.
The bumper sticker wisdom of the chatterati will say marriage is “one man, one woman”. Anyone who claims to be defending marriage from this position must also take up the charge against the greatest foe the institution of marriage has ever faced - divorce. So when I see religious groups forming PACs to outlaw divorce, I will know they are serious about defending the sanctity of marriage. To “one man, one woman” they should add, “one time”. But since born-again Christians are more likely to divorce than their non-religious counterparts (with Baptists leading the way), don’t expect these culture warriors to pick up the mantle any time soon.
Let’s remember two things about our great nation. First, while the separation of church and state is not enumerated in the Constitution, it is a long held and cherished tenet we hold dear. And second, the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution were adamant that the rights of the minority should be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
To the first point, whether you believe we are a “Christian” nation or not, you cannot allow your religious beliefs to enter into the decision making here. This decision is about rights and should be decided based upon legal reasoning. If you are religiously opposed to marriage equality, you should certainly make sure you belong to a religious group that supports your position. If you don’t think Dean and Steve should be married, you have every right to not let them get hitched in your chapel. (but you missed a FABULOUS party! And the red velvet cake with almond lace dressing was to DIE FOR!) But we are not the Taliban and we do not decide who gets educated based on religious principles, we do not blow up art that opposes our religious beliefs, and we should not grant or deny right based on religion either. And it is also a slippery slope. I can’t get through a chapter in Leviticus without finding out I should be stoned for one thing or another.
On the second point, our government was set up by brilliant men not as a democracy, but as a representative republic. This was to ensure that the rights, even of minority groups, were not infringed upon by the tyranny of the majority. That is, the majority cannot vote to remove rights from a minority group. The Federalist Papers (most prominently #10) referred to it as the “violence of majority faction”.
Now, my fellow heterosexual Christians, I want you to think about these two points, and take the long view. If you set the precedent that popular opinion can be the basis for denying rights, how does that bode for our grandchildren? By all accounts our nation is changing. Racially, ethnically, and religiously, our nation will be quite different in 5o years. The number of people identifying as Christian is in rapid decline, while other religions are growing.
Latino immigration alone will change the fabric of the country. What if Latinos, and their dominant Roman Catholic heritage, gain the majority? What if they then declare that any marriage made outside of the true and Catholic Church, is not valid? It strains credulity but, but you see my point. If they are the majority, would you accept that?
Within the next 20 years some western countries will become predominantly Muslim. With the rapid growth of Islam, it is not too far fetched to hypothesize about a Muslim majority in the United States. Will you quietly acquiesce if the majority declares all marriages must conform to Sharia Law?
By the same logic, we cannot deny the rights of people to marry who they love today. You must be able to think ahead to a time when the values you hold dear are no longer in the majority, and defend the minority today as you would defend yourself then.
And always remember, if a groom asks you if his dress makes his ass look fat, the answer is ALWAYS no!