Same-Sex Marriage: Objections?

I've seen a lot of comments today against the Supreme Court's ruling, making all bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Many, if not all, of these comments are based on religion. the main objection seems to be that marriage was instituted by God and God said it was between a man and a woman. This is either untrue or irrelevant on several fronts.

Our country is not a theocracy. Even though the majority of our country as always been at least nominally Christian (at least after the European colonists had killed off or converted enough of the original inhabitants), and some argue that the Founders set out to found a Christian nation, i.e. a nation based on Christian values. None of that makes this country a theocracy. The First Amendment to the Constitution, among other things, forbids the establishment of religion. There has been and will continue to be debate over precisely what this implies, but it has been interpreted broadly to remove religious views as a basis for any of our laws.

But I would be willfully ignorant to pretend that there aren't many, even among the judiciary, who believe that this is a Christian nation wherein the laws must conform to Christianity.

The main contention among those who wish their religion to be the deciding factor in marriage laws is that God instituted marriage and that it was to be between one man and one woman.

So, let's look at that position. I think that it can be demonstrated that many civilizations other than the ancient Hebrews had marriage as part of their culture and that it definitely, unarguably, predated Christianity. Biblically minded people may counter that marriage was instituted in Genesis, and that nothing predates that. Okay, let's examine that argument. While there are many examples of biblical marriage being between one man and one woman, there are many more where marriage is something different: between one man and multiple women; between one man, one woman and her slave; between one man, two women and two handmaids; between one man and the woman he raped (as long he paid off her father). My point is that our cultural definition of what marriage is has changed. Few would argue that a marriage should include slaves or handmaids and virtually no one would argue that a rapist can buy his rape victim from her father; well, it's changed again people!

Many people are now in an uproar, believing that somehow the rights of the religious believers are being trampled upon. If your religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, you're still free to believe that; your ministers will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages; churches will still be able to define who meets the requirements to be married under their auspices. It doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever.

Some have brought up the examples of religious bakers or caterers "forced" to supply cakes or to cater at a same-sex wedding. To those people I ask whether you so assiduously police all the so-called sinful actions of people that you potentially do business with. probably not.

Many states have had legal same-sex marriage for years now and have not turned into Sodom & Gomorrah; think about Iowa, a decidedly conservative Midwestern state.

We've moved forward...move with us

Sometimes, We Just Change Our Minds

Growing up, if I knew any gay people, I didn't know that they were gay. It wasn't exactly safe to be "out" back in the seventies. I heard and repeated anti-gay slurs without much thought and was oblivious to the implications of the casual bigotry that surrounded me and I was a part of.

I made it all the way to 1988, when I was thirty years old before I met someone who was openly gay, or at least until I became aware of such a person. I remember being mildly surprised that these people were "regular people", but quickly got over whatever residual prejudice that was lurking in my brain.

Several years before this I moved from my native New York City to western Nebraska, where I was part of a religious group that was unpopular with the mainstream churches. Due to my membership in this group I and my roommates were subject to discrimination in jobs and housing and the targets of verbal (and sometimes physical) abuse. As a card-carrying member of the majority, I had never experienced this before, and growing up somewhat sheltered, had never even witnessed it. The treatment that I received was shocking to me. But what stuck in my mind was, despite all the hatred that was targeted at me, nothing would have happened if I had showed up in town  and gone to one of the local churches, or simply kept my mouth shut about my religious beliefs. In short, I could have passed. If I had one day renounced my membership in this religious group, I would have been accepted. But what about racial minorities, or gender discrimination? Some people just couldn't "pass" for members of the majority. My experiences in western Nebraska set the tone for my attitudes about discrimination and prejudice for the rest of my life.

Except for an interlude of a few years in the nineties.

This same religious group underwent a radical change in the late eighties and early nineties. The group's leader, who had succeeded the group's founder several years earlier, became extremely vocal in his opposition to homosexuality. He became more and more adamant about how homosexuality was the lowest of the low of sins and how acceptance of homosexuality was undermining "the ministry" (one of the ways our religious group identified itself). I am ashamed to say that I bought into it. Oh, not at first. When it first began I questioned why homosexuality was singled out, but eventually my objections were drowned in my desire to align myself with what I thought were biblical truths.

In 2000, in the aftermath of scandals that caused this leader to resign in disgrace, I became disenchanted with the group and eventually was asked to leave after it was discovered that I was posting on a website hostile to the group. It didn't take long for my opinions to "snap back" to the positions that I held before the anti-gay hysteria of my former group once the fog of religious dogma was lifted from my eyes.

Those days are times that I am not proud of and I cringe at some of the things that I said and the way I acted. But for the most part, my defining experience was that of experiencing discrimination and I never want to be on the side that delivers it ever again.

The Confederate Flag

It took me about 6 seconds to find an offensive image for this blog post about the Confederate flag (technically The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag). And make no mistake about it, I find this flag extremely offensive. Firstly, it is one of the flags used by those who fomented armed insurrection against the United States. Before I go on about why I find the flag offensive, I want to be clear that I am in no way advocating that we ban  private use of the flag or its design on clothing, hats, or orange cars. But I find it ironic that many of those who shout about how much they love 'Murica, and how patriotic they are and how great our country is, and how "libruls is all traiters" proudly display a flag that is a symbol of those who sought to tear this country apart.

Those who display this flag have various rationales. Some are just Southerners who rationalize that it's a symbol of their heritage, distinct from that of the rest of the nation, some rationalize that it's a symbol of standing up to an oppressive government, some are just Dukes of Hazard fans. Some are simply honest about their racism.

Many supporters of flying the Confederate flag bolster their "southern pride" rationale by maintaining that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but economics and states' rights. Well, yes. It was about the economy that was based on slavery and the rights of states to continue slavery. The founders of the Confederacy were very clear about that.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/19/1394560/-So-The-Confederacy-Didn-t-Go-To-War-Over-Slavery#

It's not arguable that the Confederate states didn't secede because of slavery and the flags of that short-lived rebellion (including the one we're discussing) are representations of that mindset. Arguing that a Confederate flag stands for anything other than armed rebellion against the United States in support of maintaining a racist institution is willfully ignorant of the facts.

So...it's okay to shoot me if I'm a criminal...if I run...if I look threatening?

First off, I'm not defending the people who looted their cities and towns as part of protests against police killings. I'm not defending the people who killed those two cops in New York (or anywhere else). I'm not defending criminal activity or suggesting that they get a free pass because they live in poverty...or are the "victims" of racism. I'm not minimizing the tough job that most cops have and the split second decisions that they have to make in the line of duty. And I'm not talking about incidents where the police shoot someone who is trying to kill them or an innocent bystander.

I'm talking about when police shoot unarmed people who may or may not have committed a crime.

In the aftermath of some recent police shootings apologists for the police have excused the shootings with variations of "he wouldn't have gotten shot if he had just done what the police said", or "don't break the law and you've got no problem" or "why was he running?". This suggests that it is open season on anyone who has a criminal background, that any infraction puts your life at risk and that disobeying a police officer is a capital crime.

In a few places that I checked, lethal force is justified if the officer is defending himself or a third party against lethal force. In other words, police are authorized to shoot to kill in order to defend against being killed or to protect another from being killed. In some jurisdictions, it is also acceptable to shoot someone to prevent their escape from custody when the officer reasonably believes that the person they are shooting at has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury. 

You can't shoot someone just because they are running away, you can't shoot someone just because they may have committed a crime, you can't shoot someone just because you might get beat up. In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that a fleeing felon, unless there is a significant threat of death or serious injury, cannot be stopped with deadly force.

But the law puts a lot of weight behind a police officer's perception of the threat, rather than the actual threat. While this takes into account the split-second decisions that police have to make and gives them the benefit of the doubt, it's not very helpful to kids with toy guns, Walmart shoppers checking out firearms or anyone who makes a given cop nervous. This is why so few cops are indicted and even fewer are convicted: what is going on in their minds is more important legally than what is going on in the real world.

So, not only do we have to not be a criminal, not ever run away, not ever disobey a police officer, not look suspicious...but we have to completely avoid every cop's possible misperceptions as well. Because it doesn't matter if you're unarmed and innocent, if I cop says that he thought that you were armed and dangerous...you're dead.

Free Speech vs. Just Not Being a Moron

By now, most people "know" that observant Muslims believe that one should not depict Muhammad in a drawing or picture. Technically, the Qu'ran prohibits idolatry, as does the Old Testament, and a blanket prohibition of images cannot be found there. However, in the hadith, stories about the life of Muhammad, can be interpreted as banning images of humans and other living beings. This has been interpreted in a variety of ways over the centuries, with the norms changing depending on the sect, the culture and the theologians doing the interpreting. Generally, most Muslims avoid making visual representations of God and of Muhammad. In addition, most Muslims would be offended if an artist created an offensive or disrespectful image of Muhammad, much as many Christians were offended at Robert Mapplethorpe's images of a crucifix in a jar of urine. The cartoons in the French publication Charlie Hebdo were not just innocent depictions of Muhammad, they were specifically designed to be offensive. Several Muslims took their offense at these cartoons to the extreme of killing the cartoonists. In Texas recently two Muslims were shot and killed by law enforcement after attacking a security guard at a "Draw Muhammad" gathering. They apparently were outraged and offended that someone would have the audacity to draw a picture of Muhammad.

I am not about to presume to judge Muslims sensibilities or their hurt feelings over the lack of respect their religion receives in certain quarters. What I will presume to do is judge the appropriateness of their reaction: killing people because they offend your religion is extreme, it is deranged, it cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

While I understand the thinking behind some of these "Draw Muhammad" events - it's a logical reaction against those who use violence to essentially terrorize others into falling in line with the tenets of their religion - I also wonder whether it's being unnecessarily provocative. Is it really appropriate to insult and offend religious believers in an organized fashion like this in order to make a point against the violent extremists among their coreligionists? I think it's pushing it, but being that we have (generally) freedom of expression in this country, I do not think that these events should be stopped. I don't think that the protests that the idiotic Westboro Baptist Church conducts should be stopped either and I think that they're way beyond offensive and provocative. Whether we like the "speech" or find it offensive, the First Amendment guarantees the right for it to be said.

Recently a group in Phoenix Arizona has moved beyond free speech to threatening, even terroristic action. Putatively described as a "free speech rally" the events included a "Draw Muhammad Contest" in a restaurant parking lot. So far, so good: stand up to the crazies who want to kill you for a cartoon - take a stand and declare that we don't put up with that nonsense in the United States. But it didn't stop at that. The participants in this "rally", many of them openly carrying firearms, surrounded a mosque, not just to stand up for free speech, but to protest against Islam itself. Fortunately for all concerned, none of the weapons were fired and no violence ensued. But what about next time? Is that what we consider a proper exercise of our First Amendment rights? Threatening our neighbors because we don't like their religion? And make no mistake, this was not just some citizens expressing their opinions, this was calculated to intimidate, to provoke.

What would you think if you walked out the front door of your church one Sunday morning to find a crowd of armed men shouting at you, wearing t-shirts and carrying banners and signs with offensive messages like "Fuck Jesus"? Without a doubt you would feel a bit threatened. Free speeech? Okay, but how about not being an idiot?