![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I typed this up in a fit of pique, and then found I couldn't post it directly. I'm not 'approved' to comment on the blog in question. But, I put time into it, so here it is:
I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage in any way is a 'faith' issue. To argue about it, first, completely ignores the separation of church and state. That aside... When one says one doesn't 'believe' in gay marriage, what does that mean? It means that you don't condone gay marriage, which is a completely different thing. The reason you don't condone it is because of your faith; but its existence doesn't deny you your faith. You're free to go right on thinking it's wrong. What you're not free to do is deny a gay couple their rights.
To make an analogy, consider the subject of pharmacists' rights vs. the rights of the patient. Pharmacists whose religion doesn't 'believe in' or 'condone' the use of birth control or the morning-after pill, have the right not to fill such prescriptions. However, the patient has a similar right to get the prescription filled. To prevent it is to force the pharmacist's beliefs on the patient. This is neither the pharmacist's job nor their right. Yet this is what is being done with respect to gay marriage. To bring the analogy home: this view would hold that the pharmacist should have the right not only to refuse to fill the prescription -- because it is against his or her beliefs -- but the right to refuse the patient the ability to have the prescription filled ever.
The individual I wanted to respond to tried to argue that both homosexual and heterosexual couples have the same rights, by arguing that there are cases in which heterosexual couples can't be married, too. This, however, is not an analogy, despite their argument to the contrary and their claims of being 'logical'. To make an analogy, there has to be a base similarity between the things being compared... and there is no such similarity between a man who is unable to marry because the woman doesn't love him, or unable to marry because the woman he loves is currently married; and two homosexuals being refused the right to marry period. These are stumbling blocks, not (necessarily) dead ends. The woman may come to love the man, or the woman may get divorced, and then the heterosexual couple can ride happily off into the sunset. (The last example, involving siblings, is correct: the siblings are doomed. However, as the same is true of two brothers and two sisters, equality is achieved, based upon the fact that incest is frowned upon across the board. It shouldn't be any more or less wrong simply because siblings share the same biological equipment.)
There is no such happy ending -- in this world view -- even possible for the homosexual couple.
Homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples when the only stumbling blocks to such are exactly the same. In short: both partners must consent, must be free from other similar obligations (i.e. not already married), not related, etc. The fact that they are same-sex shouldn't even be a factor. The fact that your religion doesn't condone gay marriage should only be a factor if you're the one called upon to perform the ceremony -- in which event, you would have the right to say 'no', but not the right to deny them the ability to get married ever. Happily, the same is true of a gay person: they have the right to refuse to fill your prescription or unite you in marriage personally, but they can't stop you from going elsewhere. Huzzah!
Should you feel the need to yell at me for this post: I will apologize if I have offended anyone's sensibilities by my use of blunt or condescending language. But I do not apologize if you are offended simply because I think you don't have the right -- based on your personal beliefs, regardless of how many people share them -- to prevent same-sex couples from joining in a legal and loving partnership. No one says you have to approve, and go on the talk shows touting gay marriage as the best thing since sliced bread; what you're being asked to do is allow other people to live their lives their way, provided doing so doesn't hurt anyone. (And I fail to see how it hurts anyone. I suppose if you believe that it will bring about the apocalypse, you might have reason to worry... but given all the rest of the stuff that goes on in the world -- child abuse, for example -- I really doubt gay marriage will be the tipping point.)
So many religious people like to scream that their rights are being infringed on, simply because they're asked to be tolerant. This is especially horrid to me, considering that their religion itself asks for this! (I'm not up on the Bible, but I don't believe it says 'love thy neighbor, provided he/she is not gay, not Jewish, not green...) Sadly, while certainly not the only culprits, Christians are among the loudest and most obnoxious.
ETA: In my mind, there is a separation between voting to allow gay marriage, and condoning it. Voting to allow gay marriage is only necessary because of stupid twaddle in the first place. To make an analogy: if you must, think of it as voting to allow people to do something they should be free to do anyway, but which you think is incredibly stupid. Like... for me, voting to make it explicitly legal to own thirty-six cats in a one bedroom apartment. Or, to tattoo your entire body permanently green because you're a fan of Star Trek. I think both of these things are undesirable, but I also think people should already have the right to do them. So, while I don't condone permanently dying oneself green, I would vote to allow it. (This is not to say I think gay marriage is stupid... which is probably obvious, but just to clarify. I'm just trying to make the point that you can vote to allow people to do something you disapprove of, simply because you approve of allowing people to have free will to make the choice.)
I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage in any way is a 'faith' issue. To argue about it, first, completely ignores the separation of church and state. That aside... When one says one doesn't 'believe' in gay marriage, what does that mean? It means that you don't condone gay marriage, which is a completely different thing. The reason you don't condone it is because of your faith; but its existence doesn't deny you your faith. You're free to go right on thinking it's wrong. What you're not free to do is deny a gay couple their rights.
To make an analogy, consider the subject of pharmacists' rights vs. the rights of the patient. Pharmacists whose religion doesn't 'believe in' or 'condone' the use of birth control or the morning-after pill, have the right not to fill such prescriptions. However, the patient has a similar right to get the prescription filled. To prevent it is to force the pharmacist's beliefs on the patient. This is neither the pharmacist's job nor their right. Yet this is what is being done with respect to gay marriage. To bring the analogy home: this view would hold that the pharmacist should have the right not only to refuse to fill the prescription -- because it is against his or her beliefs -- but the right to refuse the patient the ability to have the prescription filled ever.
The individual I wanted to respond to tried to argue that both homosexual and heterosexual couples have the same rights, by arguing that there are cases in which heterosexual couples can't be married, too. This, however, is not an analogy, despite their argument to the contrary and their claims of being 'logical'. To make an analogy, there has to be a base similarity between the things being compared... and there is no such similarity between a man who is unable to marry because the woman doesn't love him, or unable to marry because the woman he loves is currently married; and two homosexuals being refused the right to marry period. These are stumbling blocks, not (necessarily) dead ends. The woman may come to love the man, or the woman may get divorced, and then the heterosexual couple can ride happily off into the sunset. (The last example, involving siblings, is correct: the siblings are doomed. However, as the same is true of two brothers and two sisters, equality is achieved, based upon the fact that incest is frowned upon across the board. It shouldn't be any more or less wrong simply because siblings share the same biological equipment.)
There is no such happy ending -- in this world view -- even possible for the homosexual couple.
Homosexual couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples when the only stumbling blocks to such are exactly the same. In short: both partners must consent, must be free from other similar obligations (i.e. not already married), not related, etc. The fact that they are same-sex shouldn't even be a factor. The fact that your religion doesn't condone gay marriage should only be a factor if you're the one called upon to perform the ceremony -- in which event, you would have the right to say 'no', but not the right to deny them the ability to get married ever. Happily, the same is true of a gay person: they have the right to refuse to fill your prescription or unite you in marriage personally, but they can't stop you from going elsewhere. Huzzah!
Should you feel the need to yell at me for this post: I will apologize if I have offended anyone's sensibilities by my use of blunt or condescending language. But I do not apologize if you are offended simply because I think you don't have the right -- based on your personal beliefs, regardless of how many people share them -- to prevent same-sex couples from joining in a legal and loving partnership. No one says you have to approve, and go on the talk shows touting gay marriage as the best thing since sliced bread; what you're being asked to do is allow other people to live their lives their way, provided doing so doesn't hurt anyone. (And I fail to see how it hurts anyone. I suppose if you believe that it will bring about the apocalypse, you might have reason to worry... but given all the rest of the stuff that goes on in the world -- child abuse, for example -- I really doubt gay marriage will be the tipping point.)
So many religious people like to scream that their rights are being infringed on, simply because they're asked to be tolerant. This is especially horrid to me, considering that their religion itself asks for this! (I'm not up on the Bible, but I don't believe it says 'love thy neighbor, provided he/she is not gay, not Jewish, not green...) Sadly, while certainly not the only culprits, Christians are among the loudest and most obnoxious.
ETA: In my mind, there is a separation between voting to allow gay marriage, and condoning it. Voting to allow gay marriage is only necessary because of stupid twaddle in the first place. To make an analogy: if you must, think of it as voting to allow people to do something they should be free to do anyway, but which you think is incredibly stupid. Like... for me, voting to make it explicitly legal to own thirty-six cats in a one bedroom apartment. Or, to tattoo your entire body permanently green because you're a fan of Star Trek. I think both of these things are undesirable, but I also think people should already have the right to do them. So, while I don't condone permanently dying oneself green, I would vote to allow it. (This is not to say I think gay marriage is stupid... which is probably obvious, but just to clarify. I'm just trying to make the point that you can vote to allow people to do something you disapprove of, simply because you approve of allowing people to have free will to make the choice.)
