I received this comment on my post about how Sean Penn should not be preaching about shame. (I should first acknowledge that Penn did not make a reference to religion in that particular speech -- my bad.)
"One should be only ashamed of their religious beliefs if they use those beliefs to oppress others by taking away rights or denying them equality under the law. Marriage law is a secular matter and people who seek to impose their personal, narrow religious beliefs on others through secular law should be very ashamed that they used religion as an excuse to treat others in such a cruel and inhumane matter. Not only will history be unkind to such people, but they should be and are rightly severely judged today."
You've undoubtedly heard this kind of argument regarding the marriage debate. I'd like to examine it more closely. (After struggling for several minutes to concisely address this -- boy, is this hard, really sticking the neck out on this one, but here goes...)
Whatever basis one uses for oppression is wrong. Just because one bases a belief in their religion doesn't immediately mean it is oppressive, narrow or outside the secular realm. Religion is not an excuse for making decisions, it's what a large sector of people turn to to guide their choices. Doesn't matter if it's the Bible or the I Ching or a Magic 8 Ball. People are entitled to their beliefs however they reach them.
Or even if they reach decisions with an absence of "guidance." I'm sure you could find plenty of atheists out there who believe that our American tradition has been that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Would you say that they are using their lack of religion as an excuse to "impose" what they believe?
(Might I add, why doesn't the left think that they are "imposing" when what they believe prevails? And may I also ask why it's okay to judge "rightly" and "severely" those who uphold traditional marriage? As I said in the aforementioned post -- isn't being intolerant and judgmental of others' views a mortal sin in the eyes of the left? Why is that only a one-way street? And I wish I had the all-knowing powers of the future that the person who left the comment has -- his declaration that history will be unkind is rhetoric of the highest degree.)
So I say, let's leave religion out of this debate.
What it boils down to is, are people being unduly oppressed here? Exactly what is "cruel" and "inhumane" about defining marriage as between one man and one woman of a certain age? It is unreasonable to equate the horrible crimes that have befallen too many because of their sexuality with every issue that the community believes relates to them.
Are 8-year-olds oppressed because they cannot marry? Are they being treated cruelly and inhumanely because they don't fall within the definition that our society has decided?
Many benefits that married couples enjoy can already be obtained through legal means between any two persons -- for example, inheritance and medical decision powers can be conveyed to anyone. What rights are being denied? Advantages like insurance coverage and tax breaks? Fine, go ahead and fight for those. It wouldn't only be gay couples who could benefit from such arrangements, so I might be for it.
Being given equal opportunity does not mean being treated the same. There already is equal opportunity for some of the privileges of marriage, and you can fight for others. Those who oppose the traditional definition of marriage want gay marriage to be declared the same. And it just isn't the case in the eyes of the majority.
Maybe that tide will turn some day -- but it won't be done by bullying or declaring folks oppressive and narrow-minded.
One way those who are for gay marriage might start to win hearts and minds would be to acknowledge the rights of the most oppressed sector of our populace -- namely, the preborn. Hard for me to get worked up about the right to a wedding day when millions are denied a birth day. But that's another post, for another time...
Comments