Gay Marriage: Constitution, Ethics & Hypocrisy

In 2004 Kenneth Cole utilized his power within the fashion industry to take on a problem. The problem is that 11 states included Marriage Amendements on the ballot that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The ad highlights that at that time 52% of Americans believed in the sacredness of marriage as just between a man and a woman, which is fascinating beyond the scope of what I have time for, but I’ll definitely cover the highlights. As long as I have been out, since the early 90’s, I have to say that I have found and still find the whole debate on Same-sex Marriage/Unions to be so illogical on so many levels, but let me address a few at length: one that is Constitutional, one that is ethical and one that is just plain hypocritical.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” After thousands of years of theocracies it would be foolish of me to say that marriage is not a state institution by history, but our present day context is very clearly contextualized by religious belief systems attempting to shove their unique beliefs down the throat of our Constitution. There is a concerted movement and admitted success by Christian theocratic citizens and lawmakers to legislate respecting an establishment of religion in our country concerning marriage, from their particular brand of religion. Supreme Court Justice Harry A Blackmun in the 1992 Lee v. Weisman case ruled, “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

In 1802, January 1, then President, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote regarding separation of church and state, here abbreviated, "...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..." Why? Because of the very religious persecution that lead early Americans to flee England and the more recent example of persecution highlighted in the April 24, 2008 New York Times article on the persecution of protestant religions in Russia, which largely favors the Russian Orthodox church.

I take pause for a moment to address the procreation is what guarantees the future of the Republic bit. There is no population problem anywhere in the world so your future is solid, maybe not the people you want to populate, but it’s all good with 6 billion and growing. Moving on, individual religious systems are guaranteed the right to their own laws, norms and taboos within their own unique group, in order to establish and retain their own particular cultural and religious beliefs. However, those guarantees should stop at the synagogue, church, temple and mosque borders: no legislation going in and none going out. Their right is to establish and protect their own, but not to legislate those norms into the whole Republic, and let me be clear, this is what is happening right now. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the preservation of religion and state, but once the wall of separation comes down there is an insidious slippery slope that threatens every unique group, of which everyone should be terrified, including individual religious sects. In essence, the fight of theocratic conservatives to insert moral doctrine into our Constitution devalues and essentially eradicates the religion of another. I know, some reading this may be thrilled with that prospect, and that is not surprise to me. I know that for some, as long as it’s your particular religion who has the power and control--you relish the idea of running out the other. But what if it is a rival religous sect who is unfriendly to you? OR, GASP! Musulims? Then where do you stand on the issue? The narrow road always prefers it’s own narrow world view, but a person who gets the idea of being a good human understands that the retention of diverse views strengthens the liberty of the whole.

On the ethical point behind the law, it’s really simple. If I stand within the grounds of my religious institution and say, “Straight marriage is not allowed on these hallowed grounds,” I’ve established a particular belief system. But then I hear that out there in the world or government straight marriage is being recognized; if I follow the line that is the political religious-conservative rational in America, I say wrongly, “My rights are being violated because someone else has the right to marry in the world or government--out there.” As a silo thinker I may believe that if I’m not able to discriminate against someone with which I morally disagree in the public forum then that means my religious freedoms are being violated? What?!!! That’s really nonsense of the highest order and no one should stand for such backwards thinking. The only way we impact each other is if we choose to attend each other’s ceremonies, or force ourselves into each other’s relationships, but that isn’t how it happens.

On April 16, 2007 MSNBC did a story on Lust, Love & Loyalty. Over 70,000 people completed this on-line survey and found that, “About one in five adults in monogamous relationships, or 22 percent, have cheated on their current partner. The rate is even higher among married men. And nearly half of people admit to being unfaithful at some point in their lives…” This would fall in line with the most recent sociological predictions if divorce rates continue at their current climb; that in all marriages, about 50% of all marriages will end in divorce, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation. Divorce statistics in general cover a wide diversity of alternatives that people find themselves in when things just don’t work out. When you take a hard look at who the theocrats are supporting and, in turn, carry the torch of “sacred marriage,” you find a litany of hypocrisy. Wasn’t it Bill O’Reily who sexually assaulted one of his female staff? Has not John McCain cheated on two of his wives? And then there’s the whole list of conservatives who upheld the high standard of marriage and abstinence only: Ted Haggard, Randal Tobias, Mark Foley, Larry Craig and other widespread hypocrisy. Honestly, how sacred can marriage be when this is the behavior? The hypocrisy is embedded in a practice of engaging in dishonesty that does harm to their partners, and even more, pushes hostile policy to work against people who desire the ability to live their lives with integrity, while engaging in the behavior they protest…but secretly. How is it possible that 52% of Americans truly believe in the sacredness of marriage given the evidence of behavior.

So here is my message to neo-religious conservatives: Grow up! Stop blaming others! Men and women in America need to take responsibility for their own marriages. No one makes you participate in the freedom afforded to every American, or makes your decisions for you, or makes you cheat, divorce or fight over money or sex, but you. As an adult you can expand or restrict that freedom as much as you want, for you. Straight America is responsible for it’s own relationships and problems. Spend your energy fighting real causes of your divorce rates and keep your religious laws to yourself, unless someone or a group actually does physical harm or persecution to your practices. If your stress is emotional, then avoid major cities where gays primarily live, don’t have a gay marriage, don’t go to a gay marriage ceremony, shut off your TV, don’t go to the mall, only shop at your religious affiliated stores, stay within your own communities, create your own communities and stay out of the world. I don’t go into your bedrooms or legislate into your places of worship because that is your space to believe and practice what you want, but outside of your grounds is public domain. I have full faith that you can be “in it, but not of it.”

Real human rights violations involve me telling you how to live or barring you from living your life, not barring you from telling me how to live. You are not ethically allowed to baby-sit America, so keep it out of our legislation. Keep it out of our Constitution; it’s not lawful or ethical. I’m an adult and so are you, so treat adults as you would have them treat you as an adult. If you don’t want me to bar you from marriage, don’t bar me. My personal solution is that there should be NO state sanctioned marriage. The state should only recognize those who want to be contractually bound by a union for the purposes of maintaining stability among families, in whatever shape or form that takes between two consenting adults. I can just hear the bestiality comments now! Come-ON PEOPLE! Those who go to that gutter thought terrify me, because it’s not even a rational thought. Time to leave the playground children, cover your ears. Brother Republican is losing the verbal conversation and has begun talking about sex with animals. Marriage, on the other hand, should be left up to private religious institutions within the laws and norms of their religion, particular to their religious freedom to practice as they wish.

This theocratic intrusion into our secular democracy is only one of many terrifying omens in which religious systems continue to persist into the public domain regarding marriage, Christmas, faith based initiatives, vouchers, government prayer breakfasts, official government meetings with the Pope, etc. How is this equitable on our tax dollars? Maintain a secular government in order to maintain our personal freedoms, human rights, the the diversity that resides within all religions and the freedom We the people and religions deserve—in that order.