Friday, June 26, 2015
Posted in
Life
,|
Politics
,|
Religion
|
Today, June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that gay people have the right to marry in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, and I am not going to examine the specific legal issues that resulted in that decision (such as due process and equal protection, etc.). But I do want to make a few points.
There is a basic understanding in the law that people cannot be discriminated against for who or what they are. In other words, a black person is a black person, and nothing can change that. Thus, black people cannot be discriminated against because of their race, which is part of their natural identity. On the other hand, people can be discriminated against for their preferences, opinions and beliefs (except for religious beliefs, which are protected by the Constitution). Beliefs, therefore, are not as sacrosanct as identity. The question of sexual orientation hinges on this issue. Basically, the Court acknowledged today that individuals do not choose their sexual orientation. If it were a choice, it could be construed as a voluntary preference and therefore not part of their natural identity. In other words, one's libido (and therfore one's sexual orientation) is an innate part of one's identity, and should not be used as a basis for discrimination. Consequently, to limit marriage to heterosexual couples would be to discriminate against gay people for something they can't control or change. Conservatives, in wishing to discriminate against gay people, have held fast to the notion that gay people choose their sexual orientation; but as a gay person, I know that isn't true. There was never a point in my life when I chose to be gay. It was simply what I found myself to be as I grew up. (This is true for heterosexuals too, of course.)
Religious beliefs are not part of one's identity because people can, and do, change their religions. Nor is a tendency to be conservative or liberal part of one's identity, since people's views change with age.
There have been cases in which a person started out straight and then became gay over time. That doesn't represent a voluntary change, however. In such cases, what usually happens is that the person represses his or her homosexuality early in life in order to conform to society's expectations, and then that repression wears thin as the years pass. In some cases, the person may be innately bisexual but isn't aware of his or her gay feelings until something happens to awaken them (again, because society tends to discourage such feelings). The point remains, however: Sexual orientation is inherently a part of libido and is not therefore something that can be changed through an act of will.
The court also acknowledged today (and in recent rulings) that gay marriage does no harm to society, so there is no compelling reason to make it illegal. All of the objections that conservatives have come up with -- such as the notion that gay marriage will somehow harm the "institution" of marriage -- are spurious. The idea that Christian merchants will be harmed by serving gay customers is also nonsensical.
Some people are worried that today's ruling will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy. That might happen, but I don't believe that it must. There is nothing in one's libido which causes a person to seek out a polygamous marriage. Rather, beliefs or social customs are at the root of such marriages. In most instances, a small community will have a charismatic central figure (usually a male), and many women in the group are willing to be part of a polygamous marriage in order to have a relationship with that figure. In probably all instances, the wives of such a man would prefer to be his only wife. As for the male, his motivation in wanting a harem is obvious.
Because homosexuality is a natural state, homosexuals have a fundamental right to marry. Thank you, Supreme Court. (Or, I should say, thank you, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.)
A few days after the Supreme Court decision extending marriage to all gay people in the country (called "Obergefell vs. Hodges"), a right-wing Christian activist named Rod Dreher published this paranoid and ridiculous article in Time Magazine:
http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/
The title is "Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country", which is utterly absurd. Dreher claims that Christians are now essentially social outcasts and will be persecuted, that marriage will lose its "power", and that "the traditional American social, political, and legal order" is in a state of decline and "fall" (among other things).
Here is the response I sent him via email:
"I'm a 65-year-old gay man, and I have to ask you: Do you really believe the things you wrote in your article? Do you really think any of that stuff is true?
"Nothing negative is going to happen to Christians as a result of the Obergefell decision. Nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
"This is America. You will still be free. You will still have jobs. You will still live in your homes. You will still have churches in which to worship. You will still be able to publish your noxious opinions. What are you upset about? Nothing has changed.
"Well, one thing has changed: You no longer set the agenda for society as a whole. But that was something that never affected you personally anyway. That was a power that you never should have had. Now, you'll be like the Jews: You'll be perfectly free to worship as you please, but you won't have quite as much political power as you once did. The Jews, in case you haven't noticed, have done very well in this country.
"I've never understood why conservative Christians insist that everyone must live the way they do. Now, your insistence that the world conform to your lifestyle is falling on deaf ears -- and that's the way it should be. But again, that won't affect any of you personally. So what are you upset about?
"I'm not a Buddhist, but Buddhism is close to what I believe. Any Buddhist can tell you how foolish you are. You have been bitten by a flea, yet you have fallen over, crying and screaming in anguish, as if you were struck by a cannon ball. You have no serenity or objectivity -- and, I might add, you have no love (given how much you want to deprive me and my kind of the freedom to love).
"Christianity has a good face (humility, charity, etc.) and a bad face (hell, damnation, etc.). Christians like you represent the worst face of your religion -- that's the face that wants to deprive the rest of the world of its dignity, integrity and self-determination. Truly, I feel sorry for you."
There is a basic understanding in the law that people cannot be discriminated against for who or what they are. In other words, a black person is a black person, and nothing can change that. Thus, black people cannot be discriminated against because of their race, which is part of their natural identity. On the other hand, people can be discriminated against for their preferences, opinions and beliefs (except for religious beliefs, which are protected by the Constitution). Beliefs, therefore, are not as sacrosanct as identity. The question of sexual orientation hinges on this issue. Basically, the Court acknowledged today that individuals do not choose their sexual orientation. If it were a choice, it could be construed as a voluntary preference and therefore not part of their natural identity. In other words, one's libido (and therfore one's sexual orientation) is an innate part of one's identity, and should not be used as a basis for discrimination. Consequently, to limit marriage to heterosexual couples would be to discriminate against gay people for something they can't control or change. Conservatives, in wishing to discriminate against gay people, have held fast to the notion that gay people choose their sexual orientation; but as a gay person, I know that isn't true. There was never a point in my life when I chose to be gay. It was simply what I found myself to be as I grew up. (This is true for heterosexuals too, of course.)
Religious beliefs are not part of one's identity because people can, and do, change their religions. Nor is a tendency to be conservative or liberal part of one's identity, since people's views change with age.
There have been cases in which a person started out straight and then became gay over time. That doesn't represent a voluntary change, however. In such cases, what usually happens is that the person represses his or her homosexuality early in life in order to conform to society's expectations, and then that repression wears thin as the years pass. In some cases, the person may be innately bisexual but isn't aware of his or her gay feelings until something happens to awaken them (again, because society tends to discourage such feelings). The point remains, however: Sexual orientation is inherently a part of libido and is not therefore something that can be changed through an act of will.
The court also acknowledged today (and in recent rulings) that gay marriage does no harm to society, so there is no compelling reason to make it illegal. All of the objections that conservatives have come up with -- such as the notion that gay marriage will somehow harm the "institution" of marriage -- are spurious. The idea that Christian merchants will be harmed by serving gay customers is also nonsensical.
Some people are worried that today's ruling will lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy. That might happen, but I don't believe that it must. There is nothing in one's libido which causes a person to seek out a polygamous marriage. Rather, beliefs or social customs are at the root of such marriages. In most instances, a small community will have a charismatic central figure (usually a male), and many women in the group are willing to be part of a polygamous marriage in order to have a relationship with that figure. In probably all instances, the wives of such a man would prefer to be his only wife. As for the male, his motivation in wanting a harem is obvious.
Because homosexuality is a natural state, homosexuals have a fundamental right to marry. Thank you, Supreme Court. (Or, I should say, thank you, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.)
* * *
A few days after the Supreme Court decision extending marriage to all gay people in the country (called "Obergefell vs. Hodges"), a right-wing Christian activist named Rod Dreher published this paranoid and ridiculous article in Time Magazine:
http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/
The title is "Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country", which is utterly absurd. Dreher claims that Christians are now essentially social outcasts and will be persecuted, that marriage will lose its "power", and that "the traditional American social, political, and legal order" is in a state of decline and "fall" (among other things).
Here is the response I sent him via email:
"I'm a 65-year-old gay man, and I have to ask you: Do you really believe the things you wrote in your article? Do you really think any of that stuff is true?
"Nothing negative is going to happen to Christians as a result of the Obergefell decision. Nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.
"This is America. You will still be free. You will still have jobs. You will still live in your homes. You will still have churches in which to worship. You will still be able to publish your noxious opinions. What are you upset about? Nothing has changed.
"Well, one thing has changed: You no longer set the agenda for society as a whole. But that was something that never affected you personally anyway. That was a power that you never should have had. Now, you'll be like the Jews: You'll be perfectly free to worship as you please, but you won't have quite as much political power as you once did. The Jews, in case you haven't noticed, have done very well in this country.
"I've never understood why conservative Christians insist that everyone must live the way they do. Now, your insistence that the world conform to your lifestyle is falling on deaf ears -- and that's the way it should be. But again, that won't affect any of you personally. So what are you upset about?
"I'm not a Buddhist, but Buddhism is close to what I believe. Any Buddhist can tell you how foolish you are. You have been bitten by a flea, yet you have fallen over, crying and screaming in anguish, as if you were struck by a cannon ball. You have no serenity or objectivity -- and, I might add, you have no love (given how much you want to deprive me and my kind of the freedom to love).
"Christianity has a good face (humility, charity, etc.) and a bad face (hell, damnation, etc.). Christians like you represent the worst face of your religion -- that's the face that wants to deprive the rest of the world of its dignity, integrity and self-determination. Truly, I feel sorry for you."
0 comments:
Post a Comment