When you get a good mental image of that scene, picture some non-veteran walking around loudly and aggressively demanding attention for his sore toe. Despite the very real problems around him and the real people trying to fix those problems, this jerk won't shut up. He says that he's the one really suffering here, and he demands special attention and consideration immediately. If he doesn't get his way, he suggests that he might become dangerous.
Even worse, while he's interfering with the veterans, doctors, and nurses, he insists that he deserves credit for respecting them. He claims that his disrespectful behavior makes him moral.
Today we have someone just like that running around America. He's the self-described 'persecuted' Christian, and there are lots of him, especially in the anti-gay marriage lobby. The latest complaint by this group came in the form of an open letter to the Supreme Court Justices of the United States. Here's an open response.
Ground Rules
It's tempting to dismiss these people as traitors whose treason is motivated by religious fanaticism. It might even be a correct description. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and work from a premise that every American should understand. There is a difference between what is legal and what is morally correct, correct? If a law is wrong, then a good American has the right and maybe even the duty to fight that law, just as good Americans fought to end legalized slavery and all its by-products.
But let's also be clear about the source of their disapproval. Everyone who signed this letter and everyone who supports it is speaking for themselves. They don't speak for any god or any other form of higher power. They have no divine authority on their side. If they did, if they were really serving the will of some cosmic supreme commander, it would be obvious to everyone in the world.
Those are the rules of this response. These people have a right to have their case heard, but they can't fluff it up by claiming divine backing. With that being said, do the people who signed this open letter have a case? Are they fighting an unjust law?
I don't think so.
Definition of Marriage
The foundation of this group's case is that there is one and only one acceptable definition of marriage, and that is marriage between one woman and one man. They base this argument on their interpretation of the Bible and what they call Natural Law.
I have a problem with their reliance on the Bible for a couple of reasons. First, it's certain that none of these people actually live their lives according to the entire Bible. They pick and choose which Biblical instructions they'll follow based on custom, civil law, and conscience. For example, killing your neighbor for not obeying the Bible might be perfectly Biblical, but in America we'd call it murder, or at least rude. You can't really expect the rest of us to believe that you have an overwhelming dedication to the Bible when you cherry pick the parts you're overwhelmingly dedicated to.
As for Natural Law, there is simply no evidence that humans are naturally monogamous. If we were, we wouldn't have an institution like marriage in the first place. We would naturally mate for life, and nobody would question it any more than we question our need to sleep.
There is certainly a tradition in Western culture of marriage being between a man and a woman, but tradition doesn't rise to the level of Biblical commandment or Natural Law. Marriage is what we as a society choose to define it as, just as we define what constitutes an unjust killing or an example of false advertising.
Redefining Marriage
This group anti-gay marriage lobby often says that marriage will be redefined if we as a society allow gay people to marry. Here's a picky but vital point. Allowing gay marriage doesn't redefine marriage. It expands the definition.
When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he didn't redefine the American concept of freedom. He expanded it to include people who were, by custom and law, denied the benefits of freedom. Likewise, allowing gay people to marry doesn't redefine marriage. It expands it to include people who were, by custom and law, denied the benefits of marriage.
Religious Persecution and Discrimination
First, the anti-gay marriage lobby needs to drop its claim that Christians will be persecuted if we as a society allow gay people to get married. That's as ridiculous as claiming that white people were persecuted when black people were allowed to vote. We have a name for that kind of appeal to pity. We call it playing the victim card, and it only works if you're a genuine victim.
The claim that Christians will somehow be discriminated against if we as a society allow gay people to get married is an attempt to reverse the argument by resorting to rhetorical trickery. It's a form of bearing false witness, which is another reason I can't accept the anti-gay marriage lobby's claims of Biblical dedication too seriously. If you'll violate one of your religion's explicit commandments for secular political purposes, then your claimed dedication to that religion is a sham.
There's a good reason we fight genuine discrimination in America. It's because allowing discrimination against certain groups of people has always led to suffering and hardship with no corresponding benefit to the nation. It cuts people out of society without making society any better. It encourages violence against the people who are discriminated against. It degrades the concept of justice.
Sure, it's a tricky call sometimes. The idea of freedom and the Constitutional right to associate freely implies that we should be able to discriminate against anyone we choose for whatever reason we choose. But that right has to be balanced against the primary goal of a nation like America, which is to create a society where people can live a good life, a better life than we'd have if we remained living in small bands of hunter-gatherers. That overriding goal requires establishing and maintaining some rules regarding how we treat each other.
Consider traffic lights. In a free nation, I should have no obligation to stop my car just because I see a colored light that someone else installed without my knowledge or consent. On the other hand, without traffic lights, we'd bang our cars into each other a lot more than we currently do. A few rules, a few sacrifices of a small amount of personal freedom, create benefits that far outweigh the liberty lost.
This is a fundamental principle of civilization.
Laws against discrimination are traffic lights for behavior. They force us to surrender a small amount of liberty in order to have a better place to live for everyone. They encourage national unity. They promote justice.
In theory, I support someone's right to discriminate against anyone they choose. In practice, we've become a better nation by limiting how and when you can discriminate. When it comes to gay marriage, it's discrimination against gay people that's the real issue. The supposed discrimination against Christians doesn't exist.
Love for America
America has never been a nation that promised that everyone would be happy about everything. Nobody has ever figured out a way to do that. I'm not happy about speed bumps. Other people aren't happy about my right to own guns. Nobody is happy about the Westboro Baptist Church and the way they express their freedom of speech.
But even though none of us are happy about everything in this nation, we should be happy about it overall. Despite its many problems and annoyances, we've built a nation that's a pretty good place to live. Part of what's made it a good place to live is that we've dropped laws and customs that caused harm without adding any benefit, and we've passed laws that encourage more civilized behavior.
So it is with allowing gay people to get married. The laws and customs against it have caused harm for gay people, but they haven't added any corresponding benefit to society.
The signatories and supporters of that open letter to the Supreme Court are basically threatening rebellion if they can't force their religious opinions on other people, even though we live under a Constitution that forbids such forcing. Their reasons for rebelling consist of nothing more than phony claims of personal suffering, much like that guy with the sore toe running around a VA hospital.
To those people, I suggest that you put aside your political rhetoric for a while and ask yourself if you're really prepared to destroy a nation you claim to love just because that nation is engaging in its foundational practice of making it a better place for everyone.
I also ask you to take honest responsibility for your actions. Don't claim that someone is forcing you to make a choice that you're making of your own free will.
No comments:
Post a Comment