Gay Marriage and Churches
Okay, so, now there are news stories coming out about how certain religious figures (particularly in the South) are refusing to have anything to do with gay marriage.
My question is why is this news?
So, they oppose gay marriage. Who cares?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. That is paraphrasing a famous Biblical passage, but it applies here, I think. Homosexuality can and should not be used as a source of discrimination by the government, but that does not mean that religious-minded people should somehow be forced to accept it.
To my understanding, the point of the gay civil rights movement, as it is coming to be known, was to eliminate government-sanctioned prejudice. Marriage is an institution that was not open to all citizens, because up until recently, it was only recognized as between a man and a woman. In fact, that was still the case just days ago, before the historical ruling by the Supreme Court last week.
Understandably, members of the LBGT community are celebrating across the country, and rightfully so.
However, this victory, and the other victories for the cause, can only go so far. The truth of the matter is that not everyone is going to be convinced that it is the right thing.
Some churches have outright proclaimed that, while they acknowledge that gay marriage being legalized in all 50 states is now the law of the land, they themselves will never allow a gay couple to be married in their church.
So be it.
Again, the separation of church and state works both ways. The LGBT community got the government to recognize the legality of gay marriage, something that would have been unthinkable even twenty or so years ago. I remember when being gay was considered a very bad and immoral thing among a hell of a lot of people when I was growing up. That has changed over time, and they have now won more equal rights than would have seemed possible not long ago.
That said, such recognition by official government sources does not mean that churches have to be forced to accept these. Indeed, gay marriage goes against the religion of many. You can call them bigots if you wish, but it is their belief, and that is a personal matter. It would be wrong for them to try and impose a ban on gay marriage through the government, but it would also be wrong for the government now to try and impose this recognition or even legitimacy of LGBT rights upon the churches. That would be overstepping boundaries considerably.
If a gay couple wants to get married, they now have the legal right to do so in every state in the country (although there is some resistance presently in the usual suspects of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana). But that does not mean that they need to go to churches that have traditionally frowned upon gay marriage, and homosexuality in general. They have a right to their belief, and we cannot simply utilize the "separation of church and state" argument when it works for what we agree with or think is enlightened, then simply put it aside when it goes against our thinking.
Let some religious communities remain opposed to gay marriage, and to homosexuality in general. It is their right, so long as they are not harming anyone in the process. Maybe it might hurt some feelings, but at this point, there are a lot of aspects to religions that many people get offended by.
The Confederate Flag
Now, onto another topic at hand, which I also wrote about in a blog entry yesterday: the Confederate Flag controversy.
I saw a post today that surprised me. It was from a friend (more of a Facebook friend than anything these days), who used to live in New Jersey, but has since moved down South.
She shared a post about a museum at Gettysburg that suggested that the museum was not going to remove the Confederate flag simply because it was the politically correct thing to do these days, or because some people would be offended.
Here, again, I have to agree. The fact of the matter is that the flag of the Confederate States of America, as well as the famous battle flag, did exist. They are part of our American history.
Now, I personally believe (and it is just that - a belief) that the Confederate flag, particularly the famous battle flag) indeed does represent racism. A lot of people will argue (and I have heard such arguments) that slaves were really not as bad off as many believed, and that there were some free blacks in the South, and even, supposedly, some black slave owners.
This may or may not be. Truth be told, I am not well-versed enough in the history of that particular era or subject to know the truth, and either validate or refute these claims.
What I will say is that these remind me of what the white government of South Africa used to claim about blacks in that country having the highest quality of life of blacks in Africa, at the time. That is to say, that they were missing the point, as are people who claim these softer portraits of life in the South in the days leading up to the Civil War.
Again, the point that I personally think most relevant is how the ancestors of those slaves feel about it these days. People can claim anything, including that the masses (particularly us northerners) do not really, fully understand the history, which is yet another argument that was often repeated by whites during the days when apartheid was the law of the land in South Africa, that outsiders simply did not understand the history of the country, or that relations were not nearly as bad as everyone seemed to suggest.
When was the last time that you saw a black person waving the Confederate flag? When was the last time that you heard a black person speaking enthusiastically and in support of the Confederate or rebel cause during the Civil War?
The arguments often are about the tyranny of Northern industrialists, who wanted to squeeze out as much profits as possible from Southern resources. That may be the case, but again, Southern plantation owners certainly did not seem to be complaining too loudly about this when they were the ones getting rich.
However, they did complain loudly, and in fact took up arms and seceded, when the North tried to eradicate slavery, once and for all. That was how the Civil War began, and that was the issue that dominated. Slaves fighting for the Union cause were going to automatically pay a much higher price upon capture than Northern whites. Racism was everywhere during the days of the Civil War, and that is the simple reality. I incorporated quotes from official documents and prominent figures of the Confederate States in yesterday's blog entry that showed that racism and slavery were the key issues at play.
Then again, there were other issues, as well. And I have already admitted that, while history was my major, this particular chapter in American history most certainly is not.
That is why we have museums, among other things.
For a museum to censor a flag, like the official flags of the Confederate States of America, or the battle flag, is indeed wrong by my book. You might not like it, but it is a part of American history as a nation.
So, let museums keep the Confederate flag, by all means. But I do believe that, as a sign of respect, both for blacks as well as for the United States (since the Confederate battle flag represents an act of treason on many levels), it is inappropriate for that flag to be flown in front of government buildings and public places.
Supreme Court Makes Another Big Decision
Yes, on Monday, the Supreme Court made news yet again with another major decision. This time, it took aim on another divisive, hot-button issue of this day.
The issue? Gerrymandering.
Yes, in recent decades, there has been an effort by interested parties (particularly the Republican party) to try and draw up artificial maps that would be politically profitable for their specific interests.
Such a case came up in Arizona, where the issue that made it all the way to the Supreme Court was whether or not it should be left to an independent council.
Gerrymandering is the redistricting of certain areas of the map for the political profitability of certain interested parties, and to me, it has no place anywhere that considers itself a democracy. It is a disgusting habit and needs to be stopped. This decision by the Supreme Court is a step in the right direction but, like with Obamacare, it does not go nearly far enough. We need a direct democracy, where the majority elects officials outright, and not some points per district system like we currently have.
Gerrymandering takes a Supreme Court hit AFP By Robert MacPherson, June 29, 2015:
No comments:
Post a Comment