Hello all. I’m going to (once again) try and make an effort to update this blog more than once every couple of months. The only way to do that is to branch out what I talk about.
We have election day this upcoming Tuesday here in the US. Here in Maine, the big issue is “Question 1” — a people’s veto of the gay marriage law that was signed into law by our governor earlier this year.
I can’t wait for this Tuesday to come and get the omnipresent advertising about it out of my face. I visit RPGnet regularly, and the last couple weeks the Google banner ads that pop up have been ads for “Stand for Marriage Maine” — the group that is pushing Question 1.
For crying out loud, I go to places like RPGnet to get away from nonsense like that. The ads have popped up in Google ad banners on other sites as well, but honestly… do you think the type of person that visits sites like RPGnet is favorably inclined towards the veiled bigotry implied by Question 1?
I don’t think anybody will challenge the premise that the referendum is religiously motivated. The problem I see is that you are dealing with a matter of civil law, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution states that no law can be made “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Laws prohibiting gay marriage, being religiously motivated, and seem to fall pretty clearly under that category.
Let us posit, for a moment, a hypothetical religious faith that condones, not condemns, homosexual unions as part of their creed. A law against gay marriage would violate the free exercise of their religion. Regardless of your personal faith-based opinions of homosexuality in general, the law of the land seems pretty clear to me.
I think that if two people want to pledge to each other, and they are both of legal age and sound mind, they should be able to do so and receive the benefits that such a commitment entails. The “slippery slope” argument that this will lead to polygamous marriages, marriages to animals, children, etc, is bullshit. There are already laws in place prohibiting such things. I don’t see how including homosexual couples in the existing legal definition of marriage does anything but encourage people who want to make that commitment to do so.
I can’t take credit for it, but there was a great line I came across the other day. “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one.”
Josh, I tend to agree with you about this argument being mostly faith based. I myself being a person of faith do not condone the homosexual lifestyle, however I have nothing against them personally.
I think a fear the church might have is that if homosexuals are "allowed" to get married they might walk into a church a demand to be married. Now as crazy as that may seem it may be a valid fear.
Will allowing gay marriage impose homosexuality on the church?