From an article about the gay marriage protests outside the Massachusetts State House yesterday.
Then the name-calling began. A black teenager in the church group yelled an antigay slur at the man. The man returned fire with a racial slur. “How do you like it?” the man said, as the boy retreated to the back of the group, shocked.
Having discussed this a number of times, the Sainted Wife and I have decided to take a strong stance on the issue of gay marriage.
To put it bluntly–The thing we care most about at a wedding is whether there is an open bar at the reception afterwards. Marriage as a religious issue is between two people, the minister or priest, and their god. If a Christian church doesn’t want to bless two men with the sacrament of marriage, more power to them. If a Unitarian church does, then more power to them. We’ll happily attend both–just keep the liquor flowing.
Marriage as a state issue is a different thing. The vast majority of services offered by the state are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, skin color, physical handicap, or sexual preference. There is no reason for the state service of civil marriage to be any more discriminatory that the state service of obtaining a driver’s license is. If the state does not wish to join together two person of the same sex in matrimony, then the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.
Suppose for a moment, that North Carolina passed a law declaring that all females should don the Islamic Hijab when outside the home. Conservatives and liberals alike would recoil in horror at the unwonted religious invasion of civil authority. There is in essence no difference between such a law and the state of affairs regarding civil marriage in North Carolina at the moment, where marriage is defined as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. The wearing of the Hijab would be an Islamic intrusion into civil law. Restricting gay marriage is a Christian intrusion into civil law, and should be as thoroughly dismissed as our theoretical Islamic example would be if it existed.
When it comes down to it, there is no substantial conservative, atheistic argument against homosexual civil marriage, which means the opposition to it is largely based on religious attitudes.
If one is uncomfortable with the idea of one’s grandchildren being ruled by Allah in the future, then one shouldn’t be demanding everyone else bend the knee to Jesus today.
Because when you come right down to it, they’re the same thing.