Bigotry by any other name

Thursday, March 28, 2013
Social media has been awash the last few days with commentary regarding the gay marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court. Most people with whom I associate are firmly on the "pro" side, but there are a small number of people I count as friends who are firmly on the "con" side, almost exclusively for religious reasons.

I myself am firmly on the "pro" side, for reasons I've previously discussed. My position is unequivocal, and based not on religious belief but on my own ethics and informed by my life experiences. But religion does seem to be the crux of the matter in the case of gay marriage.


To be perfectly frank, I'm not particularly interested in the religious beliefs of others, as it's often the least interesting thing about them. I myself am an Atheist, but not an activist about it, and unless the issue comes up as a 1st Amendment matter, I don't give a crap what other people believe. I'm perfectly aware that religious belief informs the decisions of people of faith, just as my lack of belief informs my own - I just don't consider it my business as a general rule. And I'm very appreciative of the fact that my friends who are people of faith choose to manage that aspect of their lives without making it a bone of contention between us. I attempt to behave in the same way and extend them the same courtesy.

But now I'm on the horns of a dilemma.

If someone believes that my daughter is "choosing" a "sinful life" because of their religious beliefs, my tendency is to shrug my shoulders and say "whatever." Those same people invariably believe I'm going to burn due to my non-belief, but I can't see how their beliefs affect me and mine one way or another. I think they're fundamentally wrong, of course, but attempting to change their mind on this matter strikes me as an exercise in futility. I'm not banging my head against that particular wall, thankyouverymuch.

But if someone believes that my daughter should not be afforded the sames rights and privileges under our secular laws as a straight person and then acts to ensure she is discriminated against - based purely on their bronze age religious belief - then my reaction is anything but "whatever." To enact such a policy is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and it baffles me how people cannot see that this is so. After all, I have no desire to force same-sex marriage into their Holy places, why do they see fit to try and force their Holy Matrimony into my secular law? Add to this the fact that they're clearly trying to marginalize my daughter, and I tend to get mighty confrontational, mighty quick.

And yet.

In almost every way, I find my friends who disagree with me on this issue to be decent people, worthy of my respect and admiration. I truly believe they are sincere in believing they are making a moral choice in their stand against gay marriage, because they are sincere in the execution of their faith. But they're still advocating discrimination against my kid, and that matters to me. It matters a lot. 

So what's a conscientious equal rights advocate to do? It's clear to me that I'm not going to "respect their beliefs" as they request - their beliefs in this matter are not worthy of my respect, whether I'm looking at the issue from the perspective of a citizen, a secular humanist or a parent. But it's not clear to me that they deserve to be kicked to the curb of my life, either, although to be honest, it's a close call, and one I'm still struggling with.

People used their religious belief to justify bigotry against people of African descent for centuries. Some people still do. Did using a Holy Book to rationalize their prejudice make it any less egregious? I don't think it did. And how is this different, or in any way less wrong, even if it's being perpetrated by otherwise decent people?

9 comments:

- CGL - said...

Courage, Janiece!

When I tried (not very successfully) to talk to my grandmother about this, I asked her directly about Jesus' compassion for the marginalized (prostitutes, tax collectors, other random unsavories). She countered, not unexpectedly, with, "But it's wrong in God's eyes, Carolyn."

I told her that I loved her and that I appreciated her faith-based concern for humanity, but that I could not entertain the belief that any of us -- including the bible's many, many authors and revisionists -- was in a position to speak for God, whose love is, ostensibly, without limit. (I will admit to glossing over Old Testament cases where this premise can be soundly disproved.) I tried to talk to her about the inherent unfairness of not being eligible for survivor's benefits (something she and my handicapped uncle have been receiving for some 40+ years), and about the fear that one could not be present with a partner at end-of-life or be denied the ability to assist in making health care decisions ... She couldn't hear me.

Maybe the best we can offer is to stand firm in our pro-marriage convictions and try to keep opening the conversation--? I don't know the answers either. I will say that when I asked her to share her position first, she seemed more receptive to listening to me ... I tried really, really hard *not* to make my statement a debate rebuttal but I'm not sure how well I did with that.

Nan is a good sounding board for me because (1) I won't stop loving her no matter what, (2) she's 94 years old so I'm more likely to be the most respectful, rational, careful version of myself when I talk to her, (3) she's diametrically opposed to my politics and as fierce in her convictions as I am in mine. I guess the most important thing I try to hold on to is that -- while I have no intention of backing down on this particular disagreement -- I need to retain compassion for the person I'm disagreeing with insofar as that's possible.

*sigh* Good luck, friend. I think we're all -- on both sides -- going to be hurt and mystified by each other a lot more before this comes to a resolution.

Janiece said...

Thanks, Carolyn.

Normally I try and let political disagreements go without negatively affecting my relationships, because, really - who wants to live in an echo chamber?

But this particular issue is different.

I have so very much invested in it on a personal level, and there's just no way - NO WAY - I am going to stand by and let someone try to turn my child into a second class citizen. Mostly this is because a desire not to offend the sensibilities of a person of faith ranks about a million times lower than the health, well-being and equitable treatment of my kid. That's just the way it is in my world.

So even though I KNOW these people believe they are morally justified in wanting to discriminate against my kid, even though I KNOW they believe their positions are born out of love (usually because they think Jesus = Love, and Jesus told them to discriminate against Teh Gayz), even though I KNOW they wouldn't treat my daughter badly to her face, in my heart I still consider them bigots.

And hypocrites, too. Because you know if a non-Christian religious "law" was being proposed in our secular Constitutions or Codes, they would be the first ones to scream about religious discrimination, Shar'ia, or whatever. But when the religious "law" is Bible based, well then that's just fine and dandy. Because apparently religious freedom only applies if you're the RIGHT kind of religion.

Anne C. said...

I usually look at the intractable and pity the fact that their way of thinking is dying out and they are becoming the minority. And how sad it is for them that fewer of their neighbors "get it" (code word for "agree with me") and justice and law will roll forward in spite of their obstruction.

And I look at the young, who say "ya, who cares who you marry?" and who stand up for their LGBT friends and neighbors and say "no, it's not OK to be a bigot."
And I smile.

Janiece said...

I love you, Anne.

vince said...

What frustrates me most as a Christian is that millions of Christians support gay marriage, but you rarely hear their voices, because they get drowned out in the media.

Also as a Christian, the Bible passages generally used by the anti-gay marriage Christians (often called the "clobber passages" because they're used to "clobber the gays") do not, if I may paraphrase Inigo Montoya, mean what these people think they mean. But of course, realizing that would require actual study and research and not just parroting what a particular minister or sect promotes.

Finally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business. Everything should be a civil union, and those who want to have a marriage in a church that wants to marry them can have one. But all the legal benefits that accrue do so though the civil union.

Janiece said...

And Vince. I love Vince, too.

Carol Elaine said...

I love me some Vince and Anne, too. And you, Janiece.

I don't know anyone who is verbally vehement against marriage equality, at least not around me. That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if several of my family members were, considering their religious leanings. Since it's something we don't really talk about, all I can do, I feel, is share stuff on Facebook from groups like The Christian Left and people like John Fugelsang, who know the Bible backwards and forwards, as I once did when I was young, reading everything and loved a lot about the Bible. Maybe my family members will see it and maybe they won't. I'm hoping that they will.

nzforme said...

I've mentioned this before, and I think it bears repeating -- particularly to the religious folks -- because I think a lot of people are missing the point here.

Marriage is a civil union.

Seriously. It is. And that's all we're talking about here. We're not talking about religious marriage; we're talking about civil marriage.

People tend to get them confused because they happen nearly simultaneously in many cases. Which is to say that a lot of people get civil married right around the time they get religiously married. As far as civil marriage is concerned, you sign the contract, and have someone "solemnize" the union -- then file it with the clerk and bam! you're married.

People get thrown by the "solemnize" part, because religious leaders are authorized to solemnize civil marriages. And in the solemnization process, said religious leaders often conduct a ceremony which passes for a religious marriage in their faith.

But (and here's where I think general understanding goes off the rails) religious leaders: (1) don't have to solemnize any marriage they don't want to; and (2) are not the exclusive solemnizers of marriages (judges and other civil officers have this authority). Also (3), the only thing the state gives a damn about is that the civil marriage is solemnized -- any religious marriage you do (or don't do) doesn't mean shit as far as the law is concerned. But because religious leaders often solemnize civil marriages, people tend to get it all messed up in their heads that the union is, in fact, a religious one, which the state is then recognizing.

A simple review of facts shows this to be untrue. Indeed, plenty of religious leaders are already more than happy to religiously marry homosexual couples, in unions they believe are valid in God's eyes, even when they are in states that do not recognize gay marriages. (Or ... consider sects that are into polygamous marriages -- these, too, are religious marriages which are not recognized by civil law.)

My (somewhat wordy) point is this, Janiece. While I generally avoid having arguments with religious folks over, well, anything, this is one place where I think a little education on the facts and law can actually change people's minds. Make them aware that the only thing that legalizing gay marriage will do is allow people who do not share their beliefs to have a legally recognized civil marriage. It won't require their churches to conduct gay marriages or otherwise change what they preach.

(You could add that they could still preach all the bigotry that they want, and all that we're trying to do here is not force THEIR religion's particular brand of hate on non-believers -- but since the goal here is a little peace, love, and understanding, perhaps that is best left unsaid.)

I have found, though, that many people who object to gay marriage on religious grounds do so because they fear that it would force their churches to conduct gay marriages or otherwise interfere with their religious beliefs, and they're kind of surprised to learn that it wouldn't. Anyone who takes an even remotely "live and let live" attitude should have no problem with legalizing gay marriage, because, honestly, it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's faith.

Janiece said...

Welcome back, nzforme - I hope you've been well.

I agree with what you say completely, although I didn't make my point very well with my oblique reference to "Holy Matrimony" versus "Secular Law."

In my mind, "Holy Matrimony" is a sacrament. It can be defended as such, and in no way am I interested in forcing religious institutions to perform their sacraments against their traditions and beliefs. Like most things religious, I consider it a private matter, and so my opinion of their doctrine is beside the point.

As you note, I'm interested ONLY in the civil aspects of marriage. And by extension, the equal treatment of EVERYONE under the the civil law.