In Defence of Same Sex Marriage
Since President Obama voiced his opinion that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I have witnessed the reactions of the self-righteous, pseudo-religious community; reactions filled with so much judgement and hate, one must wonder how they so aptly ignore the teachings of the same texts from which they quote.
How is that the heterosexual community has been spurred on to so fervently protect an institution that we have disrespected at an increasing rate for the past three decades. Divorce rates have been on the rise and the institution of marriage is, without a doubt, failing. However, even as it fails without any rescue in sight, homophobs and holy-book-believers tighten their grasp in an effort to control what is left of it.
The truth is that it is not necessarily their own to claim. Western society has grown into an obsession with the “original” definition of marriage, which has become understood to constitute provisions for a union between individuals of the opposite sex. But, that isn’t original at all. It’s ironic that what American society sees as “traditional” or original is so heavily influenced by the impact of Christianity in Medieval Europe. In the 21st century, America remains constrained by the impact of those who conquered it hundreds of years ago.
And about Christianity, since when did it become ok to be so radically selective?
Most of those among you running around quoting Bible verses left and right choose not endorse the stoning a woman who has committed adultery, nor do you recognise the “right” to own slaves, both as prescribed in Leviticus, so why is it that in your disagreement with the sexuality of another person, you have suddenly decide that a holy book written hundreds of years ago by men with an agenda should be infallible and binding in 21st century western law?
To put it straightforward, homosexuals have the right to marry, not because it is condoned or prescribed in any holy book, but because of the fact that they, as human beings, are entitled to the rights of any heterosexual, bisexual, asexual or anysexual individual. How is it that every opposing government official and citizen conveniently attempts alter the discussion by the inclusion of religious considerations without anyone stopping them and saying, “Hold the fuck on. This is illogical”.
The separation of church and state is a very real necessity, and in a country that would like to see itself as the leader of the “free world”, there is no room for the imposition of any religion’s belief onto issues and matters of legal institution. It is apparent to me that the discord is not over their rights. The discord stems from the dissatisfaction with the practice of homosexuality, and when the status quo has rejected the validity of its existence for so long, what else is to be expected really?
What we fail to understand is that the duties of a government are not supposed to be bound by the individual beliefs of its members. A person does not have to like something to recognise their responsibility in their requisite position. As long as we do not acknowledge this, society will fail to hold its politicians accountable for failing to represent the body that has elected them into office. The failure of democracy is in the ignorance of the population it serves.
The time will come, in a progressive society, where people will have to stand up and say “FUCK THE CHURCH”. When that will be occur is anybody’s guess, but as long as hate is perpetuated throughout all sectors of society according to the prescriptions of beliefs created by fallible men, there will be nothing progressive except for the excuses created in place of action.
I thought about putting a disclaimer, but I decided against it.