I have this cheesy (read fantastic) idea, Kyle and I should do blog battles, some way some how blog the convos that we have back and forth. I may be partial, but I think our dinner discussions and chats that we somehow manage to have over the roar of six kids are pretty damn interesting. Kyle brings the brilliance and I bring the emotion. Last night's discussion that continued when he got a chance to call me at lunch morphed into him writing this blog post, without further ado...
(PS. I said every good blog post needs a pic, he firmly requested a baby squirrel.)
A guest blog from Kyle:
I do not often post my thoughts publicly; preferring,
instead, to share them in more personal conversations with those close to me.
The recent rulings by the Supreme Court and the ensuing uproar have spurred me
to depart from that behavior.
Up until maybe two years ago, I identified as Republican.
Then I realized that the Republican Party as an organization no longer believed
or practiced the ideals that I believe in: limited government, fiscal
responsibility, personal accountability, adherence to the Constitution, and
freedom of the people to name a few. Instead, Republican politicians proclaim
these values to get elected and then abandon them once they are in office
(massive expansion of govt, massive debt, out of control departments and
programs, bills that are voted on without anyone even READING). To be fair, I
think the same situation exists for the Democrats as well – espousing
principles of helping the poor and needy, equality for all, fairness, etc… -
then legislating nothing but more govt and power for themselves. I still tend
to vote Republican but identify as Conservative or Libertarian.
So it has been with mounting disgust and embarrassment that
I have read the comments on various news sites from ‘Republicans’ / ‘Conservatives’
regarding the gay marriage decisions. These comments run from ‘homosexuality is
a sin’ to ‘gays will burn in hell’ to ‘why do they have to do that in public’
to ‘they just want to shove this down our throats’. The amount of hatred and
vitriol is barely kept in check by many of these people and I have yet to see
any of them approach the issue with a rational defense of their position based
on the law, the Constitution, or anything other than their personal beliefs. I
am embarrassed that these comments are coming from the same people who would
identify as the same political philosophy I do.
Putting the vitriolic nature of these comments aside and
looking at them based on their (lack of) merits:
The arguments based on the Bible (ie: it is a sin / abomination):
- First of
all, religion should not dictate laws. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’ To my
knowledge, this is the only mention of religion within the Constitution or its
Amendments. Nowhere does it state that laws should be established based on the
beliefs of a particular religion. Frankly, that would be really bad because…
- Which
religion should we base our laws on? Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Mormon,
Lutheran, Presbyterian… What about Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist... This is exactly
what the section of the Constitution above is designed to prevent – any
religion, no matter how prevalent in the current society, from becoming the law
of the land.
- Which
Bible? The wiki on Bible editions shows 96 different versions classified as
‘complete translations’. 96!!! I knew there were a lot but seriously? How can
any person definitively state their version is the absolute undeniable word of
God when there are so many different variations? And to not only say that your
version is correct but to then use that to condemn a person based on it? I am
sorry but that is not what I think
Jesus would do. I was going to break down the few (3) actual scriptures I have
seen quoted but that seems irrelevant at this point. Judge not lest ye be
judged.
As for the arguments based on society/culture (for lack of a
better classification) (ie: ‘Why do they have to be in public like that?’ and
‘Eww, can you believe they actually expect us to be okay with them calling it
marriage’). While it was slightly before my time, these arguments sound
remarkably similar to those made by the ‘moral authority’ during a different
issue. Let’s change them just slightly and see what we think: ‘Why do they have
to be in the same public places as us?’ and ‘Eww, can you believe they actually
expect us to be okay with them eating in the same restaurants as us?’ Too much?
Maybe, but society wouldn’t condone those statements today so why do we condone
similar ones just because it is a different classification of people? Equal is
Equal.
Before seeing these comments and, frankly, before actually
writing my own thoughts down, I never would have called myself a ‘supporter of
gay rights’. But I can find absolutely no justification in the opposite
argument and the attempts by those in that camp to justify their position only
make their position weaker. For those of you that know me and my recent
departure from faith, you may be thinking my opinions are based on that change.
You would be wrong. Even when I was a self-proclaimed Christian (LDS), I had
trouble supporting the opposition to gay marriage. Basically, I asked myself
this question: ‘How does the marriage of two men or two women cheapen or in any
way negatively affect my own marriage?’ The only honest answer I had was ‘It
does not’. So how could I possibly stand for denying the same recognition of
love that I have enjoyed for many years with my wife from any of my fellow
human beings?
(p.s. I do have a major issue with the WAY in which the
court handled Prop8 but that could be an entire book on its own)
- Kyle.