Some things I want to understand, but I don’t. So I read and
read and read some more, and I try to formulate an opinion based on reality,
faith, and justice. And when I come to my conclusion, I feel I’ve reached it
responsibly.
So when Amendment 1 came up, I wanted to understand why it
was out there. Primarily, and we all know this to be true, the amendment is
meant as a stopgap measure against those who want to legalize same sex marriage.
Even though state law currently prohibits this type of marriage, many felt it
necessary to put it in the state constitution. A constitutional amendment, the
way I see it, is a broad and sweeping statement that is meant to fix a hole in
the constitution.
The amendment, for those who’ve been sequestered in caves
for the past year, states:
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic
legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does
not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private
party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of
private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
What confused me from the beginning was why this needed to
be written into the state constitution. We all know that the law is meant to
prevent same sex couples from marrying, but the amendment doesn’t say that
specifically. It talks about ‘domestic legal unions.’ ‘Domestic legal unions’ is a very broad swath
of people, not just people who are gay. But immediately after that language, it
says that this amendment doesn’t prohibit people from entering into contracts
with another private party.
On first glance, if you take the amendment as a whole, you
might say, “This doesn’t take away anything. It allows people to enter into
contracts and the courts cannot take away the rights of those entering into
those contracts.” Other than the fact that contracts are a wonderful way to say
‘I love you,’ I had to wonder why was this being said at all?
As citizens, we can enter into any contract with any person
or business or group, and as long as the contract does not violate any laws, we’re
good to go. So now it’s in the constitution that we can still do that.
Huh?
Back to the first part of the amendment: Why does marriage
need to be defined by the state constitution? Why wasn’t the law enough? Laws
are very specific, and in this case, whether you agree with the law or not,
gays are not allowed to marry. We now have a constitutional amendment that broadly
states marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Was this to simply keep
the law from being challenged as unconstitutional and/or discriminatory? The
textbook (not legal) definition of discrimination is the
prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived
membership - in a certain group or category. So is the original law
discriminatory? I think the answer is yes.
And now we have discrimination at the constitutional level.
I know some of my friends will disagree, and that’s fine. I’m not going to call
you a hater, a jerk, or something mean-spirited. Name calling from either side
of the argument serves little purpose and doesn’t foster anything but ill-will
and extreme division.
We are saying that our community, as a whole, can willfully
discriminate against a segment of our tax paying citizenry. And our citizens
justify the discrimination on theology.
I don’t have a problem with theology. I’m a Christian. I
read the bible. I try to practice what I believe. I may find myself disagreeing
with another’s interpretation of scripture, but disagreeing doesn’t take away
the fact that I’m called to love my brothers and sisters unconditionally.
Theocracy, however, is another matter.
Much has been said that our country was founded on Christian
principles, and I believe a lot of that analysis is true. However, many of the
rights that were incorporated into the original laws were meant to protect the
individual, not just the Christian individual. And this is where I take a left
instead of a right.
Many Christians believe that marriage is a man/woman thing.
This is theology. When Christians force their beliefs on others in the shape of
laws and constitutional amendments, that is theocracy. Tell me truthfully, what
do you think of when you hear the word theocracy? If all you can come up with
is Islam, think again.
Let’s go back in history for a moment. When the pilgrims
left England, what were they fleeing? It was a monarchy/theocracy. In 1559, the
English passed a law that said all British citizens “attend services and follow
the traditions of the Church of England.” (from ‘Why Did the Pilgrims Leave
England?’ by Cheryl Bowman). The beliefs of the pilgrims were compromised by
the state, and they could not worship as they wanted. The monarchy was a theocracy,
utilizing their interpretation of theology as a basis for exercising power over
the kingdom
From what I’ve read, including arguments on both sides, I
can only come to the conclusion that our state and other states are folding
theology into democracy a creating, amazingly, a theocracy. Even though this
amendment guarantees that contracts will be honored (I’m still rolling my eyes
over this language), it states that our citizens are beholden only to the
Christian definition of marriage. And some of the arguments in favor of the
amendment that start something like “What’s to say you couldn’t marry your dog,
or a tree, or a…” are simply flip and insulting.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly yesterday. A lot of my
friends are heartbroken and angry. Some of my friends feel this is a win for
our state and for God.
Me? I’m heartbroken and angry. And I don’t find this to be a
win for anyone, not even a win for my Christian friends who voted for its
passage.
