The United States is not a theocracy. It is a republic governed by a constitution of guidelines that specify the rights, powers and responsibilities of the federal and state governments, their agents and the American people. And although the Constitution was to a large degree based on or inspired by the source of Biblical teachings and traditions--and on what the Founders perceived to be divine intent--it is not itself a Biblically based or otherwise religious document. That connection, however, often causes confusion among many Americans between the unalienable rights that all Americans have and the responsibilities which people of faith feel to behave themselves within the confines of the teachings of that faith, and to influence others to do the same.
The desire of homosexual Americans to marry finds itself in the center of a debate pitting the unalienable rights that all Americans have against the responsibilities that heterosexual Americans of religious faiths may feel not only to live according to the teachings of their faith but, if necessary, to impose those beliefs on Americans who either are not associated with any religious faith or who are American homosexuals of faith. The civil unions of heterosexual Americans are called marriages. Those of faith believe it was divinely decreed that they be called marriages. But homosexual Americans with religious faith feel that they too were endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right not only to have civil unions but, like heterosexuals, the right to have their civil unions called marriages.
But just as states have the rights to called the civil union of a man and a woman a marriage, maybe they have the responsibility to call the civil union of two people of the same gender something, if not marriage, what? But the states also have the rights to not recognize or sanction same-sex marriages, again making a lawful union depend, therefore, on whether individuals conform to the teachings of certain religious faiths. There seems to be no clear-cut answer here. But an acknowledgement that same-sex unions should properly be called marriages because these unions are among the unalienable rights of both heterosexuals and homosexuals seem to be reasonable.
The President expressed his support of same-sex marriage. He believes it is the right position. But right for what reason. Believing that members of the same gender should be able to marry does not mean that he would establish such as a national policy had he the authority to do so. He likely would not do it because he realizes that just because he believes in same-sex marriage, it does not invalidate the reasons why many people disagree with him.
Among the many discussions concerning President Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage has been a reminder of the Golden Rule, a teaching of many religions. Suppose that, therefore, that here in the United States of America heterosexual Americans of faith were a minority group who believed in the Biblical charge that a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife (in other words, needed to marry) but were denied the unalienable right to do so because of a homosexual majority who opposed the marriages. Why? Because they did not believe in couples of different genders marrying. Homosexual had two options for bearing children either sperm banks or lawful heterosexual mating outside of their marriages for the purpose of propagation only.) Wouldn't it be an infringement on the unalienable rights of heterosexuals to pursuit of happiness, and have marriage be their vehicle for propagating new generations.?
And don't even the poor and powerful find themselves standing on the same Golden Rule and asking the rich and powerful: Suppose you were sitting where are, wouldn't you want some help getting on your feet? Would you want those who who were financially and intellectually able to also be lovingly able to do everything they can to help make me independent?
Religion has traditionally been about how individuals should live their own lives. That may even involve sharing a faith and beliefs with others. But while it is not uncommon for members of certain religions to believe that theirs is the only real relationship with the Creator and to try to persuade others of that position, that belief and zeal should not seek to impose their beliefs on others against their will, and especially when they weaken the foundations social, economic and legal justice as portrayed in the Constitution.
On the other hand, though, those of faith believe that what they believe is not only good for themselves but also for everybody else. And not only would it be wrong for them to act contrary to the teachings of their faith, it is their responsibility to prevent others from doing so if they can. For example, if a person of faith sees a man on the edge of a cliff and believes that he is going to take a death jump, despite that potential jumper's feeling he has the right to end his life, the person of faith not only would feel a responsibility to try to prevent the jump if he can, but that it would be a sin not to. That argument of concern, however, is contrary to the feelings of many of faith that they don't care what homosexuals do with each other so long as they are not allowed to marry.
The rights of individuals to pursue happiness and other's responsibilities to protect these individuals from themselves are is a conflict, and the nature of the conflict means that resolution eventually will reflect the will of the majority. In the United States that means different states may have different laws regarding same-sex marriages, which could put the nation on slippery slopes of rights denials, where states--and eventually the nation--are no longer guided by the teachings of their faith. Members of the gay and lesbian communities are primarily concerned only about what they perceive to be their rights, while members of the religious communities are mainly concern about what they believe to be their responsibility. Thus far in American history, freedom and faith have coexisted. But this new stress further challenges the bonds that have bound the two together, perhaps stretching them beyond their ability to bind.
No comments:
Post a Comment