2004-02-13 - 1:34 p.m.
Once again, I'm breaking my rules against discussing religion and politics. I just can't keep my yap shut right now.
On the subject of the proselyte American Airlines pilot: I can understand the desire to promote your faith. I know what it's like to be so full of the Spirit that it comes bubbling out your ears. I've had it happen a number of times. But preaching to a captive audience? A bunch of people in a flying tin can that are already nervous? Not the smartest thing in the world. To me it smacks of self-aggrandizement. Chapter 6 in the Gospel of Matthew has a lot to say about this. It's part of the Sermon on the Mount, and contains the Lord's Prayer. Basically, it says to keep your acts of faith (charity, prayer, et al) as unobtrusive as possible. God already knows what you need and what you are doing at all times, so there's no need to show everyone else how holy you are. You can read the whole thing here. Also look here, at Ecclesiastes 3. Especially Verse 10: 'A time to speak, and a time to keep silence.' I believe in living my faith, bit I don't walk around with a cross on my forehead. (Except for Ash Wednesday.)
On the subject of gay marriage: There's a lot of lines that need to be drawn here. First off, civil marriage needs to be separated from religious marriage. Quite often they're tangled together. Irregardless of the sanctification you choose, you have to register your marriage with the state in order to obtain spousal rights, eg the right to commingle assets, to be eligible for insurance coverage and surviving spouse benefits, to be considered next-of-kin in case of an emergency. This is what gay and lesbian couples are after. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would provide insurance coverage to many who would otherwise not have it, keep people off the welfare rolls, lower the incidence of extended probate cases, and discourage promiscuous behavior, just as it does in straight marriage.
Arguments against gay marriage tend to fall back on "the sanctity of marriage and the family unit". Since when is the state involved in defining the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is ultimately a religious concept, and is the proper province of religious leaders. As far as preventing group or interspecies marriage, we've already got laws against that. And as far as the state endorsing morally reprehensible behavior, well, the Supreme Court has already ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. The state cannot legislate the level of your freakiness, as long as said freakiness does not involve kids or non-consenting adults.
Another big argument is the Biblical one, specifically Leviticus 18:22. There are also condemnations of homosexuality in Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy. But what sort of homosexuality are they talking about? Exclusive homosexuality, with lifetime commitment and cohabitation? Not really. Let's focus first on Leviticus. At the time the laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers were codified, the Hebrews had just left Egypt, and needed to reestablish a consistent culture. Lev. 18:22 is part of a series of laws governing who and what you can have sex with. Other verses govern what you can wear, eat, drink, say and do in specific contexts. The underlying intent of these laws is to define Hebrew culture in contrast with the various other cultures in the area, especially Egyptian culture. (See egyptology.com for a discussion of homosexuality and divine incest in Ancient Egypt.) By conforming to these laws, you define yourself as a Hebrew. Most Christians do not consider these laws to be binding or necessary for religious or cultural definition, and so don't follow them. If you cite this verse to condemn homosexuality, yet wear polyester blends, get tattoos, or sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman, you've negated your argument.
As far as Paul goes, again, let's look at context. Christianity was starting to define itself as separate from Judaism at the time, and attracting a lot of middle-class Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other ethnic groups. Homosexual behavior was not considered deviant among most of these groups. It was casual, something you did outside of your marriage, primarily for pleasure. You were expected to marry and have children, but as long as you did that, anything else was permissible. An exclusively homosexual couple would have been considered very strange. Paul condemns homosexuality and lesbianism, as well as bestiality, extramarital affairs, and visiting prostitutes, often in the same verses. His goal is to preserve sexual fidelity in the church community. Since engaging in homosexual relations implies cheating on your spouse, he condemns it.
These are ultimately religious arguments. As such, they have no relation to secular law. The United States is not a Christian country, and its laws are not founded on Biblical principles. "Democracy" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, nor is a "Republic", an electoral college, a Congress, or any of the basic elements of the American political system. Liberty is mentioned primarily in the context of slavery or imprisonment. Biblical authority cannot be used to justify a secular law. Justification has to come from the Constitution, not from 'basic morality'.
So let folks who love each other get married, irregardless of the chromosomes. Anything we can do to promote committed, exclusive relationships is a good thing.
