Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Those "Gays" Are At It Again
Maybe I am just too far removed from my conservative upbringing, but headlines from groups like Focus on the Family never cease to amaze me with their audacity. This morning, their primary article reads, "Civil Unions Not Enough for New Jersey Gays." I am confounded... flabbergasted... upset. Why wouldn't civil unions not be enough? We aren't talking about people from another planet with an entirely different values system... they are human beings, and it make perfect sense that they'd want to get married. Why would it make any less sense for "gays" to want to get married than anyone else? For such a pro-marriage group, I'd think they should applaud anyone who wants to fight for marriage (even if, at the end of the day, Focus wants to deny them that right). It feels like saying "Blacks Want More Than Separate But Equal," as if they should have been satisfied with the bone that whites in power tossed them. I am glad that Focus offends me with stuff like this, at least in the sense that my sensibilities have gotten to that place. So again, Focus wages war on a minority group who is simply fighting for the same legal rights as everyone else. And expectedly, you'll find it cloaked in propaganda like "redefinition of marriage," "the destruction of marriage," and "gays do not understand what marriage is." Causes can exist without a god, but never without a devil. I am so tired of the vilification of gays as a political and fund raising tool and this casting of them as practically animal for simply wanting the same thing that groups like Focus want everyone to want - a monogamous, committed union. Such a move by New Jersey, if it ever happens, is no threat to Focus or their monogamous marriages (but try convincing them of that). As I've written before on this blog, I think they should concern themselves with other plagues on the family - divorce, poverty, poor sex education, health care, etc. I think Focus could care less that the family unit in America is crumbling, or at least, that's what I gather from their lack of attention to those issues that truly affect MOST American families. All I see from them is anti-gay rhetoric, hardlines on abortion, and stem cell stuff. That isn't my idea of a true pro-family agenda. Leave it to Focus to be silent on those issues while trying to turn people away from the very institution they are trying to promote. I am glad that civil unions are not enough for "gays" - it shouldn't be. They deserve the same rights under the law as straight couples. Then leave the churches to decide which unions "God" will honor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Preach it, brother. Though I wouldn't say that churches can "decide" which unions God will honor - they can decide which unions they wish to incorporate into their community of believers. I think that's what you were getting at, putting "God" in quotes, but I just wanted to tag that on there. I personally hope for the day that my own denomination of the Christian community openly supports and blesses all unions by allowing them to be married in our churches - and allowing gay individuals to be leaders in clergy positions.
I'm also unclear as to why marriage, a religious ceremony, is still controlled by the state. Why can't we just draw that line and say that anything having to do with the government (rights given, etc.) is a civil union, and anything having to do with religion is a marriage? I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I just had to throw that in there.
If you're interested in weddings, court vs. church weddings, offering weddings to people of socio-economic levels, you might check out this article from the San Antonio Express-News. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/stories/MYSA021507.3B.holy.valentine.1635794.html. Travis Park UMC is where I worked this past summer, and the wife of the couple I stayed with is quoted in the article. Go Shirley!
I think what bothers me the most is not always a specific position on an issue but the inconsistency and blindness of the people holding the position. I tend to be conservative on quite a few hot button issues, but the conservatives like Focus on the Family still irritate me because they don't make any sense. I agree with Bob, if they're so concerned with keeping marriage pure or religious or whatever, then address the heterosexual couples that don't see marriage as any sort of religious institution or don't honor their marriages. And how about the rest of family values? How can you say that a healthy homosexual couple with strong values and commitment to family does more damage to children than a heterosexual couple with a dysfunctional relationship and negligent attitude toward children and responsibility? It's ludicrous and thoroughly infuriating. That is the real reason why I never back these organizations...because they just don't make any sense, even though, sometimes, we share the same opinion.
And Jessica, I've thought similar things in regards to marriage v. civil union. Because so many aren't practicing religious people, it doesn't make sense that just because they're heterosexual they can have all of the rights and luxuries of a "religious" marriage and yet homosexual couples can't. I think there should maybe be more of a separation between marriage and civil union, church and state in regards to this issue. I think it is fairly complicated however and hard to define.
In regards to homosexuality in general...I still don't know how I feel about it all. Clearly I'm one of the more conservative on the issue I think. Just FYI.
Post a Comment