| | I love California. Jen and I had the opportunity to go and vacation at Point Reyes and Santa Barbara and it was absolutely beautiful. Marin county itself and the small town was simply superb - local foods, fair trade coffees, independent book stores, and Paul Hawken had recently spoke there (missed him by a week!). But there's more to love than some of the communities, the people, and of course the view - there is the state supreme court.
Given the case regarding the government's responsibility towards marriage, the court decided that the state (regardless of referendum) could not deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.
BOUYA!
And why should the state be intervening here in the first place? As Claire Hoffman pointed out today in the Washington Post, any tax-paying citizen should have the same opportunity for rights and benefits granted to married couples, regardless of sexual orientation. To deny gay and lesbian marriage is to deny these rights and privileges to fellow citizens.
Now, I walk a fine line between politics and religion (at least I try to). My attempt is always to hold religious beliefs above and within the political world without crossing that line to impose any belief upon citizens and global citizens that do not belong to the same tradition or share the same beliefs. But I have found it very difficult to defend the religious persecution and justification to advocate for the prohibition of gay marriage.
If we take a closer look at the original Hebrew language, we find a few different options than the typical reading of "homosexuality." I have heard one of my professors suggest that the word, "homosexuality," does not exist within the language. I have also read that the language is referring to active and passive roles in sex. Therefore, it is possible to read Leviticus as a call to men to "be men" and not take the passive role during sex. By this reasoning, to defend this position is to defend the same patriarchal society that shaped this tradition in the first place. I'd like to think that we've progressed onwards in the freedom of Christ to a point where we can hope to recognize neither male nor female.
But more importantly, I have come to embrace a point made by Bishop John Shelby Spong. Observing Jesus throughout the gospels, he articulates that every time Jesus came to a point of decision between abiding by the law and reaching through that boundary in love (feed his disciples on the Sabbath, heal on the Sabbath, eat with tax-payers, reach out to the prostitutes, the poor, etc), he chose to reach through that boundary and act in love. So given the opportunity hear to continue to abide by the law within the other 48 states that do not recognize gay and lesbian marriage or reach out in love and recognize and affirm the love of God that resides within every person and recognize and affirm the sacred love that is shared between male and female, male and male, or female and female, I choose to reach out in love.
And how could we not? Are we heterosexuals more "special" and partake in a unique and distinct love that anyone else could not experience? Is love so different at all in this regard? Love is love. Let us always be eager to recognize, affirm, and expand it.
So let the states begin the initiative to recognize what all citizens should be granted rights.
Let's not allow religious preferences to deny someone the recognition of their love and their sacred relationships.
|
| | Posted 5/17/2008 12:23 PM - 78 Views - 2 eProps - 2 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
