Protection

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected."

The above statement was made by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, on June 7, 2006. The occasion of these remarks was the failed attempt in the U.S. Senate to cut off debate on a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

I understand where the Senator is coming from, and let me try to acknowledge his views. In his heart of hearts, he believes that homosexuality is wrong. He bases this belief on his reading of the Scriptures. He sees a few verses in the Bible (very few, by the way) that seem to address the issue of homosexuality. Taking these verses as authoritative, the Senator concludes that homosexuality is against the Law of Moses (as per Leviticus) and the law of nature (as per Romans). He then (and here's his leap of logic) infers that gays and lesbians in committed relationships should not, in the United States of America, enjoy the same legal rights as committed heterosexual couples.

So here's my question: Why should a non-central tenet of the Law of Moses, a body of Law that the Apostle Paul seems to say that Christians are no longer subject to (by the way), a tradition that governs the covenental relationship between God and Israel, govern a modern, secular country such as the United States of America?

Sometimes it opens one's eyes to see one's views set in a different context. To ask a parallel question: Where does Sen. Brownback stand on the question of Islamic law requiring women to wear burkas? Should modern women living in an Islamic country be required by force of law to cover themselves in public? What does he think about the imposition of strict Islamic law on modern women who want to live a modern lifestyle? Is he aware, for instance, that women are not allowed to drive cars in Saudia Arabia, that the law protects the right of husbands to rape their wives or to prevent wives from travelling without their permission?

So this is my point: Religious people should be free to accept for themselves the dictates of their own tradition. But they should not assume they have authority to impose the dictates of their religious tradition upon other people. That's what modernity means. That's what the enlightenment bequeathed upon us. That's what the First Amendment to the Constitution is all about.

The last time I looked, the right of men and women to marry was well established under law. Nobody is proposing taking away that right. It's not hard to get a marriage license if you're a heterosexual couple. In some places (Las Vegas comes to mind), you can even get married on the spot; the law requires no time to reflect on the decision a couple is about to make.

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected."

Heterosexual couples do not need their rights protected. If they want to get married, they are free to do so. If they want to spend their lives together, nobody is getting in their way.

It's the rights of gay and lesbian couples that is at stake here. Are they not Americans? Is this not, as Vice President Cheney once said relative to this subject, a free country? If two people love one another and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship, what business is that of Sam Brownback, or James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or you, or me?

If a religious community does not want to recognize the rights of gays and lesbians to live in a commited relationship, fine! But if government imposes that religious belief upon its citizens, it no different than insisting that women shroud themselves in public.