Why I'm not a "H8er"
It's been a few years since Proposition 8 passed in California with 52.5% of the voters voting yes and 47.5% voting no. The proposition added 14 words to the state constitution:"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
This proposition has caused more heartache and controversy than anything else I can remember in recent history. When this proposition started stirring up problems for me in my own family, I felt it necessary to write this article and clear up a lot of misconceptions. This letter article is written primarily to the homosexual community in California, secondarily to everyone else who voted "No" on Prop 8, and thirdly with those who voted "Yes" on Prop 8, most of whom, it seems I am in very much disagreement.
In this article I will defend 4 "propositions" of my own:
1. It is possible to disagree with someone without hating them.
2. It is not necessary to be personally effected by a situation in order to judge the situation as wrong.
3. I believe in "Equality for all".
4. Proposition 8 was poorly worded and lends itself to implications with which I disagree.
1. It is possible to disagree with someone without hating them.
Our culture has become extremely relativistic. Truth has become something that does not exist objectively and absolutely. It is very common in today's culture to hear the words, "Well that may be true for you, but it's not true for me." To any rational person this statement must sound absurd. Is it absolutely true that truth is relative? Be careful how you answer that, because both answers, yes and no, refute the idea of relativism.
People say that we must be tolerant of other people's beliefs and lifestyles. The problem is tolerance has apparently changed it definition. It appears that now in order for me to tolerate a particular action or view, I can't disagree with it, or say that its wrong. The proper definition of tolerance can be summed up in a quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography of Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
Nowadays, it seems that a, so-called "tolerant" person would say something like:
"I dare not disagree with what you say, lest I be branded a bigot! Therefore, although our beliefs contradict each other, we can both be right!"
This kind of thinking is incoherent. When you think about it, the very idea of tolerance presupposes the existence of absolute truth. Think about it. If someone had a view that was identical to yours, you wouldn't "tolerate" it, you would "agree" with it. You can only tolerate a view that you regard as false, or wrong. It is for this reason that I can say, in all honesty, that I tolerate the gay lifestyle.
But do I hate them? I hope the obvious answer to that question is no. I see no reason why I should hate them. Quite the contrary, I see good reason why I should love them. As a Christian, my entire worldview, everything I believe about life, the nature of man, theories of knowledge, ethics and any other philosophical question is based solely on the Bible. And it is in that Bible that I find the words of the Son of God who said "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you". I don’t mean to imply that gays are in any way my “enemy”, rather that I need to love them despite my disapproval of their lifestyle.
I do not consider it my job to defend so-called Christians who hold up signs that say, "God hates faggots". Hatred like that is contrary to the very nature of God. I make every attempt I can to distance myself from such people.
2. It is not necessary to be personally effected by a situation in order to judge the situation as wrong.
Often I hear people say, "why do you care if two men want to get married? It doesn't effect your life in any way!" Before I go on, I'd like to take a moment to point out something that I find rather annoying. In this debate, people often make statements that end with a question mark. "Who are you to say...?", "What's your problem?", "Why don't you think gays deserve the same rights as you?" I have no problem being asked these questions, but that's the problem, no one actually asks. These questions are put on bumper stickers, protests signs, and blog entries. To this day, no one has ever come to me with these questions and asked them to me with the intention of hearing the answer. Rather these questions are ask rhetorically, as if I don't have an answer. I do have an answer, and I still long for the day when a gay man or woman will approach me calmly and politely and ask me these questions.
But on the question: "Why do you care...? it doesn't affect you!" I simply respond by saying, why do you care about things that happen in other countries? Why do you care that a little girl was beaten and raped in Africa? Why do you care that an entire family was murdered in China? Neither of these things affect you in any way. The reason why you care is because its wrong. It doesn't matter that it doesn't happen to you.
In the same way, I care about this topic of marriage because I think it is wrong to change the definition of a word that we didn't invent. The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman. According to Wikipedia (French), “Traditionally, it is to formalize the union of one man and one woman " To borrow a word from my Catholic friends, marriage is a sacrament. That is to say that more is happening in a wedding than the arbitrary "walking down the isle" and signing a marriage certificate. The concept is bigger than us and we do not have the right to change it.
3. I believe in "Equality for all".
I'm sure someone out there is still thinking something like, "After all this fancy rhetoric, Brian still wants to deny rights to others." This is not the case. There is no right associated with marriage that I wish to deny anyone. I recently changed jobs, and in so doing, I realized that both my previous employer (The Walt Disney Company) and my present employer (Ingram Micro) both consider "Same-sex Domestic Partnership" just as good as marriage for the purposes of benefits. A gay man can name his gay partner as his beneficiary on his life insurance, and have him covered for medical and dental as well.
However, there is a long list of more than 1000 federal rights that are currently being denied to gay couples. Click here for a few examples. I agree that gays deserve these rights just as much as I do, but I don't think changing the definition of marriage is right way to accomplish this. It seems to me that this problem can be fixed simply by having the federal government adopt the "Same-sex Domestic Partnership" concept that is already being used in California and a few other states. This new policy would grant gay couples the right to enter into a contract identical to marriage in every way, with the exception of its name.
Now there are probably a few people saying "It's name? Are you seriously this uptight over what we should be naming a particular contract?" Absolutely. I don't expect someone outside of my worldview (Christianity) to understand this, but this is purely a semantic issue. The simple fact is this entire debate is over the definition of a single word, NOT the denial of right to gays. As long as I have a voice, I will stand up for what I know is right: (1) That Marriage is a holy sacrament between a man, woman and God, and (2) that all Americans deserve equal rights. My proposition takes care of both.
4. Proposition 8 was poorly worded and lends itself to implications with which I disagree.
I hate the fact that I have to tell people I voted yes on prop 8. This means I wanted to "ban gay marriage". The words of that sentence alone sounds hateful. I never wanted to "ban gay marriage".
The very wording of prop 8 implies things I don't agree with. To say that "only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized” is essentially to say that there is such a thing as marriage between two men or women, which i don't grant. There is no need to say that something wont be recognized if the thing never existed in the first place. The wording of prop 8 is a tautology. It's like saying, "this particular square has 4 sides", or "I am standing and not sitting at the same time".
Furthermore, the campaigns for prop 8 were extremely embarrassing. Commercials for prop 8 spent so much time saying that if prop 8 fails then our children will be taught that they can be gay in schools. I think it is abhorrent to use children to push agendas like this. I have a daughter, and my wife and I are planning to home-school her because we believe that educating her is our responsibility, no one else's. But our decision to home-school our child has nothing to do with the fear of what she might be told in public school. If we do decide to send her to public schools, she will still be my daughter and her primary teaching will come from me. I'll train her to think critically and spot error in statements, and as a result she will be able to discern for herself what is true and false. Any parent who voted yes on prop 8 just so their kid wouldn't be taught something in public schools is a coward; afraid to be the one responsible for what their child learns.
Conclusion
I hope I cleared up a few issues with this article. I understand that there are a lot of people who disagree with me, but I would rather you regard my beliefs as objectively false/wrong than to think they are true/right for me but not for you. I hope you can learn to disagree with what I say, but fight to the death for my right to say it. I hope that you can see that just because I believe that marriage should be defined as man/woman, that this doesn't have to mean the denial of rights to others. I hope that you can see that I was disgusted with the way prop 8 was worded and advertised and I hate that I was forced to choose between a yes or no vote. Lastly, I hope we can agree to disagree and learn to love each other despite our differences.
As a lesbian Christian, I can understand your views on the sacrament of what you define as Biblical marriage and your reasons to defend the meaning. I wish that more people that voted yes on Prop 8 had your views, but most I have come in contact with do not. Sadly, domestic partnership only allows state rights and so without gay marriage, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States that are denied to gay tax-paying United State citizens. I know that you see this as wrong. So perhaps a revision would be to allow these rights, which would have to entail repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which deleted the opportunity for gay couples to obtain these rights on a federal level even as married couples in the states that allow it.
On a different note, I must go to the source of why homosexuals have been seen as sinful and an “unnatural” relationship. As a Bible believing Christian (and lesbian) I challenge other Christians to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and research the creation of these 6 verses that have currently branded homosexuals as sinful. The cultural practices and beliefs of Biblical times should also be considered greatly in order to view the Bible through the lenses of its original creators. I guarantee that what you find will make you think twice, if not change your perspective on the topic once your defenses of lifelong beliefs have been softened through time and prayer. To save some time, visit my website which encompasses years of theological research on the topic. Go to http://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/
Thank you for writing this fascinated entry! I respect your views and look forward to talking with you again.
Reply to this
Monique,
Thanks for commenting. I wish more people thought like me too!
Having read your blog, it is apparent that such Theological implications may have been misread in the scriptures. I appreciate your deep exegetical research in this topic. It seems to me that your findings suggest a legitimate alternative way of interpreting the scriptures. This doesn't seem to me to be too dissimilar to the Catholics' apologetic of Jesus being an only child in light of scriptures mentioning his brothers and sisters. Or women being permitted to be pastors in church in light of scriptures commanding them to be silent. Let me briefly touch on both of these.
As for the Catholic apologetic, it is usually stated that the term "brother" could mean "close friend" or in other cases "cousin". It is true that the word could be interpreted that way, but the frequency in which these words appear in the Gospels is an indication that Jesus actually did have siblings.
As for women preachers, the apologetic is that the greek word for "man" also means "husband". So it is possible that the scriptures are actually saying that women are only to submit to the authority of thier husbands, rather than every other man in church.
My point is, that the greek and hebrew languages do permit alternative interpretations such as these. The key in determining which one is right could be in viewing the interpretations in light of the rest of the Bible, as well as early church fathers' writings. In other words, ask we can ask ourselves, "do I really think this is the proper interpretation for this scripture given everything I know about what the Bible says about issues peripheral to this?"
Reply to this