Because some of my friends have been openly gay for years, and because many citizens of the Unites States also personally know gay persons, it’s become commonly understood here that there has been a contentious and deep desire within them, to feel more like those who are very much unlike them, in terms of sexual behaviors. That is a fact, and is simple to see in what has become known in the past decade (at least) as a social movement for rights, that involve hospital visitation and rights to inheritance (among other rights) long enjoyed as a standard legal right among heterosexual sex practicing consenting adults, who are legally betrothed to one another. While it would have been straightforward to grant such results, equally to all in a coupled union, under protection of the law, there was a lack of interest among them, in creating one’s own version of cohabitation, that would have been more true to their definition – in meaning. The government would have dutifully been required to hear this appeal of theirs. Instead, in at least the last decade in the United States, the LGBT community seemed to have had fears that in their minds, necessitated a legal preemption, by a very clever strategy. Thus was born the term “homophobia”. As if, to suggest that straight people were somehow fearful of gays. It turned out to be a very effective strategy, as it made otherwise naturally peaceable straight people, feel that if they did not embrace gay lifestyles (or better said) condone them, they were somehow being less than Christian. The strategy worked, in breaking down a social barrier, that in all other segments of society’s comparable barriers, were considered rational boundaries between people who maintain and accept differences among people, but who can still live peaceably without inciting hatred, unfiar treatment and even violence. In the interest of suggesting that straight people were “homophobes”, even movie culture at times, capitalized on the insensitivity of a minority of ideological opponents- in movies such as “Philadelphia”, which portrayed callousness toward an AIDS patient as the all-too widespread opinion and belief of Americans, who were perceived as being in much need of social reform. Through such propaganda, the message was born, that if one reject gay living by principle, one is also rejecting the gay person as a whole… which is a false premise. Now flash forward to 2015, when the US government has, in their ineptitude to secure rights to all persons by this time, divided a people… their message has now gone further… forcing a religious ceremony step by step to compensate for the governments’ failures at enforcing separate but equal rights. Mind you, there has been a longstanding and successful separate but equal church and state in the country.
The US in its history is not ruled only by the pope, nor only by the president, or any branch alone. Hence, a successful separation of church and state, throughout all of America’s history, has been the rule of the land and dispensing of equality at its best. The point is, that separate but equal does indeed work. Segregation is not a solution. Marginalization is not a solution. But, separate classification is. There are multiple sexual practices… whether we as a whole people like or not. And yet, the line is crossed, and unjustly so, when the integrity of a religious group is demanded to conform to the ideology and/or propaganda of a group of people who don’t understand the fundamentals of that religion, don’t wish to understand it, and/or simply want only a seal of approval from a religious organization: due to their own fears that if they don’t receive such church condoned approval, they must use the government to impose punishment on the church. Yet, they still want their so called marriage within the church. Specifically, I refer to the utilization of government power by way of law, to impose and bastardize the meaning and intent of a spiritual and sanctifying religious ceremony. Let me put it more simply for those who are ignorant of Christian faiths, by analogy: The DMV will not give a driver’s license to someone under age. Those who are under age, cite discrimination as sufficient ground for compelling the government to force the DMV to nevertheless give a driver’s license to an underage driver. The DMV however, has a responsibility to enforce safety and knows that there are good reasons why not to give a 10 year old a driver’s license. The point that is lost in such process, is that inability to be trusted with driving, means nothing anymore to the privilege. I realize that the point is simpler, but the DMV would under no reasonable circumstance be asked to compromise such logic. The same is true of religious marriage. Highly insulting and unjust, it is being demanded of Christian churches in America today, that we extend religious ceremony reserved for a man and a woman in justified principles, to LGBT, which betrays the very reason and purpose for the marriage to begin with. It is as if to conclude, that we partake in a religious ceremony that means nothing anymore, only to participate in it so as to degrade the meaning of it in the first place. How self defeating! This is the irony and absurdity that gays who wish to marry within the church misunderstand. It will never be considered legitimate, except by current government law. Only, instead, it is reduced to a futile ceremony that coerces the church to pretend. While it is true that we as a church desire nonjudgmental love, we see no justification for extending sacraments into the shape of a lie. This is what gays seeking religious marriage either misunderstand, are totally ignorant about, or are just so fearful to understand objectively. Yes, we are raised to love one another; and we do… those of us in the church, must follow a doctrine that has roots in deep meaning and religious significance. If one want to participate in it, one must be willing to truly and genuinely come to understand the sacraments and their meaning. And, in a free society of the United States, if you reject it, you have every right to petition for rights and form a civil union outside of the church structure. I realize that was rejected. So, I challenge every gay person in our country to ask him or herself one thing today: Am I really getting the real marriage, when I’m forcing a religious group to condone something they never fully can theologically, by its fundamental integrity?