The Children of God

August 6th, 2003

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thus states the Declaration of Independence, which established our nation’s creed since 1776. Yet 23 million or so people in this country are denied a primary civil right, the right to marry. They are the gays and lesbians among us.

We need not linger on whether homosexuality is good or bad, or moral or immoral. It is a fact of human existence from ancient times to the present. If there is a fault in this, it lies with God, and since we attribute only perfection to God, His perfection includes homosexuals.

All research indicates that homosexuality is not a choice one makes—one is not persuaded to be a homosexual. Rather something in their genetic makeup determines their sexual preference just as something in straights’ genetic makeup determines theirs. Straights do not have to be taught to prefer to sex with people of the opposite sex. They cannot help themselves. Nor can homosexuals. The notion that the media is somehow responsible of what is perceived as an increase in homosexuality is therefor false.

In fact, there has been no increase in homosexuality. Rather what has happened is that homosexuals have been more willing to come out of the closet and are now striving to take their place in society. Accordingly, we see them in public more often and thus think that their numbers are increasing. It is rather like the general public perception that crime is increasing because it is so often reported and portrayed on television, when in fact statistics indicate that it is not.

Most of the moral animus toward homosexuals and the opposition to permitting them to marry comes from various interpretations of the bible. Sodom was punished, according to the King James Version, for homosexuality, and various sections of Leviticus are found to proscribe the practice. Also the bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet the bible contains hundreds of injunctions, given as the word of God, that are not accepted today by even the most devout Christians. Christians, for example, defy the bible when they eat shellfish, swine, or drink milk while eating meat. The rules of not traveling on the Sabbath are ignored. The requirement that the commandments be posted on one’s doorpost is not followed. And one could go on and on.

This is not to criticize the bible. The Old Testament after all is in part a record of an early nomadic person who seized on the notion of their being only one God and a method of distinguishing them from the pagans that surrounded them. Laws offered in the name of God for health or manners of prayer (lamb sacrifices, for example) or governing women’s dress may have been advisable or practical for a desert people, but in our times they have been largely abandoned in our pluralistic society. Only orthodox or conservative Jews adhere to the dietary laws imposed by God in the bible and even they have abandoned the practice of sacrificing animals to appease God.

In short, the animus toward homosexuals grounded in the bible is based on a very selective reading. And so, for that matter, is the notion that gays and lesbians should not be permitted to marry.

In our country, marriage is of two kinds. There are religious marriages sanctified by religious law and following the forms that law imposes. And there are civil marriages, following the form imposed by civil law. Indeed, in order to be recognized by civil law, even religious marriages must comply with the civil law requirements. That is, in most states a license must be obtained, there has to be some kind of waiting period, and often a blood test.

This is not some new innovation of our times. Under English Common Law, established many centuries ago, a couple could marry without benefit of clergy by simply agreeing to take each other as man and wife or living together under circumstances where such a promise was implied.

The effect of a marriage also depends upon whether it is religious or merely civil. A religious marriage carries with it the sanctity that the particular faith prescribes. One can hardly argue with the right of each faith to determine who may enter into a religious marriage, although one might hope that religious views might be widened to include gays and lesbians who wish to make a lifelong commitment to each other. This is on the notion that we are all children of God.

But civil marriage is a whole different ball game. Civil marriage is basically a contract under which the partners agree to share all sorts of assets and liabilities. It imposes on them, in many states, laws relating to community property, support, inheritance and so forth. It is also, of course, a commitment of two people who wish to be lifelong partners. Although in some religions, notably Catholicism, marriage may not be dissolved. Civil marriages are dissolvable by divorce and even Catholics may obtain a civil divorce, although it may not be recognized by the Church. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is no more than denying them the right to make the same kind of civil contract that all other people may make. It is not a matter of morals. It is a matter of individual rights.

A recent caller to CNN said it all. The caller was responding to a debate between someone who supported the right of homosexuals to marry and somebody who thought that reprehensible and that it should not legally be permitted. In effect the caller said that as a Christian my moral values cause me to abhor homosexuality, but as a citizen I understand that I have no right to impose those values on people who believe differently.

Bravo.