Politics

There are a few constants in my morning routine… the bus ride to work, my 24 oz. black coffee, chocolate chip muffin, and the daily edition of “Metro” (a newspaper which fits comfortably in my price range).  Although the paper is generally 20 some odd pages of ads and celebrity gossip, they usually manage to squeeze in a few good articles.

This morning, the dedicated a section of the front page to discuss the looming same-sex marriage battle coming to Pennsylvania.

Living in Philadelphia, I am confronted with a sort of political paradox.  Philly is one of the most progressive cities in the country, and is generally regarded to be what is called a “gay-friendly” city.  Most of the businesses gladly cater to gay clientele (apparently realizing that gay money is also green), and the overwhelming majority of us straight folks support gay rights.

However, large portions of central Pennsylvania are very much part of what can be considered the “Bible Belt”, a rural fundamentalist Christian stronghold.

Because of this contrast, the laws of our commonwealth do not always reflect the attitudes of our fair city.  This had caused a great deal of frustration for Philly’s sizable gay community.  While they have never actually passed, there have been attempts by our state legislature to define what many consider to be “traditional” marriage.

The latest attempt is a proposal by Senator John Eichelberger (R-Hollidaysburg) to amend our state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one women.  Metro printed the following quote:

“The government recognized many years ago this is the best model for society.  People live longer, they raise children better so they should use that model. …It’s a proven model that our forefathers recognized”

I think it should be pointed out that what he is describing are the benefits of marriage, although not necessarily straight marriage.  As far as the comments about our forefathers, I would be quite curious to find out exactly what George Washington or Thomas Jefferson said about the subject of marriage equality.  I don’t think the issue ever came up, as they were far too busy contemplating that fact that their slaves counted as three fifiths of a human being.  But I digress.

In contrast to this proposal, another has been made by Senator Daylin Leach (D-King of Prussia) to recognize all marriages as valid and grant same sex married couples the same rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts.  I very much enjoyed his quote on the subject:

“It’s inevitable.  We’ll think of it as we think of interracial marriage. … I want to … at least have Pennsylvania in the middle of the pack instead of hanging out toward the back with Alabama and Mississippi.”

I certainly hope none of my freethinking friends from the south are offended by this remark (I doubt they are, as they are usually the first to mock the fundamentalism within their own states).  I think Sen. Leach has made a very important point with this statement.

Despite what our fundamentalist friends would have us believe, gay rights are moving forward and will continue to do so.  Ultimately, any society which professes to uphold the principles of equality must abolish any vestiges of the old “separate but equal” philosophies of the past.  Our generation will eventually be judged by those who follow many years down the road.  Will we be seen as people who stood for fairness and equality, or will we be seen as a paradoxical generation who regarded individuals as three fifths of a human being?

Personally, I see a great deal of hope.  Homophobia seems far less common among young Americans today.  In addition, the ranks of atheists, agnostics, humanists, and progressive believers are growing every day.  People are becoming far less inclined to allow antiquated dogmas to define their opinions on sexaul morality, adopting a “to each his own” or “live and let live” philosophy.

This is, of course, just a personal observation.  However, I do strongly feel that we are seeing old fashioned religious fundamentalism in its death throws.  We might not live to see the end of it, but I’m certain our children and grandchildren will.

And what will happen when they do?  Will they thank us for the work we’ve done to move human rights forward, or will they see us as a group of apathetic individuals who said nothing while our brothers and sisters drowned in a sea of ancient dogma and intolerance?

As I said, to each his own.  It is entirely up to you to determine how you will be remembered.  Personally, I hope to be remembered as someone who stood up for the rights of all and rejected the mythologies of the past… and I hope that you will be remembered right there beside me.

For those of us used to dealing with the religious fundamentalists, hypocrisy is nothing new.  In fact, it seems to be their bread and butter (or should I say, the body of their savior and margarine?)

However, I occasionally stumble upon something so utterly hypocritical that it seems to don a top hat, tails, and cane and perform an epic song and dance routine celebrating its hypocrisy.  When I encounter such a thing, I am always flabbergasted that the individuals making such statements seem to be completely unaware of it.

The subject of today’s flabbergastery is a One News Now article entitled “Christian school showing film about homosexual agenda”.

The article discusses a documentary (which is apparently the term the AFA uses as a euphemism for “propaganda film”) about the ever present, evil, and shadowy force known as “the homosexual agenda” (insert dramatically scary music here).  It quotes a woman by the name of Mary Balkema, a spokesperson for a group called Kalamazoo Citizens Voting No to Special Rights Discrimination, which was “successful in getting city commissioners to rescind an anti-discrimination ordinance for homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals”.  Let’s take a moment to review what she said on the subject…

“We’re talking about behaviors, and behaviors people are accountable for. We think that being a cross-dresser or transgendered is a behavior,” she contends. “We’re talking about the effects that a behavior has on society. So certainly we’re trying to act in a very fair fashion in bringing that forward.”

This viewpoint is, of course, nothing new.  The very basis of the religious right’s argument against the rights of the LGBT community has always been the “nature versus nurture” issue.  Essentially, their point is that homosexuality is a choice, and therefor should not be protected under the same laws that ensure equal rights for other minority groups.

Nature versus nurture is an incredibly complicated debate which is still being researched by many experts, so I will make no attempt to resolve it here.  However, I would like to point out that homosexuality occurs commonly throughout nature and is by no means confined to humanity alone.  Most people agree that this indicates at least some degree of natural inclination toward homosexuality.

Since the fundamentalists seem to be quite fond of using the nature versus nurture argument to explain why homosexuals should not have rights, I believe we should hold them up to the same standard.

Our constitution ensures that all American citizens have the right to practice their religions.  In fact, groups like the AFA often argue that anti discrimination laws which protects homosexuals violate their right to religious freedom.  There is some degree of merit to this argument, as any laws which involve the right to free speech can get quite tricky.  I do not intend to debate this issue in this post.

What I would like to do is pose one simple question… Are an individual’s religious beliefs a result of nature or nurture?

This question is far more simple to answer.  No child is inherently Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion.  The religious beliefs held by an individual are clearly the result of upbringing and personal choice.

To the best of my knowledge, no child has ever been born with a cross, rosary, or star of David in their hand.  If they were, I think it would be less an indication of inherent faith and more of an indication that the child’s mother had some sort of a bizarre fetish involving religious symbols (which brings up a whole new set of psychological issues that I have neither the time, expertise, nor desire to discuss at this time).

I know many people will claim that their personal religious views are intrinsic, but this simply isn’t true.  If a child was isolated from society at birth, it is seriously doubtful that he would independently arrive at the conclusion that a carpenter died for his sins 2,000 years ago.  Such a belief is clearly an example of a child’s upbringing and personal choices.

I believe it’s time for the religious right to literally practice what they preach.  If you believe that people should not be given legal protection for behaviors and beliefs that are a matter of environment and personal choice, then you should immediately start lobbying for an amendment to end the rights and protection provided to religion in our society.

Doing so will demonstrate that you are firm in your beliefs and reject hypocrisy.  Only after you have done this can we begin to have a fair dialogue about the “special rights” being given to homosexuals.

To put it quite plainly… It’s time for you walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.

Or will the rejection of hypocrisy cause the very foundation of your beliefs to crumble to dust?