Marriage and Rights, According to an Intolerant Bigot

I’ve known for a few weeks now that I would eventually need to write this post. Since Amy has been the one keeping the blog alive, I should ensure first that you all know that this is Matt writing, not Amy.

A few months ago, when we moved back to California from Texas, we moved into a hornet’s nest of controversy. Proposition 8 is on the ballot and emotions are running high. I know that most of our readers are in Texas, but I’d be surprised if you had not heard of this proposition, an effort to amend the California constitution to affirm the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

It’s an emotionally charged issue on every side, and for Latter-day Saints, it is one of those rare issues that our prophets and leaders have instructed us specifically to support. That is a rare move. Having grown up in the church, I am accustomed to the standard message, delivered every election season, encouraging members to vote without specifying how they should vote.

We’re encouraged to exercise our privilege, no, our right as citizens in a democratic nation to be actively engaged in the political process. For most of us, that means that we are encouraged to vote when the time comes.

However, on rare occasion, when an issue is particularly important and has moral ramifications that affect a large section of the populous, our leaders have explicitly encouraged us to support a certain measure. In fact, I can recall only two times that I have received such direct encouragement, and the other time was when a similar measure was on the California ballot several years ago. I can only conclude that for the leadership to take such a rare stance on a political issue, the issue must be one of rare significance.

I trust my leadership. It’s a choice I made many years ago, and one that I’ve reaffirmed throughout my life. It’s part and parcel with my acceptance of the concept of modern-day prophecy, to accept that God speaks to our leaders, and that they relay that message to us, or – by extension – that God speaks to us. To accept the guidance of my leadership is therefore to accept the guidance of my God. To trust them is to trust God.

It’s encouraging, though, that our leaders have insisted throughout the years that we don’t simply follow them from some blind allegiance. They ask us to test them against the promptings of the Spirit. More than I trust my leaders, I trust the Spirit. Confirmation by the Spirit is the litmus test. This issue, this guidance, these instructions from our leaders today are no different; and I can testify that – at least in measuring the issue and the counsel of our leaders on the matter of Proposition 8 – that spiritual confirmation is there. I’m not surprised by that fact, though, since I have a similar testimony of the reality of our leaders’ ability to receive revelation, and of their role as prophets.

This issue is a challenging one, though. Not with respect to how I’ll vote or what I believe; I am sure on both those counts. It’s challenging, instead, because it’s difficult for me to speak about, and supporting the proposition is requiring more of me than I’ve traditionally given.

I work in the computer industry, an industry that is populated – in general – by smart, college-educated, and liberally-minded individuals. I am unique in that environment insofar as that at least on some of those accounts – smart, college-educated, liberally-minded – I differ from my colleagues; you can decide which ones don’t apply to me.

I’ll tell you, though, that one that particularly doesn’t apply to me is being liberally-minded. By clarification, I mean that for the most part, I support a conservative lifestyle, one that gels with my concept of the “good life,” and for me, the good life is built on certain eternal values that don’t change from year-to-year or generation-to-generation.

Over the years, I’ve had to determine for myself what those values are, and by extension, what my values are. I’ve been informed, of course, by my religion, but also by my parents, my friends, my enemies, my education, my reading, my watching, my thoughts, and my feelings. It’s unfortunate that because I espouse a religion, some people will choose to see my values as a product solely of that religion; I’m perceived as little more than a mindless drone, and my actions are see not as a choice on my part, but as the tug of some master of puppets on the strings that bind me and keep me from being free. It’s as if to say that I can only be free if I am not religious, or if I vary my values from the values of my religion; to share the same values as those of my religion, and to make choices in accordance with those values is seen as some sort of dogmatic adherence to blind faith.

I choose a conservative lifestyle. I also choose to believe in some measure of supreme good and evil. However, I largely keep my choices quiet, and rarely do I foist them upon others. Largely, this is a matter of self-interest. For all my love of the study of argument and debate, I actually detest being in arguments; I hate the feelings of anger and heightened emotions. I do believe that arguments devoid of passion can exist, and I strive for that end in any arguments in which I am involved, but when it comes to issues – such as those involved in Proposition 8 – emotions seem to be inextricably intertwined with the discussion.

This is – I think – because the issue comes down to a matter of beliefs, and for all of the attempts to develop a society based on empiricism, on what is observable and scientifically provable, many of our decisions are still based on beliefs that frequently are not based on anything other than our thoughts, feelings, and values. Certain issues, such as the one at hand, require decisions that are based solely on such values. I can see no way of appealing to any incontrovertible source for an answer on this issue.

Of course, as religious folk, we can appeal to God, because we accept his statements as unequivocal truth, supreme and exact. However, we live in a society that has different beliefs about God; I work in an environment where many people are either atheist or agnostic; at the risk of being accused of a broad generalization, I’ll go so far as to say that the entire computer industry is peopled primarily by atheistic and agnostic individuals. An appeal to God simply holds no water for them. What is more, an appeal to God – especially when made in front of atheists – will frequently get you labeled “insane” at worst, or at least “ignorant.”

Most of my friends and acquaintances fall into one of two groups: they are either church members, or coworkers. Church members largely share my opinions, and voicing them is simply preaching to the choir; coworkers are largely agnostic or atheistic, and voicing my opinion only serves to lower my stature in their eyes.

The bottom line therefore is that I don’t typically express my opinions on political issues. That is what has made this particular issue so challenging for me. I have been asked to take a stand on this issue, and step outside of my boundaries. That’s challenging for me.

What is additionally challenging is that I have – for so long – tried to base my arguments on reason, and empiricism, devoid of appeals to God; in short, I’ve tried to make arguments that would appeal to coworkers and others in the world who reject (or at least question) the idea of God. That makes this issue challenging to argue, though, because my ideas of the right and wrong of this issue have a strong basis in my ideas of what God intends for humanity. In fact, were it not for those beliefs, there’s a good chance that I’d have a different opinion on the issue.

Here in this blog, though, I feel some measure of safety in stretching beyond arguments that ignore God. So, I’ll write a little more freely on this subject and my opinions on it. Also, I’d like to address a few of the counterarguments that I’ve read or heard regarding this issue.

Many years ago, the naturalist, John Muir, visited the Sierra. He wrote a book about his visit entitled “My First Summer in the Sierra”; you can read it here. In that book, essentially a diary, on July 27 (in Chapter 6), he mused about the beauty of the ecosystem that he was observing, and made the following statement:

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.”

Looking at it all, taking it all in, he observed the interconnectedness in nature, that you cannot change one part without affecting and changing the whole.

Picture it for a moment, sitting in a natural setting, the Sierra if you’ve been there, a lake, a stream, a forest, or some other natural locale. I recently visited the Tetons, so this comes easily to mind. You know the place, a quiet place, removed from all the sounds and sights that beset us on a daily basis in our urban lives. You feel peaceful, contemplative, and closer to nature. Whether you believe in “intelligent design” or evolution, you see here a world in as close to its original and “right” state as we can get it, untouched and unsullied by man.

Can you not sense what Muir spoke of? Elton John referred to it as the Circle of Life. It’s this connection between everything. In nature, everything is connected, everything has a role, and if you change one thing, there are broader implications that extend out to touch all others.

We’re aware of this in California, and in the United States as a whole. It is a fundamental tenant that underlies many of our values. We’ve set aside land to remain unsullied, preserved, to remind us of what God or nature first created, and to provide shelter and protection for important pieces of our ecosystem that would otherwise be destroyed. We spend millions – perhaps billions – protecting nature, bringing endangered species back from the brink of annihilation.

We see all of this connectedness, we place such value on nature and what God (or evolution) has wrought, and yet, we toy with marriage.

In society, I can think of few things so fundamental, and so divine as marriage. For thousands of years it has stood as a basic, well-understood, and valued piece of society. It is interconnected with so many other parts of society. It is the foundation of the family. It exists to promote the increase of society, to provide a safe place for a human being to be born and raised, so that they in turn can become solid members of society, and so that society as a whole can be healthy.

The quality and health of a marriage have a direct impact on the community. Healthy marriages frequently lead to healthy families, which lead to healthy children, who in turn become healthy adults. Faulty marriages frequently have the opposite effect.

Families and communities gather around to celebrate marriage, and we all feel a measure of upset when a marriage – even when it is not our own – is on the rocks.

Marriage is the natural preserve of society. While we have felt free to toy with many other pieces of our society, we have – in general – always left marriage as a safe haven, and our society has benefited from it.

Not all marriages are perfect; opponents of Proposition 8 often point this out. “How can you call marriage a ‘sacred institution,’ when so many marriages are anything but sacred?” This is a fallacy, substituting some elements of the group for the whole. Some humans are anti-social, but that does not serve as an argument that all humans are anti-social, or even that humanity as a whole is faulty.

I will agree, though, that as a society we have been gradually degrading the value of marriage. More and more, we question the very need for its existence. We see it as little more than a social contract, easily made and easily broken, and we treat it that way. Is that an argument for continuing to attack the institution for marriage? Because we have already degraded it so much, shall we just continue to do so? Shall we never say, “enough is enough?” Will we never set our foot down?

What are the implications if we don’t? I’ve asserted that marriage is as interconnected with society as any element of nature is interconnected with the whole of nature. This implies that to degrade marriage is to affect society on a broader level. There are those who discount this belief; it’s just a slippery slope argument, they’ll assert. I say, there is no slope to this argument at all; to change marriage is not to initiate future changes to society; to change marriage is to change society at the same time. Having made such a change, our society will fundamentally be different.

Does that lead to a slippery slope? Quite possibly. We always seem to look down on the idea of a slippery slope argument, to treat it with disdain. You have little more to do to cancel an argument than claim that it is nothing more than a slippery slope argument. However, cause and effect are realities of nature; slippery slopes happen. We needn’t argue that they are inevitable, but they are frequently plausible.

To change marriage, as I have said, is to change society. Future decisions will therefore be made from a different plane, a different playing field. Proponents of Proposition 8 like to point out the possible impact it could have on religious institutions in the future, or on adoption agencies run by churches. Opponents like to point out that the law as it currently stands in California would not allow gay marriage to put religious organizations or adoption agencies at stake; they are protected.

However, if our society is changed in this fundamental way, will the question ever arise? Will the very laws that protect religions today ever be questioned? And if so, how will we decide? The decision will be based in some measure – probably in large measure – upon our values as a society; values that we are changing.

We have been changing our values as a society for millennia. New experiences have demanded changes on an ongoing basis. There’s nothing inherently wrong with changes, but all changes carry implications, all decisions have consequences, and we do ourselves a disfavor if we ignore that.

None of this gets to the crux of my own choices about marriage and this proposition. If marriage were nothing more than an artificial creation of society, I probably wouldn’t care so much. I do not believe this to be the case, though.

Marriage – regardless of all the faulty marriages that exist – is a divinely appointed institution. It isn’t solely about today, it’s also about tomorrow. It’s an important ordinance and an important piece of what we need to do in this lifetime in order to prepare ourselves for the life to come.

Created by God, marriage was hijacked a long time ago. Adopted initially as a practice instituted by God and extended to Adam and Eve, their posterity who gradually forsook God nevertheless continued to practice marriage. The farther any given generation strays from a godly path, though, the less value has been placed on marriage. Adultery, incest, fornication, abuse, and divorce creep in like rust on a forgotten bicycle; something once cherished becomes neglected.

Is the fault then in the institution, or in the people who fail to give it the care and respect that it deserves?

It seems to me that the individual who created the institution, God, has the best idea of its intent, the purpose in its creation, and its design. His opinion on the matter, especially given His omnipotence and His care for our well-being, both as individuals and as a society, ought to be the most relevant opinion of all. For the godless, of course, my comment here is irrelevant. I, however, do not number myself among the godless; so, for me, it is entirely relevant.

Thankfully, God’s opinion on the matter is crystal clear: marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, He intends for it to stay that way. Of course, we have our free agency, and I’ve yet to see Him intervene directly in this matter; more likely, as is frequently the case, He’ll make his will known, encourage us to make the right choice and to encourage others to do the same, let us know the consequences of either decision, and then let us choose – hopefully, not to shoot ourselves in the foot.

There are counter arguments to this, though. A couple that I have heard are along the lines of "the Jesus I know taught people to love one another, therefore we shouldn’t take an action against someone because of the things that they do,” and, “Christ will be the one to judge, so what right do I have to make a judgment against what someone else is doing?”

The first counter argument bears with it the tacit implication that people are what they do. In that view, anything I do is a natural part of who I am, therefore to oppose anything I do is to oppose me as an individual. Let’s suppose for a moment that this is true. I would also suggest, and I can’t imagine that anyone would have too much disagreement on this, that Christ wants us to be – ultimately – perfect. In fact, He issued that very command: be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven.

If this is the case, and if what we do is a natural part of who we are, then it would seem to me that Christ has a very great interest in what we do, and that we – as disciples of Christ – similarly should have a very great interest in what we do, since it reflects on who we are, and since Christ wants us to be perfect. If what we do reflects imperfections, then I would suspect that Christ would want us to address that.

At the same time, we recognize Christ as the epitome of love; His example of love is perfect. So, here we have an individual who loves us, as we say, unconditionally, and yet has a very great interest in seeing us do the right things; He has that interest because He wants us to be perfect, and He wants us to be perfect, because He loves us. It must be possible, therefore, to love somebody, and still want them to behave differently than they are behaving when their behavior is wrong. Indeed, it would seem to be inherent in Christ-like love.

In fact, I think this is exactly the case. You see, I don’t believe that we are what we do. I believe that we are more than what we do. We are something more supreme, something that has the ability to make choices, and act in the world. If I do something, I am making a choice to do something. I think this is very aptly reflected in Christ’s response to the woman taken in adultery. His response was not, “I forgive you, because you couldn’t help yourself – that’s just who you are”; it was, “I forgive you,” and, “go your way and sin no more.” This implies that the woman had the capacity not to adulterate; she was more than the choice that she had made.

This, I believe, is where tolerance steps in. Tolerance allows me to tolerate people, to love them and respect them, because I recognize them as divine individuals, just like myself, even though I don’t agree with what they do. Good grief, if I didn’t have tolerance, I don’t know how I could be a father! I love and tolerate my children, even though they do many things that I disagree with.

It’s not too surprising, though, that some in our society can’t make this distinction. They cannot understand how I, or anybody, could disagree with their actions without being intolerant, without likewise disagreeing with their very existence. It’s not too surprising, because it is a natural result of our society’s rejection of consequence.

More and more, we define “freedom” or “free will” as the ability to do anything without consequence. The thing is, in our gut, we know this isn’t true. We know that consequences exist. But we try to make up for that by saying “I can’t help myself, I was born that way,” or, “it’s all a result of my upbringing,” or, “he made me do it.” We’ll say anything but the truth: I could have helped myself, but I made the wrong choice.

This is a line of reasoning that I’ve seen increasingly applied in matters of sexuality. I remember driving to lunch with some coworkers once and listening to a conversation about one of my coworker’s nieces; she took it for granted that her niece would have premarital sex, simply because she was human – there was no way to avoid it. I didn’t say anything, but inwardly I was appalled and saddened by this perspective.

What hopelessness goes with that thought? I’m powerless to extend beyond my birthright, beyond my human nature. What an antithesis to the American dream, that everyone has the capability to rise above the level of their birth through the practice of their free agency.

A similar, saddening argument is made about homosexuality. A few years back, we used to argue about whether or not homosexuals are born that way, whether or not it’s something genetic. I haven’t heard that argument in a long time now; it’s just accepted that homosexuals are born homosexual. The desire or the capacity to practice homosexuality is there at birth and cannot be avoided.

I’ll bite. Let’s say that’s true. In fact, I have no reason to believe it’s not. People are born with all sorts of desires. Do we have to act on those desires? Some are born with a weakness for alcohol; they can’t drink a drop without drinking the whole keg. I suppose we ought just to let them live that way. Who are we to intervene? To suggest that their behavior is unhealthy and ought to be changed? They were born that way, right?

Some are born with physical ailments, handicaps that will be a part of them all their life. They should just wallow in it, shouldn’t they? Just give in. We ought not expect them to provide anything for society.

To be born homosexual, indeed to be born with any desire, is not to imply that we have no capacity to act in opposition to that desire. We have weaknesses, and we have shortcomings, we’re human and we’re imperfect, but we do not need to give into those imperfections, and if Christ’s words bear any truth, then His desire is that we won’t give into those imperfections, but precisely the opposite: that we’ll strive with all our heart, might, mind, and strength to overcome them.

There is the second question, though, of judgment. By what right do I, or any of us, make any judgment as to what others should be allowed to do or not do? That right belongs to Christ alone; He’s the judge, and He reserves judgment for Himself. Live and let live, and let Christ be the judge.

Frankly, I don’t see too much difference between this argument and the first. It continues to assume that the individual and the actions of the individual are inextricably connected, that I cannot judge an action wrong without judging the person evil. I agree, Christ is and will be the ultimate judge. It is His right to make the judgment of where each soul belongs in the kingdoms to come; He is the one that truly judges the individual. Thank goodness it is so; He has the capacity to look beyond the actions alone of an individual and see into their heart, to see their intent, and who they really are.

I don’t have that capacity. I am expected to love everyone, even my enemies, even those who don’t do things that I agree with. However, I am not expected to disregard actions that I believe are wrong; I am encouraged, quite the opposite, to stand up for truth, to be a “candle on the hill,” to stand out from the darkness and say, “this is right, this is where you should be, and what you should be doing.” To say such a thing, to aver that something is right, often carries the opposite message with it; to be here is not to be there, to do this is not to do that. If “to be perfect” you need to do this, then doing that instead is wrong (assuming that striving to be perfect is right). It’s a judgment, but it’s a judgment of actions and behaviors, not a judgment of an individual.

The distinction is important. We need to be in the business of helping each other in this life. If we feel so blessed as to know the truth, and what is right, and what will lead to eternal happiness, we need to be in the business of helping others know that, and helping others do what is right. How heartless would I have to be to believe that I have some idea of what is good, and what might help others to be happy, and then simply to ignore that fact and not promote that good? What’s the difference between doing that and neglecting to warn somebody that the bridge is out further on down the road, telling myself instead, “if they want to drive that road, let ‘em?”

There is tremendous risk to society as a whole in espousing the idea that we have no right to judge. If this is true, then on what basis do we have courts? Indeed, on what basis do we even have laws, or anyone to enforce them? We ought to let all live according to their will, with no consequence. If that is true, if we really ought not to cast judgment whatsoever, then I suppose I have much reason to fear for my life and wellbeing.

We must exercise judgment in society in order to exist as a society. To protect individual rights, we must give up some rights, by enacting laws that curtail certain actions. We do so in recognition that on the whole, it benefits us as a society and as individuals.

For example, we list as an inalienable right the pursuit of happiness. We could argue then that anything we do which brings us some amount of happiness ought to be a protected right: it’s inalienable, we can’t alienate, or fail to protect such an action. And yet, we do. There are many things that bring people some level of happiness that we nevertheless curtail. We alienate to some degree the right to the pursuit of happiness. We deny some people the right to indulge their desires.

We do that because – on a whole – we estimate that it is better for society, because by denying me the right to hit someone because I disagree with their opinion, you likewise deny them the right to hit me because they disagree with mine. I’m okay with that.

How do we judge which rights should be curtailed and which should be protected? The rule of thumb seems to be found in asking the question, “does this right hurt anyone?” If I exercise this action, am I going to be hurting someone? At least, I think that’s the question implicit in the counter argument, “gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone, therefore you should not curtail it.”

Okay, I’ll bind myself to that rule. I assert that it does hurt someone. At the very least, it hurts the individuals who participate in the marriage. I make that assertion, in large part, because of my views on what God desires of us. I don’t believe that homosexual behavior is in God’s cards for us. I also don’t think it’s in nature’s cards for us. It certainly has caused a lot of people heartache and unhappiness. I think that God expects for us to be perfect, expects us to behave a particular way sexually, and we hinder ourselves from forward progress and ultimate happiness by failing to behave accordingly. Therefore, to promote such acts is to allow individuals to harm themselves.

But I believe it extends beyond that. Marriage is a social act that affects the community at large. The two individuals who enter into a marriage have fundamentally changed their relationship with the rest of the community. We set limits on marriage accordingly. We reject polygamy and we set age limits for marriage, for example. We also extends privilege to married couples; for example, marriage is a doorway into citizenship for some. Surprisingly, though, we haven’t traditionally made laws respecting the gender (or species) of individuals entering marriage.

Well, no, it’s not all that surprising. The reason is simple: the issue has never come up before. In all of the thousands of years of history – so far as I know – we’ve just assumed that marriage is between a man and a woman, so we’ve never needed to enshrine it in law. Now, we’re questioning that. It’s the point of this proposition, to answer that question and enshrine it in law.

Why has this question never arisen before? What does it say about us that we’re asking this question now? These are questions that I will not address.

I also believe that it has a potential to hurt society on a larger scale. Earlier, I tried to avoid the slippery slope argument, but here it is. It starts with my assessment of why this movement towards gay marriage even exists. I have a belief that you can’t do something wrong and really, fully, feel good about it. Whatever we may do as a society to suppress the consequences of poor choices, in our hearts, we know when we’ve done wrong.

In our ongoing efforts to counterbalance that feeling, we’ve attributed it to all sorts of external causes: parents, religion, society, etc. Thus, the way to eliminate that feeling is to change how society treats us and what society teaches us about the wrong things we do.

For example, let’s say I tell a lie. That’s something we often do at one point or another in our lives. Now, when I tell a lie, there’s a twinge, or sometimes an overwhelming feeling of guilt. How do I eliminate that? There are a couple of ways: one is to indulge in lying, repeatedly, until I’m desensitized to the guilt. The other is to externalize the guilt, so that I can eliminate myself of any responsibility for the guilt; the guilt isn’t a result of my actions: it’s a result of what my parents and scriptures have taught me about lying, but there’s nothing wrong with lying itself.

This is the basic tactic. But it doesn’t really work very well a lot of the time – especially with big things. The guilt just keeps coming back. This is the problem.

The effort towards gay marriage is more than an effort for equal rights. So far as I understand it, homosexuals in California have essentially the same rights as married couples. It is an effort to attain the right to a title: to be recognized as “married.”

There must be some significance to that, which is surprising given the arguments by some that marriage really isn’t all that significant, that there’s nothing important in giving the title to a homosexual union.

There must be some import to it. It can’t just be that it entitles the couple to additional privileges, because they already have those privileges at a state level, and at a national level, their marriage wouldn’t be recognized.

Yet, this is treated as though gay marriage is a victory. So, what has been won? I believe that what has been won is some measure of respect, that society will acknowledge the union to be similar in every way to a traditional, heterosexual marriage.

The thing is, this is not the case. Those who oppose same sex marriage, who see it as wrong, and who see homosexual behaviors as wrong will continue to oppose it and see it as wrong. Really, this move will win no more respect than already exists; those who are for it either already treat homosexual behavior in the way that the homosexual community desires, or simply don’t care one way or the other (following the live and let live principle), and those who are against it are hardly likely to suddenly say, “well, the state okayed it, so heck, I’m fine with it, too.”

Before long, the homosexual movement will recognize that. They’ll want to be married in a church, and the church won’t allow it. They’ll want to adopt, and the adoption agency won’t allow it. How do you think they’re going to feel about that? What do you think they’re going to do?

Honestly, I can’t state with any surety what they will do. I know how I would feel, though; I’d feel hurt. I’d probably feel embarrassed, too. Now, I tend to be one to close into myself under those circumstances, but I know many who turn that hurt and embarrassment into vindictiveness.

I recently sat in court against such a person. A person who had felt wronged, and took that wrong to the court. He confided in me beforehand, “I don’t need the money, I’m a millionaire. Win or lose, I’ve already won, because I made this big company go to court and spend all this time and money.” He simply wanted to have his day in court and punish someone in spite; he wasn’t looking for justice, he was looking for revenge.

My suspicion is that in time religions that do not accept gay marriage will be challenged. What is more, there will be a need to indoctrinate society that gay marriage is okay. If I were going to indoctrinate in that way, I know exactly where I’d go: to the most vulnerable parts of society.

All of this will be necessary, you see, because despite having the privilege of wearing the title of marriage, a very large portion of the population (at least 61% at the last counting) will still see and treat homosexuals differently, they’re still going to feel the effects of that, and they’re going to need to take further action to eliminate those effects.

What will the true nature of the action be? I can’t foretell. I can say only that gay marriage does not seem to me to be a victory; it is a stepping stone; I worry about where that stepping stone leads, and I’d rather draw the line here and now.

Steps like these carry momentum. Having made many wrong choices in my life, I can state with authority that such choices lie at the end of a path of many smaller, seemingly inconsequential stepping stones. One would never think of going from point A to point Z in one fell swoop. Going from point A to point B, though, well, that’s simple, that’s innocent, that doesn’t hurt anybody. Step B to C, that’s simple, too. And so it goes until that little tiny step from Y to Z.

Gay marriage isn’t step Z. It’s not the end. It simply cannot be. Any satisfaction at this step will be short-lived, and it will be challenged, as it is being challenged today. Step Z is somewhere way down the line, but you can never get to step Z without taking this first step. Conversely, once the step is taken, it will be very difficult to go back.

Finally, on the issue of civil rights. Some have said in the news and in forums that this is an issue of civil rights. Bollocks. This goes back to the attitude that we are what we do. There is a great distinction between gender and color – attributes of a person that really are a part of a person – and homosexuality, which represents a person's desires and their actions according to those desires. I think it the height of arrogance to compare the struggles of women, African Americans, Latinos, and others to this struggle by homosexuals.

As homosexuals, I admit their right to have desires. I think that everyone on this Earth has an equal right to desires, and no law ought to limit somebody’s rights simply because of their desires, nor to extend their rights simply because of their desires. Furthermore, in having desires, homosexuals are not in the minority; they are in the overwhelming majority. To reject the right to participate in a same sex marriage to homosexuals is to reject that right to heterosexuals as well; the rule is applied universally regardless of race or gender, and regardless of desires. Further the right to participate in a traditional marriage is available to homosexuals as equally as it is available to heterosexuals.

Actions, on the other hand, are a different matter. Recognizing a group as a protected minority because of an action they take is an unusual step, and it is a far different stance from the civil rights movements of African Americans and women, who were protected not because of their distinctive actions, but because of their distinctive traits.

Are we to treat every minority that is defined by a set of desires and actions as a protected group that ought to be given equal right under the law to act according to their specific desire? What then of pedophiles? What then of drug abusers? Are these really minority groups? And if they are minority groups, should we let them act according to their distinctive desires?

If not, then how do we judge which groups’ desires ought to be indulged as a “civil right”? I guess, of course, if judgment isn’t ours anyway, the question is pointless. Live and let live, right?

No, I can’t stand for that. This is not a civil rights movement. Some, many, have labeled it such in order to paint it gold; “civil rights” is America’s King Midas, elevating any issue to one of supreme and untouchable status. You let King Midas run rampant, though, and eventually every issue is gilded over and untouchable; when every issue is untouchable, then anything goes. Calling “civil rights” is like calling “safe” in a game of tag.

We live in a pretty shallow culture when we say that some individuals who choose to give into a desire – inborn or otherwise – and therefore ought to be privileged to have society’s blessings for that desire, are in some way equal to men and women who were subjected to torture and death because they happened to have different colored skin, not because of any action on their part.

The reality is twofold. On the one hand, we – as a people – want to feel special. We want our own civil rights movement. You can almost hear the envy dripping from some news articles that equate this issue to the civil rights movements of the past, that imagine how history will look upon us with appreciation and honor.

Second, the label of civil rights is being used to give the opposition’s position an elevated status. Few of us living today would treat the civil rights movements of the past with disrespect. By borrowing the distinction in this case, there is an effort to borrow that respect for the movement. It extends all sorts of privileges to the opposition. People who are for Proposition 8 become as “ignorant” and “bigoted” as those who enslaved African Americans or repressed women.

I simply can’t stand back from all of this and try to compare the suffering of African Americans and women with this movement for gay marriage. But, I suppose that’s just a weakness in me, right? I’m just an ignorant bigot.

I’m an ignorant bigot because I want to protect something that I value. I’m an ignorant bigot because I believe in protecting something I believe God values. I’m an ignorant bigot because I choose to do something I believe is right. I’m an ignorant bigot because I’d like to see others do what is right, so that – in the eternities – they might be happy, too. Yes, if values, godliness, rightness, and love are signs of ignorant bigotry, I’ll proudly state that I’m an ignorant bigot.

That at least is something that I and the opposition can agree on.