Yesterday, Maine became the fifth state to legalize gay marriage. This continues the trend in New England, where most states have legalized same-sex marriages, with others poised to follow suit. One of the comments made by State Senator Debra Plowman (R-Hampden) gave me pause. She said that the bill passed "at the expense of people of faith."
To me, this is wrong on two levels. First and foremost, who is she to speak for all people of faith? I consider myself a person of deep faith, and yet I enthusiastically welcome efforts to legalize same-sex marriages. I know many gay and lesbian people who are also people of faith. I know of churches who gladly open their doors to gay and lesbian members; some even allow gay clergy.
In fact, if Plowman can claim to speak for anyone, it is for those who would force their religious views on others. To me, that smacks of theocracy, and we all know how dangerous that can be. All we have to do is look around the world to see the negative impact of theocratic government.
SIDE NOTE: I wonder how many Americans, especially "people of faith", know the truth about the Puritans. In school we are taught that the Puritans fled religious persecution. In truth, it was exactly the opposite. They were thrown out of England because they were attempting to force their religious views on the rest of society. They then tried the same thing in Holland and were thrown out again. When they arrived on American soil, the Puritans set up a government based on their religion - one which allowed the public ridicule of offenders (the Scarlet Letter comes to mind), and torture and burning of those accused of witchcraft - which often was merely an understanding of the use of herbs to cure illnesses.
Second, I still do not understand how allowing gay and lesbian marriages harms others. No one is forcing a church that does not believe in gay marriage to sanction them, perform them, or even recognize them within their organization. Conversely, refusing others rights because their own beliefs do not reconcile you their own, they are actually denying rights to others based on a religious philosophy.
Many opponents of gay and lesbian marriage claim that it destroys the sanctity of marriage. How is that? What is it about gay marriage that is so damaging? I think that, if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, you would be better served by working to end divorce, family violence and other problems. Refusing the right of marriage to others because their lifestyle is different does nothing to protect marriage at all. It only serves to force others into your own mindset.
I am proud of the state of Maine. I am also proud to support gay/lesbian marriage. I believe that offering to others the same respect and compassion as I hope to receive from others, regardless of whether or not their beliefs reconcile perfectly with mine, is an important step towards living a life with Spirit.
In peace,
Lane
To me, this is wrong on two levels. First and foremost, who is she to speak for all people of faith? I consider myself a person of deep faith, and yet I enthusiastically welcome efforts to legalize same-sex marriages. I know many gay and lesbian people who are also people of faith. I know of churches who gladly open their doors to gay and lesbian members; some even allow gay clergy.
In fact, if Plowman can claim to speak for anyone, it is for those who would force their religious views on others. To me, that smacks of theocracy, and we all know how dangerous that can be. All we have to do is look around the world to see the negative impact of theocratic government.
SIDE NOTE: I wonder how many Americans, especially "people of faith", know the truth about the Puritans. In school we are taught that the Puritans fled religious persecution. In truth, it was exactly the opposite. They were thrown out of England because they were attempting to force their religious views on the rest of society. They then tried the same thing in Holland and were thrown out again. When they arrived on American soil, the Puritans set up a government based on their religion - one which allowed the public ridicule of offenders (the Scarlet Letter comes to mind), and torture and burning of those accused of witchcraft - which often was merely an understanding of the use of herbs to cure illnesses.
Second, I still do not understand how allowing gay and lesbian marriages harms others. No one is forcing a church that does not believe in gay marriage to sanction them, perform them, or even recognize them within their organization. Conversely, refusing others rights because their own beliefs do not reconcile you their own, they are actually denying rights to others based on a religious philosophy.
Many opponents of gay and lesbian marriage claim that it destroys the sanctity of marriage. How is that? What is it about gay marriage that is so damaging? I think that, if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, you would be better served by working to end divorce, family violence and other problems. Refusing the right of marriage to others because their lifestyle is different does nothing to protect marriage at all. It only serves to force others into your own mindset.
I am proud of the state of Maine. I am also proud to support gay/lesbian marriage. I believe that offering to others the same respect and compassion as I hope to receive from others, regardless of whether or not their beliefs reconcile perfectly with mine, is an important step towards living a life with Spirit.
In peace,
Lane
Posts
1 comment:
Just my thoughts. Months ago you wrote this about greed, in which I think also could pertain to what you wrote in this piece:
"I'm betting Jesus cried all day for that man. I'm betting he cried in shame at what people have done to his teachings."
Post a Comment