Basically he starts out ripping the New York Times for supporting Kerry, and then moves into Gay Marriage. He tells the sad story of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated for a job in the European Union as a Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security. He got shot down (according to Feulner) because he's a devout Catholic. He believes Homosexuality to be a sin, but doesn't think government should interfere. He apparently stated, "The state has no right to stick its nose into these things and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation... this stands in the Charter of Human Rights, this stands in the Constitution and I have pledged to defend this constitution." This got him kicked off the committee. Here in America, on the other hand, freedom of religion reigns.
Meanwhile, freedom of religion is thriving in the U.S. This year's presidential election featured a well-known Protestant against a self-proclaimed Catholic. Four years ago, Joe Lieberman became the first Jewish man to run for national office. And we've already heard talk that Barak Obama, just elected to the Senate, may seek higher office in 2008. Obama's grandfather was Muslim.So good for us, I guess. Nice that Mr. David Limbaugh's book about the persecution of Christians is already obsolete. Of course let's jam the knife into John Kerry once more for pretending to be a Catholic.
But let's not mince words. There is no way that America's Conservative Christians would be satisfied with Mr. Buttiglione's position (as Feulner defines it). The whole point to their efforts are that they do want the American Government to be able to tell Homosexuals they can be discriminated against and they should be discriminated against. This isn't really a case of intellectual freedom. People have the right to believe that Homosexuality is a sin as much as much as other people have the right to believe it isn't a sin. The problem comes when some Christian conservatives seek to use the mechanisms of the government to impose their beliefs on society.
Incidently, Mr. Buttiglione's position is a bit more nuanced than Mr. Feulner defines it. Apparently he has pushed for an amendment that would have allowed discrimination based on sexual preference. He also opposes civil unions and gay marriages.
This is as good a time as any to repeat my view on Gay Marriage which is stated by Hamlet in Act 3 Scene 1. "Go to, I'll no more on't; it hath made me mad. I say, we will have no more marriages." Ironically this view was expressed (somewhat satircally) on the West Wing last week. Allow me to quote from Television Without Pity's recaps.
The Congressman says that he is aware of the political situation, and then tells Josh that he wants to introduce a bill to ban marriage. Josh thinks he's talking about a strategic move to introduce a bill to ban same-sex marriage, thereby putting opponents on the record. But Congressman Gay (for indeed he is) tells Josh that he wants to ban all marriage: "If the government can't make it available to everyone, I want us out of the business entirely. Leave it to churches and synagogues. And of course, um, casinos and department stores." Josh asks him if the Republicans put him up to this. Congressman Gay: "They don't condone my lifestyle, and I don't condone theirs." Well said, Congressman Gay. Well said.I believe in a separation of Church and State, and the fact that so many people are up in arms about Gay Marriage tells me that Marriage, whether performed in a church or a courthouse or a department store, is still intrinsically a religious ceremony. So why have the Government in the business at all? Shift the legal protections and rights to a new form, which we may as well call Civil Union, and mandate them for everybody. Fix the problems with Civil Unions (which will be fixed quickly if everybody has a stake in fixing them, and will never be fixed if only homosexual couples have a stake in fixing them). That's my proposal, and I'm standing by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment