Domino Effect

After the recent Supreme Court rulings concerning gay marriage, you can rest assured that gay marriage is coming to the whole land and that equal protection under the law will ensue. I think this is a really good thing, a wrong that has finally been righted, and I rejoice because of it.

I don’t think it really matters what I think, or what anyone else thinks, when it comes to the individual life choices of each person. Each person must live and die according to his or her own beliefs, and in this country, we have traditionally allowed for such a thing in most regards. However, we have tended to reach a bit too far into the bedroom, when really we should simply mind our own business and allow people the freedom to live as they choose—so long as they aren’t hurting others in the process.

From a legal perspective, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with allowing gay couples the right to marry. And I say this because, legally speaking, marriage is not defined by the same standards as Christian (or any other religious) marriage. We do allow secular marriages each and every day in this country. A man can fly to Vegas overnight, get drunk, marry the first hooker that walks by him, and be divorced the following afternoon. Was it right? No, but we have allowed that sort of thing for decades now.

We have allowed secular marriages to take place. We have allowed people to marry and divorce upon their whims, and haven’t gotten in the way. We have done this for heterosexual couples. However, when it comes to homosexual couples, we as a society, for the most part, have not legally recognized their unions. We have not permitted them to marry. We have not allowed them the freedom to decide upon what sort of unions they enter into, and have not granted them the same rights as we have heterosexual couples. My question is why? If a gay couple wants to be married is this really so wrong (outside of a religious context)? Keep in mind that marriage, as it has already been defined on the books in most of this country, is not singularly allowed with only religious implications in mind; we do have secular marriages and have for pretty much our entire existence. This being the case, why not allow the marriage of homosexual couples? Why not grant them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples? By not allowing these things, you are legally discriminating. You are purposefully acknowledging that one union is not as good as another, and this forces those who may disagree with you to live by your personal beliefs, rather than their own. And what gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on such a matter onto others?

Whether I agree with gay marriage or not, I do not think I have any right to force my beliefs onto others. I don’t have a right to prevent people from marrying, nor do I have a right to force anyone to marry.

I keep in mind the golden rule when thinking about this: “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” I would not want anyone telling me I could not marry the person I love, or that I could not get the same sort of benefits as other married couples just because they don’t like my choice of partners. So, I will not tell anyone else they cannot marry the person they love, or cannot have the same benefits granted to everybody else. Instead, I will allow them the freedom to make their own choices, and grant them the same privileges as everybody else.

In doing so, it doesn’t mean that I am going against the church, or turning my back on traditional marriage, or anything like that. It just means that I think it is right to allow others to make up their own minds and to live according to their own beliefs, without me shoving my own beliefs down their throats and forcing them to live in a way that isn’t right for them.

Chick-fil-A, Not Gay... But that's Okay

I feel like I have to say something concerning the whole Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A fiasco going on, and I’ll apologize ahead of time if this turns into a complete rant.

Apparently, at some point, Dan Cathy, the owner of fast food chicken restaurant, Chick-fil-A, made some comments opposing same-sex marriage, lacing his comment with certain religious contexts or basis. He also, reportedly, contributed money to certain organizations who speak out against same sex marriage. Since doing so, those opposing his beliefs (those in favor of same-sex marriage) have created an all out fire storm against this guy. Big city mayors, such as Rham Emanuel, and other politicians, have supported boycotting his company, and even resorted to personal attacks against him. Some citizens have even verbally harassed his employees, including those gay employees whom Mr. Cathy apparently had no problem hiring to work for him.

To begin with, as a gay man, I have no problem whatsoever with Dan Cathy having his own opinion, being vocal about it, and spending his own money to promote those with similar ideas (Exodus International supposedly being one of those groups, and a group that actually does, believe it or not, help many gay men and women every year—myself being one such person, even though I disagree with some of their stances). So he believes marriage should only be between one man and one woman. So what? Who didn’t believe that twenty years ago? Most Christians, as Dan Cathy is, still believe this. Most Americans still believe this.

AND IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BELIEVE AS HE CHOOSES!!! IT IS ALSO HIS RIGHT TO SPEEK FREELY ABOUT HIS BELIEFS ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!

I get so annoyed by the hypocrisy of others in situations like this. I can’t stand it when people want free speech to assert their positions/beliefs, but will then do everything in their power to shut up the opposition. I’m sorry liberals, but in this case, I think you are wrong. Mr. Cathy should have every right to say what he thinks and to spend his money as he sees fit. That doesn’t mean that you have to like it. It also doesn’t mean that you have to support him or his business; you don’t have to buy his food! And, as a politician, if you are publicly speaking out against him, sorry, but that means you are crossing the line of your beloved separation of church and state, by discriminating against him and his beliefs. Furthermore, WE THE PEOPLE do have in this country a little thing called free speech. And as long as we have this right, Mr. Cathy is right, so far as in his actions and beliefs in this matter. Sorry, but that’s just how it is. Get over it and move on.

Now, concerning the whole thing, I personally believe that we should allow same-sex marriages in this country. I believe that because we also allow religious freedom in this country and because I recognize that there are already two separate kinds of marriages that we allow. One is marriage with religious contexts, and the other is a purely secular marriage. We do allow nonreligious people in this country to get married. That being the case, it seems as though we would also allow same-sex couples to marry. We should not impose our religious beliefs on others. In this case, Mr. Cathy may be somewhat wrong, by his funding groups that do work to prohibit same-sex marriages.

However, religion does play a role in the whole controversy surrounding Mr. Cathy. I really do not believe he did what he did because he hates gays. On the contrary, I think he did it because he loves his faith, and wanted to stand up for what he thinks is right according to that faith. It is the same reason why I have opposed certain gay friendly measures before. As a Christian, traditional teaching opposes homosexual relationships. It also opposes marriage as being anything other than a one man, one woman relationship. So, as I see it, Mr. Cathy was simply expressing his religious beliefs. And, again, so long as we have religious freedom in this country, Mr. Cathy is in the right.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I feel as if I’ll end up getting a fire storm myself for not being ultra-politically correct on my wording of things here. I’m not saying that freedom of religion and speech make Mr. Cathy’s viewpoints right. What I’m saying is that, whether he is right or wrong about his beliefs, he does have a right, and is in the right, to be vocal about his beliefs.

Sorry liberals, but the Constitution has not yet been thrown out the window. Until you’ve had your way with that, you’ll just have to accept that if you get the right to be heard, then so do those who oppose you.

Mary, Mother of God

I used to be very much opposed to many Catholic beliefs. I didn’t believe that the Eucharist actually was Christ’s flesh and blood, but only a symbolic representation of them. I didn’t believe it necessary to seek out forgiveness of my sins from other Christians (those sins which I didn’t directly perceive to pertain to them). I didn’t believe (or actually just didn’t know about) the sacraments. I didn’t believe Mary was or should be called the mother of God. And I didn’t believe in the hierarchy of the church (I still question this point to some extent, but I have grown to accept that some degree of leadership should be about to help connect all groups of Christians).

These are all points in which I have changed my views in the last few years. I very much believe in the sacraments now. I find it hard to believe Christ’s presence can’t be found in certain events or things. I believe one Christian’s sins do in fact affect the rest of the body of Christ, and so therefore forgiveness should be asked for from other Christians (a priest or other Christian of authority to speak on behalf of all other Christians that indeed your sins have been forgiven). I believe the Eucharist literally is transformed into the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. I accept this somewhat cannibalistic notion because Christ is noted in the bible as having said, in so many words, that the bread and wine are his flesh and blood, and because the oldest established Christian beliefs pertaining to this, belong to Catholics, who accept Jesus’ teaching on the matter very literally. And I do believe Mary is and can be called the mother of God.

On that last belief, I can use some very basic reasoning to justify. Jesus said he was God. Jesus was born of Mary. So, therefore, Mary was the mother of God. I think it’s as simple as that.

I know a lot of Christians don’t believe this, but it’s because they want to debate which came first (the chicken or the egg?) in this matter, but that really isn’t necessary or an accurate approach. Of course, with most humans, our beginnings are from conception within our mothers from which we are born. But God’s beginning was not as ours. He was well alive and in spirit long before his conception as a human. Looking at things in this light, stating that he was born as a human through Mary, we should have no problem calling Mary the mother of God. A lot of Christians want to look at the Catholic’s view on this as Catholics saying Mary was before God, but that is a serious misunderstanding. Catholics simply recognize that Mary gave birth to God, as God being in human form (part of the trinity). If you’re a Christian who believes Jesus was God, and Mary was indeed Jesus’ mother, then Mary must have been the mother of God. If you don’t believe that, then you must either believe Jesus wasn’t God, or that Mary wasn’t really Jesus’ mother.

Anyway, my whole point to all of this is that as I’ve grown into my faith, my beliefs on certain points have changed. I’m not saying I’ve become Catholic, but I am much more sympathetic to those viewpoints than I ever used to be.