First, the backstory...
People who know me pretty much know my views on gay marriage. My brain, for whatever reason, has never processed any level of discrimination against others based solely on physical or social characteristics -- race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation being among them. Likewise, I view the concept the "rights" as a lump sum deal: if you let one group of people do something, then there are very few valid reasons why another group would not be allowed to do the same thing, if any.
The basis for why many people do not think gay and lesbian couples in the United States should not be married is very simple: morality -- many who believe that homosexuality is immoral believe that marriage among homosexuals is wrong. Furthermore, most within that same group will dodge the "moral" issue and instead quote the Bible to provide a basis for their beliefs. Personally, being of Roman Catholic background, I never grew up in a household where the Bible was considered to be a literal take on God's law; most churchgoing friends of mine, a vast majority of whom are Protestant, do.
Why is this an issue? Well, the Bible is a written account of an oral history of monotheism in the world, first of what became the Jewish faith in the Old Testament before discussing Jesus, beliefs in his divinity, and the lion-feeding tribulations of early Christians in the New Testament. What's wrong with oral history? Well, try a game of telephone with your friends. If you've ever had trouble with the word "grandfather" becoming "band fodder" by the time it comes out on the other end, you'd understand the problem with oral history...and that's ten people, not a hundred GENERATIONS of people.
 |
| "Blessed are the meerkats, for they molest ferrets for dirt." |
Even the Bible's history as a written text is sketchy. For example, well-known alternate gospels and versions of other New Testament works were discarded in favor of a uniform Christian doctrine courtesy the First Council of Nicea, the original purpose of which was to refute a growing belief that even though Jesus was the Son of God, he was not specifically God: a subtle, almost semantic distinction that nevertheless labeled its followers heretics.
 |
| "Thouest who misuse 'they're' as 'their' shall be hung by thy pinky fingers on the Mount...all in favor?" |
Furthermore, the first mass-printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, did not emerge until the 1450s; previous Bibles had been inscribed on scrolls or handwritten by Monks. Even today, just in the United States alone, there are two distinct English versions of the Bible, the King James and New American, whose differences are more than subtle; they are each English language translations of different "original texts" of the Bible (a Latin text for St. James and Greek and Hebrew texts for the New American), and various versions of both translations also regularly omit and include various books commonly grouped as apocrypha. In short, if nobody can agree on what the Bible really is, then how can anyone use the Bible as a basis for a law that applies to everyone? Granted, I like the Bible, but its lack of consistency make it an unreliable foundation.
| Not to mention, bad for migraines, as well. |
That takes us back to the morality argument. Even if I were to believe that homosexuality was immoral, everyone's "morality" is not the same. Morality is defined as both "a doctrine or system of moral conduct" and a "conformity to ideals of right human conduct." The problem is that there isn't one doctrine or system of moral conduct that exists; even if you defined that system solely on faith and spirituality, you still have to contend with at least 4,200 different religions, each with its own doctrine of moral conduct. Going with "ideals of right human conduct" takes us even farther from consistency; one of my neighbors thinks it's perfectly fine to walk his dog through my yard, leaving whatever fecal matter said dog produced behind. He may define this as "right human conduct"; I don't. In Mauritania, girls are force-fed at a young age to become fat, as obesity is treasured as beauty in that country; I object to nothing here other than the forcefeeding. Right human conduct: not universal.
So, the Bible has eighteen million and one translations. Morality is inconsistent among people. How, then, can we base laws around these two concepts?
For me, it's a moot point. I personally don't find homosexuality immoral, so the concept of legalized gay marriage will find no moral objection to me. Take morals out of the equation, and one is left with NO logical reasoning for disallowing gay marriage, aside from mere prejudice, and we all know how that turns out.
For these reasons, I applauded the Illinois Senate for passing the Religion Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, which legalizes marriage among same-sex couples in Illinois, and encourage the Illinois House of Representatives to do the same.
It is within this encouragement that our blog post ACTUALLY BEGINS...
Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to my state representative, Sue Scherer, who, according to her website, is apparently still running to become representative. Scherer is a Democat; I'm a liberal; we go together like peas and carrots right? Not really. For the sake of full disclosure, I will say that I didn't vote for her. I did vote for another candidate who ran against her the primary, one infinitely more experienced and a better fit for the House. In the interest of not turning this into a political debate, I'll just leave it at that.
Admittedly, my e-mail was a form submission from a website. So, in turn, I expected a form response. I'm all kosher with that. Here was my e-mail submission:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Rep. Scherer:
I am your constituent and am writing about an issue of fairness and equality for all families in Illinois.
It is unfair and unjust to deny families and couples the legal protections and dignities they deserve based on sexual orientation, and I strongly support the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. Marriage strengthens relationships, fosters stability and makes families stronger.
Like all Illinoisans, gay and lesbian couples have the same values of love, commitment and the desire to build a strong family.
The Senate has already passed this important legislation, and now it's up to the House! Please support marriage equality by voting yes on the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.
The time is now! Thank you for your consideration.
Erik Grebner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is her response (contact information withheld):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Ms. Grebner:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. I always appreciate hearing from the people I represent, and learning more about the issues that matter most to you. I understand that this is a very sensitive and personal issue to many people. I rely on the wide variety of opinions I hear from the people I represent to make the best decisions for our state and our communities. Thank you, again, for contacting me. If you have further opinions you’d like to share, or if I can ever be of assistance to you, please contact me at XXXXX or XXXXXXX.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Ms. Grebner:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. I always appreciate hearing from the people I represent, and learning more about the issues that matter most to you. I understand that this is a very sensitive and personal issue to many people. I rely on the wide variety of opinions I hear from the people I represent to make the best decisions for our state and our communities. Thank you, again, for contacting me. If you have further opinions you’d like to share, or if I can ever be of assistance to you, please contact me at XXXXX or XXXXXXX.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'll take one moment to say that while I expected a form response, I didn't expect such a NOTHING form response; it could have at least MENTIONED the issue for which I e-mailed her. I get the feeling that if I had I sent her an e-mail in support of legalizing open donkey rape competitions in public parks, I'd get that same spiel about it being a "very sensitive and personal issue to many people."
However, what I'm mainly responding to is the very, VERY first line...
Dear, Ms. Grebner:
So...Sue Scherer thinks that Erik is a girl's name.
To clarify, then, Sue Scherer thinks the following people are girls:
| Erik Palladino...totally a chick. |
| Erik, the Phantom of the Opera...post-menopause. |
 |
| Erik Lorig...Tampa Bay fullback and electrolysis spokeswoman |
These random people from Google Search....well, at least the guy on the bottom-right.
All I'm hoping is that Sue Scherer continues to confuse gender in the gay marriage debate. Maybe in her mind, we're all women, so every marriage is gay, so what's the difference, right?
You know, within my own circle of progressives with whom I regularly commiserate, Sue Scherer is developing a reputation as the Sarah Palin of Illinois politics. I'm starting to see why.
| Of course I can represent Decatur! I can see Decatur from my house! |
On a side note, I've been meaning to start blogging again. Lots to talk about. Lots of things that have happened. Lots of things to say. Hopefully I'll have a chance to get into all that soon.
 |
| Just keep telling yourself, "You're a boy. You're a boy." |
