Leave it to Massachusetts. No other state in the union would be so “progressive” as to say that the joining of a man and a man, or a woman and woman, is as legitimate as the joining of man and woman.
Debate ensued. The overwhelming sentiment on this campus is that religious views have no place in politics because of a certain “separation of church and state” that leaves no room for people who want to push their religious beliefs on others. Ergo, any argument against gay marriage that’s rooted in religion should be immediately thrown out as illegitimate.
Right. Well let’s examine that for a second, within the context of American history. I can think of two particularly “progressive” movements in our history that were both deeply rooted in Christianity – the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, and the movement to abolish slavery. In case you’ve forgotten, both movements quoted the Bible at length and both movements were largely spearheaded by ministers and various other religious people. Segregation was attacked as inhumane and incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who came for all people, regardless of color. The same was applied to the concept of one man owning another.
The truth is that most of our laws are founded in a fairly generic Judeo-Christian ethic. What exactly makes murder immoral, if not because the Bible says so? How about polygamy?
Furthermore, most of the people, who claim that condemnation of gay marriage is an “imposition” of one person’s morals upon another are really hiding behind a patently false interpretation of the First Amendment. What does the First Amendment have to say about religion? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “Congress” referred to is the Congress of the United States, and should not be read as “any body of government existing within the United States,” as it is popularly misinterpreted today. In no way does it prohibit individual citizens, or even public figures, from voting their consciences. It’s a good thing we don’t either, or we might still be a divided nation – half slave, and half free. Once again, we find that hypocritical liberals change their policies like they change their underwear: when it’s convenient. They’ll get behind a moral crusade to rid the world of an evil of their choosing, and when it’s convenient, they say that religion has no place in the public forum.
It’s no surprise, of course, that the only politicians in this country who can talk about religion without being crucified by the liberal elite are Democrats. Some may forget, but we’ve had an ordained minister in the White House in recent history. His name is Jimmy Carter. It’s a good thing that Jimmy was on the “right side” of all the important issues, and that he was a registered member of the “right” party, or else he would have surely been dead in the water. Just imagine for a moment, a conservative Republican running for office who was also a man of the cloth. The liberals would have open season on the guy. They’d accuse him of trying to establish a theocracy.
Howard Dean may be old news, but it wasn’t too long ago when he seemed to be the man to beat in the Democratic primaries. His disparaging remarks about Southern voters who would probably vote according to “God, guns, and gays” lost him a lot of support in the South. Quite suddenly, Howie found Jesus. I’m deeply suspicious that Dean’s religion wasn’t a religion at all, but rather a “Southern strategy.” In fact, he went as far as to say that his views on gay marriage were actually because of his Christian beliefs, not despite them. Sounds a bit like Dean wants to “impose” his religious beliefs on the public. The Left was silent on that one, in case you were wondering. Apparently they didn’t see the blinding contradiction, but I did. So long as he was a liberal, Dr. Dean wouldn’t have to hide his candle under a bushel, as conservatives are expected to do.
No, I don’t believe that any American has the right to transform another American’s conscience. I’m the first one to cry out whenever I feel the foul breath of the Thought Police breathing down my neck, as is often the case on this campus. I’m fearful that we’re becoming a nation increasingly concerned with “thought crime,” which is in fact not a crime at all. Even though you have the right to think anything you want to think, you do not have the right to do anything you want to do. Society has the right to hold individuals to moral standards, even those grounded in religion. If you don’t like it, move to France.
Ben Duffy is a UMass student.
