Although I am writing to address the entire student population, these words come in direct response to Ben Duffy’s “Religion and politics: the contradiction,” printed in the March 2 issue of The Massachusetts Daily Collegian.
Duffy argues that the separation of church and state is unnecessary and that “society has the right to hold individuals to moral standards, even those grounded in religion.” Specifically, Duffy’s argument centers on the debate surrounding gay marriage. Duffy does not hide the fact that the standards he speaks of are founded in “Judeo-Christian ethic.” I must question, then, why Christianity should be the basis behind state law?
It is true that Christians make up a large portion of our population, but to be American does not necessarily mean to be Christian. Our citizens are Islamic, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Mormon, and the list continues ad-nauseum. It is pretentious and ignorant to assume that one set of beliefs should be the standard by which all are judged.
Duffy sites the Civil Rights and Abolitionist Movements as examples of the necessary link between Church and State. He is right when he says that both of these movements invoked beliefs from the Bible as defense for their causes. It is ridiculous, however, to conclude: “What exactly makes murder immoral, if not because the Bible says so?” I believe it was Athena who established a justice system to prevent murderous revenge, and this had nothing to do with Christianity.
I often hear that gay marriage is immoral and does not coincide with the Christian sacrament. Were marriage simply a matter of religion, this argument would be valid. Unfortunately, marriage is not just a religious institution; it carries with it 1,049 rights, including the right to make decisions on a partner’s behalf in a medical emergency; the right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate; the right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth; adoption; surrogacy or other means; the right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup and since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships; family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits, the right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will…
Are you getting sick of this list yet? I have mentioned 13 different rights denied to homosexuals. There are still over a thousand more. The Civil Rights and Abolitionist Movements did not succeed merely because they mentioned religious belief; they succeeded because they were concerned with the basic rights of human beings. I thank Ben Duffy for comparing these movements to the fight for same-sex marriage; indeed, they are quite the same.
Heather Comtois
UMass student
