I posted quite a few tweets yesterday, primarily in exchange with a fan (Traci), regarding my position on gay marriage. For the record: I'm for it. If two consenting adults wish to marry, I see no reason that every state in the U.S. shouldn't allow them do so.
In one particular exchange, Traci tweeted: "All people are created equal. I just don't agree with gay marriage."
To which I responded, "So all people then are not created equal?"
This in turn prompted an email from another fan (Chris), who added an interesting insight to the mix. He wrote (in part):
The fact is that all people are born unequal in every meaningful way that equality can be supplied. All people are born unique (even identical twins), but some have more opportunities than others, some are smarter than others, some are born with trivial disadvantages of skin pigmentation, some will be fat, some skinny, some tall, some short, etc.
The idea of equality is an important one, but this is a legal concept: regardless of the situation of your birth or your development, in order to have a fair and orderly society, each individual should be beholden to the same standards. In the US system, that means rights as defined by law. While there are problems with the way the US applies these laws, in theory, each person should be granted the same rights and have the same liabilities regardless of their race, sex, sexual preference, creed, religion, etc.
That's exactly what I meant when I tweeted about all people being equal: not that we're a species of replicants, but that everyone should receive equal rights and protection under the law - as, indeed, the founding fathers of the U.S. spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the only issue I have with Chris' statement is his reference to "sexual preference." Being gay isn't a "preference," or a "lifestyle," it's a biological fact, just as heterosexuality is.
I do understand - and respect - that many of those who oppose gay marriage do so based on their religious beliefs. But I object to those who would impose those beliefs on what is, ultimately, a civil matter. No marriage ceremony in the U.S., whether religious or civil in nature, is valid without a license. And those licenses are issued by the state, not by a church.
Many, many weddings do take place as strictly civil services with no religious component or officiant. My writing/producing partner Charlton Pettus is an atheist, and has a license to officiate marriages. My manager Arlene and her husband were married by a judge. The bottom line is that you don't need any religion's blessing to be legally married in this country.
Having said that: if a given church doesn't want to sanction gay marriage, that's fine by me. As the U.S. also enjoys freedom of religion, no law should force a church to perform marriages that go against its beliefs.
Just don't tell consenting adults who don't share those beliefs that they cannot wed and enjoy the attendant legal protections and benefits of marriage.
As always, I welcome your comments in response, asking only that you treat others' opinions with the same respect you'd like your own to be given.
Peace and love for all,
Papa S.