A wedding is one of the most popular and revered fixtures of modern
culture. Children, particularly girls, are led to romanticize it.
Television shows build whole ratings-grabbing boosts around their
fictional renditions of it. Weddings are loved, they are hated, they are
dreamed about, they are dreaded. They can be magical and they can be
disasters. Whatever they are . . . people remember their own wedding
day, good or bad, their whole lives long. They are an important
milestone for everyone who has one, and they should be treasured.
Recently, I have been asked to officiate at two weddings. The couples
who asked, one opposite gender and one same gender, are both very close
to my heart. I am honored and humbled by their requests and take them
very seriously. I have been asked to have a voice in the most cherished
moments of these friends’ lives, and I will do everything in my power to
perform at the level they deserve. These invitations have given me a
moment to ponder about people who, when they are asked to become
involved in these sacred events, use the requests as a platform to
express bigotry instead.
There is a disclaimer at the end of many movies where woodland
creatures appear to be ravaged: “No animals were harmed in the making of
this movie.” The illusion that there might be such harm was at the whim
of the storytellers, and it is their final intention to let you know
that they were fibbing for the sake of drama.
There should be a similar disclaimer at the end of same-sex wedding
events: “No Christian principles were violated in the union of these
people.” Those are the facts. The people in this case who would have you
believe otherwise are not storytelling filmmakers, they are some of the
bakers, dressmakers, florists, and venue managers in the wedding
industry. They want you to believe that somehow supporting two people
making a lifetime commitment is a violation of their own “religious
freedom.” This is one of the biggest illusionary shell games in public
discourse today.
Almost to the case, these offending vendors have demonstrated a
complete lack of scruples in any other way toward the very principles
they claim to uphold. While they deny service to LGBT couples wishing to
marry, they appear to have no problem in ignoring anything else that
would fly in the face of biblical standards. Oregon’s Sweet Cakes by
Melissa, which shut its doors this week, showed they would marry pretty
much anyone and anything, including even animals, but absolutely no LGBT
couples. Aaron Klein claims that those speaking out against his
discrimination used “militant, mean-spirited Mafia-style tactics” to
shut them down. “I just did not want to be part of her marriage,” he
stated, referring to one of the brides he to whom he declined service.
What are the standards at play in his statement? Dishonesty—there is no
evidence of “Mafia” or any other illegal tactics being used.
Hypocracy—the Kleins want freedom of speech, but do not want those who
react to their behavior to enjoy the same freedoms (or to have a choice
as to where they spend their money). Delusion—the bride asked him to
provide a service for her wedding, I don’t mean to speak for her, but I
am positive that she had no intention of having him in her marriage at all.
Let’s look at that Washington florist. She also lacked moral
standards. She had no problem flowering the romance and intimacy of two
gay men, which should have been the core of her misguided religious
complaint, but then pulled back when the two were ready to declare
lifelong allegiance to each other (that is, marry), which actually is
supported by the Bible.
I personally did my own digging in one of these cases to see if an
Iowa venue, the Gortz Haus Gallery, which rejected the union of two men,
would hold the same scrutiny over a celebration of another non-opposite
gender union: the “marriage” of two corporations. I sent in the
request and described an event of a ceremony and reception to be
celebrated by two unifying nameless corporate teams. The details
mirrored and almost mocked the traditional wedding set up. Would Gortz
Haus care whether the companies were ethical and moral? Would they care
if there was love involved or pure opportunism? Would they care about
anything other than the fact that Gortz Haus was being offered money to
hold the event?
They did not. Betty Odgaard of Gortz Haus Gallery eagerly bid on my
proposed event without a single inquiry into the ethical or
philosophical standing of either entity in the union. She stated,
welcomingly, “By managing setting arrangements and timing, we have had
very good success in similar situations.”
Standing up for Christian principles in general is obviously not the
motivator for any of these people; taking a stance against LGBT people
is. Even with the most outlandishly anti-gay interpretation of the
Bible, not one Bible verse implies that it is wrong to provide services
for two people standing up to articulate their love and promises toward
each other. Not one.
In fact, there are many references that support doing so: the
commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self; the commitment and
love declared by David and Jonathan; the golden rule; the fact that
Jesus himself was a de facto wedding event contributor when he turned
water into wine (without making a judgment on the wedding party for whom
his service had been performed).
As for the concept of “religious freedom ,” it presents its own
unique problematic dichotomy. How can one person’s “religious freedom”
be granted at the expense of someone else’s? The existence of multiple
“religious freedoms” that are mutually exclusive of one another cannot
exist. The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with this concept in 1878
(Reynolds v. United States), when it was presented with the case for
bigamy on the part of the Mormon Church. The Court rejected the
“religious freedom” argument, citing the “slippery slope” ramification
to unfettered “religious freedom,” which could ultimately force, for
example, the legalization of religiously sanctioned human sacrifice by
those who believed that God mandated it.
While no one in our modern society is suggesting that people lose
their physical lives over “religious freedom ,” those who wrap their
bigotry up in this phrase are essentially condemning LGBT couples to the
loss of their emotional life. These naysayers would sacrifice
the happiness, hopes, security, honor, and dignity of the lives of
people in their community purely on the basis of their own personal,
albeit inconsistent, belief system. They advocate that others should
lose their life well-being in a sacrifice to their own particular belief
in God.
This is not religious freedom. It is not principled. These people are
running scared from the fact that the world around them has changed.
Recently, the New Mexico State Supreme Court ruled that these bigots can
express whatever they think and feel, and that they can believe as they
wish. They can hang a sign. They can run advertising. What they cannot
do is deny prejudicial service and interfere in the loves of others.
However, to achieve a greater sense of true Christian love, our
courts, churches, and people must now discard the “conventional wisdom”
of decades past and drop these baseless prejudices.
That does not take public aggrandizing and self-victimization. What it takes is guts.
No comments:
Post a Comment