Paint-By-Numbers - Politics and Religion

Just a bit of a rambling trail of thoughts today. It was intended to be brief rather than any in-depth philosophical analysis, but it seems (having penned this introduction after the rest was written) the flood gates were opened. No doubt some will agree, while others will froth at the mouth. Others will shrug and not give a monkey's. Further to this, it's based on my own understanding of matters that include US law. Given that I'm not yet educated in such matters it may be easy for those who are to pick large holes in certain particulars of legislation. Feel free to illuminate me further in the comments section. And so to the ramble:

The United States of America was, in essence, founded on the principles that allow freedom of religion and indeed to be free from religion. The state should not adopt or show preference toward any religious slant. Jefferson clarified his thoughts further in letters to a church, outlining the meaning of the 1st amendment of the constitution, in effect stating that it builds a wall of separation between the state and the church.

With this in mind we can therefore see that laws, rights, freedoms and the people they protect should be free of biblical rhetoric, and the impositions made by any given faith upon its believers. Some laws will naturally reflect biblical teachings simply because they have become common values of many over centuries or millennia, or indeed because the teachings are reflected in pretty much every society of every faith, and indeed secular societies. In general, Mankind abhors the taking of life, forcing sex upon another, taking possessions without permission, and so on - albeit to varying degrees of course. However it is clear that rules by which a people who have faith in a god and scripture of their choosing are free to practice, and that their faith can not be imposed upon others by way of the state.

Further to this particular area, I do wonder how those who use religious grounds to argue against certain legal equalities and protections reconcile themselves with various other allowances or restrictions of civil and constitutional law that contradict biblical law. For example, divorce, slavery, polygamy, and so on. Why the particular focus on homosexuality when other things considered abhorent are tolerated or even enjoyed, and other allowances are now taboo?

The reasons used to argue against the rights of homosexuals to be equal in all parts of law to heterosexuals are, at least as I understand them, either biblical or claims that homosexuality is not natural. With the previous two paragraphs in mind we should at this point set aside the arguments of those who use religious dogma as the underpinning of their argument, as the state should not favour or adopt any religion. And so if we consider only the claim that it is not a natural occurrence as reason for discriminating in law against those who live their lives attracted to, loving, and living with others of the same gender, we must consider nature. There are over 1500 species in which same-sex courtship behaviour, and mating, have been observed. Fewer have been studied in detail as much of the research is relatively recent, but all the same these relationships occur in nature. Not only that, it has to be considered that we as a species are a part of nature, and therefore if a behaviour occurs among humankind then it is by default 'natural'.

So, therefore, the discrimination in law that prevents same-sex couples from being unified in a legal sense in a permanent legal relationship, recognised as equal to those enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, is unconstitutional. The relationship can not be discriminated against on religious grounds. The relationship can not be discriminated against on scientific grounds.

I appreciate that a religious organisation such as a church can not be made to recognise a relationship their own codes and laws declare to be forbidden, so I'm not suggesting that they should be forced to allow same-sex couples to have a wedding ceremony using their buildings or ceremonial traditions - that is an internal debate for those organisations to have for themselves.

However, it must surely be recognised that the right to civil union of a homosexual couple can not be denied, and that all the legal benefits (tax, insurance, recognition in wills and probate, and so on) afforded to opposite-sex couples should be afforded to their same-sex counterparts. To do otherwise is unconstitutional.

As for the argument over what such unions should be called, this is surely just semantics. Language changes and adapts to purpose. Words in common use can not be given some sort of protection, or rights of use, or any other treatment that benefits some sort of dogmatic claim of sovereignty over them.

The definition "marriage" might be set out by the "Defense of Marriage Act" of 1996 (which in itself must surely by the above arguments be considered unconstitutional), but it does not specify that couples of the same sex can not be unified in a civil partnership which affords equal status to marriage.

So painting by numbers, and following some sort of mental flow-chart, there can surely be no other argument than that which tears down the discrimination against homosexuals that is set in US law.

Of course it's not that simple. At least not while faith-based lobby groups are permitted to operate in Washington, and while people choose to mark their ballot papers in accordance to which church a candidate professes to attend, and those candidates compete to prove they are more religiously devout than their opponent. Tub-thumping partisan television and radio media corporations in the US don't particularly help matters.

So, what can possibly be the answer? A root and branch return to the principles of politics according to the founding concepts of the newly independent nation and those great thinkers and the men who inspired them. Jefferson and Locke. Flawed men no doubt and of course they were men of their time, but many of their ideas were and are timeless. A nation should be governed, with the consent of the people, by people who operate with a free mind, and are not inhibited by the pulpit.