"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible also contains books which teach love and tolerance, such as Matthew 7:12 which teaches us Jesus' golden rule of doing onto others are we would have done to ourselves, John 13:34 in which a new commandment is given to us to love one another as Christ himself loved us, Luke 6:37 where those who would condemn another are said to be condemned themselves and even Leviticus 19:18 contains a message of love not hate:
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."
So why then do people turn to the Bible to justify their distaste for Gay Marriage? It seems very counter intuitive to me to use religion here. As I said I grew up in a Roman Catholic household. I was blessed with a mother, father and family that taught me the right way to look at religion - as a personal opinion which you should not try to put onto others.
My upbringing as a Roman Catholic though means I am more inclined to understanding the world in a Roman Catholic way. I look at marriage as being between a man and wife. I look at abortion as a denial of life - would I ever argue against these things though?
Never.
I would not let my own religious views cloud the judgement and reason given to me by God.
There are very real reasons to have legal abortions and the history of UK abortion law is filled with reminders that it is to protect the health of women. Any sane and rational person should understand this. More over as a man I do not feel I have the right to dictate on this issue what a woman can and cannot do simply because my Roman Catholic morals disagree with her choice.
Gay Marriage may not seem quite as cut and dry but in reality it is. Civil Partnership was seen as a great and historic step forward when introduced by the Labour Party but in reality it often left couples feeling they were in a second class relationship. This may not have been a deliberate effect of the Blair Government's decision but regardless it is what a lot of people felt and the case against allowing gay marriages revolved around the definition of just a single word.
Marriage.
People rightly took the view that marriage, in a religious context, is between a man and a woman. I doubt anyone would say that we should force churches to change that definition.
I would argue though that in the case of civil marriage in the eyes of the state there should be no interference. People should be free to decide for themselves what constitutes a marriage and the state should solemnise it. After all the state does not have moral duties. It is not a church nor an arbitrator of opinion. The state is there to provide services and protection in exchange for taxes.
When I married my former partner I was having the marriage in the eyes of God at a Church, even still I paid a levy to the state. It is not referenced as being so but it is a marriage tax. As such the people of this country - all the people - should be free to pay to the state their marriage tax in exchange for the right to marry whomever they choose. As a libertarian I would even go so far as to say polygamous marriage should be allowed on those same grounds (provided all intended partners understand and agree).
Religiously I may disagree with it, but I don't think that matters because as I said before my religion does not define my politics and if the decision causes no physical harm to another person, then I see no reason to prevent people who love one another from sharing in that special bond of marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment