Couching anti-gay bias in the language of civil rights does not make it right
November 24, 2009 8:10 pm ET by Jeremy Holden
Leave it to Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter to equate the denial of civil rights to the civil rights movement. There they were on The O'Reilly Factor last night, discussing the "call of Christian conscience" known as the Manhattan Declaration, which O'Reilly described as "a document that encourages religious Americans to fight back, and in some cases even break the law." Coulter explained:
COULTER: The civil disobedience parts of it are pretty narrow. It's for saying that we won't participate as doctors, nurses, hospitals, in euthanasia, in abortion. Churches won't participate in same-sex marriage or -- or in denouncing, condemning homosexuality in the practice of their faith.
And just like that, Coulter put organized efforts to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians on par with black civil rights pioneers who used civil disobedience to expand their rights. The "civil disobedience" of churches that "won't participate in same-sex marriage" becomes elevated to a perch next to activists who refused to adhere to Jim Crow's separate-but-equal charade. Of course the distinction here is that Jim Crow laws were very real, and very brutally enforced. Coulter offers no evidence of a single church that would be required to bless or in any way recognize a single gay marriage.
Think about it for a moment. Coulter and her enabler O'Reilly would have you believe that in a nation where 78 percent of the citizens are Christians, it is Christians who need to engage in acts of civil disobedience for protection from laws passed by overwhelmingly Christian lawmakers. At what point does the notion of civil disobedience get turned on its head?
But the discussion masks a more sinister element of the manifesto: its effort to smear gay couples, since "the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same-sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships."
At that point, can state-sanctioned marriage to goats and dolphins be far behind?
I always seem to be amazed at this same sex marriage argument about a church performing the ceremony. They always want to muddy the waters by bringing a church into the argument.
As far as I know, none of the court ordered, nor legislated same sex marriage laws require any church to perform the ceremony. I believe that the laws only pertain to a civil marriage ceremony, like one done by a mayor of a city.
I could care less whether the Catholic Church does not perform a same sex marriage ceremony or even recognize the validity of the marriage. I'm sure the Catholic Church doesn't recognize my marriage because it was performed by the mayor of my small town 26 years ago.
Are you a Catholic? If you are, then no, the Church does not recognize a civil marriage, however, if you decide to have your civil marriage blessed by the Church, they will recognize the marriage from its original date. All children would be recognized as legitimate. I was married by a forward thinking Rabbi 26 years ago, and then decided to have the marriage blessed by the Church some 6 years later. A civil union makes getting a Church annulment easier, since there was never a sacramental marriage to begin with. (Now, I would have a much harder time IF I wanted to dump the old guy for someone else.)