Category Archives: same-sex marriage

Majority Of US Catholics Support Marriage Equality

Posted on by
Reply

This news should not really be so surprising, should it? The US population is continuing to (slowly) grow more accepting of the rights of its citizens. Despite apparent backtracking in some places (states moving to restrict a woman’s right to choose and access to birth-control, a few states—including my own—passing measures opposing same-sex marriage instead of recognizing it), we are, as a group, moving forward.

And it would have been nice if this weren’t even an issue (when I was a child, I had no idea that same-sex marriages weren’t legally recognized), but it’s better late than never. It’s nice to see that American Catholics are taking the lead among US Christians. Which, if I lived in a purely theoretical world, would be surprising.

Thinking about things theoretically (and ignoring my life experience), I know that I would expect Protestant Christians to be more in favor of same-sex marriage than their Catholic counterparts. Roman Catholics get their . . . let’s call them “policy updates” . . . from the Vatican, and the Church has shown no ambiguity in their disapproval of marriage equality. They are not only opposed to same-sex marriages within their own institution, but to legally recognized same-sex marriage between non-Catholics, within other religious traditions or entirely secular.

The Vatican sets policy for Catholics worldwide and, one might think, all actual Catholics would abide by that. But we know that that is not the case. The Vatican is also opposed to almost all forms of birth-control. Meanwhile, a survey of US Catholics found that eighty-two percent of them believe that the use of birth-control is morally acceptable. The Catholics who have Weasley levels of children, and it is not intentional? Or the Catholics who “lapse” just enough to have premarital sex but who balk at using condoms? They’re the exceptions, not the norm.

That’s showing itself to be the case for marriage equality, and I am delighted. Perhaps it is because Catholics are more populous in urban areas of the US, where attitudes are generally more liberal (it’s not always as easy to label a minority group as scary or immoral when you live around a bunch of them and know it).

I am excited for a better future. Also, impatient for it. Let’s get everyone on board with marriage equality as soon as we can, okay?



You Might Also Like ...

Superman: Not Having Orson Scott Card’s Anti-Gay Nonsense

Posted on by
Reply

This story, about Orson Scott Card signing on with DC Comics to be a recurring guest writer for a Superman comics series, was one of those posts that I kept putting off writing because I was sure that the story was going to develop. When it first struck my interest, it was just that many comic book stores were planning to boycott that specific title. Later, I read that the series lost its artist over the controversy. More recently, DC announced that it had put the project on hold.

This is good news.

I should explain, in case you’re wondering: “Who is Orson Scott Card?” or, better yet: “Wasn’t he that nice man who wrote Ender’s Game?”

Orson Scott Card is a writer. I really enjoyed reading Ender’s Game—as a ten-year-old, it was nice to read a book about a young, intelligent protagonist. The writer had clearly put a lot of thought into how young, highly intelligent children thought.

OSC is also a Mormon, and well-known for his strong anti-gay political views. Now, I once read an article suggesting that no one should avoid OSC’s work for his political commentary and activism, because he is a Mormon, and that opposition to gay rights (including marriage equality) has long been a part of LDS policy. Basically, the writer (of an article which I read years ago and was unable to relocate) said: “His religion is anti-gay, so if you’re going to avoid him for sharing that view, you should avoid everyone of his religion, which would be impractical.”

Guys, that’s nonsense. For one thing, I’ve had Mormon friends who are totally fine with gay rights, and who support marriage equality. Similarly, I’ve had Catholic friends whose views on gays and gay marriage are totally at odds with the Vatican’s (and they’re not isolated exceptions—more than half of US Catholics support the legalization of same-sex marriage).

There is a difference between being a part of an organized religion and holding all of the same beliefs—particularly social and political beliefs. There is also a difference between holding a belief and being a vocal commentator on the subject. Now, if you do hold a belief (such as a stance regarding marriage equality) and use whatever status or spotlight that you acquire to speak on it, do not be surprised if your views impact your financial ventures.

Personally, I’d rather watch five of my dollars burn than give a business like Chick-fil-A one red cent. That’s my right and my choice. I no longer purchase anything from Papa John’s or Domino’s because of their oppositions to Obamacare (narrowing all of my non-grocery store pizza purchases to Pizza Hut). I do not give money to the Boy Scouts and I will not make any purchase that might lead to Orson Scott Card making a profit.

While OSC has always been wrong, morally, on the issue of gay rights, the tide of public opinion in the US is now turning against him. A DC Comics project shelved because his involvement was too controversial. Enders Game is getting a theatrical release, but some of the film’s producers do not want OSC involved in the film’s promotion, concerned that his involvement would be the touch of death to ticket sales.

I know that, no matter how much I loved the novel a decade and a half ago, I will certainly not be seeing the film—until it becomes available for me to view, for free.

Thank you, DC Comics, for putting your OSC project on hold. Let’s keep it that way. I have no doubt that Superman would approve.



You Might Also Like ...

What Is Up With The Pope Lately?

Posted on by
1

If you’ve read anything about the pope recently, you have probably read about him talking about same-sex marriage. He talks about it a lot. And at weird times. The pope is using just about every major speaking opportunity to emphasize his opposition to same-sex marriage. And, while I know that that’s his position, it’s weirding me out.

What’s strange to me is not that the pope’s stance is exclusively for opposite-sex marriage. The Catholic church, which has survived for over 1,500 years, has historically been slow to change its views but it has changed them. It will change them again, over the next century or so, if it intends to survive as an institution (which will be interesting to watch, either way). In 2113, will we see a female pope, married priests, and same-sex marriages performed with the blessing of the Vatican? Possibly. I doubt that it will be that soon. But, since I intend to live forever and the science for it seems almost within reach, it should happen in my lifetime.

So, I get it. Right now, the Catholic Church is opposed to marriage equality, and they do not care for the trend in parts of the US and Europe of same-sex couples receiving rights and privileges just like heterosexual couples.

What I do not understand is why Pope Benedict seems determined to bring it up at every occasion, particularly when there are much more pressing issues (school shootings and other instances of gun violence, anyone?) that he might be addressing. Like, does he know that it makes many people who otherwise like him uncomfortable (there are plenty of anti-choice people who support gay rights). Is he just pulling a Kathy Griffin and bringing up what he’s been advised against mentioning because it’s entertaining to him?

I’m going to go with no. I think that he is trying to double-down on his position. Which I understand—supporting your ideals, even when they’re the worst, makes sense. Practically speaking, it’s not doing Catholicism any favors in the long-run. And while he makes ridiculous comparisons (same-sex marriage “deceives human nature” and other statements), they’re consistent with the Vatican position on the topic.

It’s unfortunate for a lot of reasons, but we can all take comfort in the fact that he’s not just on the wrong side of history on this—he’s on the losing side. Latino voters within the US, the majority of whom are Catholic, voted for Obama and support same-sex marriage. Europe, where Catholicism is even more prevalent, is pushing forward with marriage equality, nation after nation.

Eventually, when the dust settles and marriage equality here to stay in the West (the Middle-East and Africa, in particular, are going to take a while), we can expect to hear about it less from the Vatican. Until then, expect a lot more of the pope’s public addresses to label female reproductive autonomy a “threat to world peace” and marriage equality as a “lie.”



You Might Also Like ...

Thousands Of Years Of Selective History

Posted on by
Reply

photo of same sex marriage pictures
In various conservative political speeches on the subject of same-sex marriage, politicians, pundits, and pastors talk about the “three-thousand” or “five-thousand” years of history during which the definition of marriage has universally been a union between men and women, and for the purposes of reproducing and raising a family.

This is . . . not true. And honestly, this is going to be a fairly short post, because I do not want to just regurgitate information from this Wikipedia entry. It is a very interesting read.

But, generally, marriage has included same-sex marriages and other legal unions for same-sex couples for millennia. We all knew that homosexuality is older than the human species, and certainly not a recent thing. It was only a few years ago that I learned that same-sex marriages were not just in keeping with the spirit of a number of ancient cultures, but things that took place in an official capacity in a few, including Ancient Rome.

And not without debate. But same-sex marriage has been controversial in a lot of cultures over a long period of time. So have things like women having rights and pushes to end slavery, so that is really not a good argument against same-sex marriage.

Efforts to criminalize same-sex relations and same-sex marriage are not new, either. In 342 CE, not long after Christianity had first come to power in the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans outlawed same-sex marriage. While the power to do so would be the envy of many conservative groups nowadays, no mainstream opponents of marriage equality in the modern world is pushing for the other provision that the Theodosian Code imposed—anyone who was married to a member of the same sex was to be executed. Kind of the opposite of “grandfathering” someone into a law. And, obviously, horrible.

Claims that the historical definition of marriage have universally been in support of it being a purely heterosexual institution are incorrect, but it is important to remember that it is also a deeply flawed argument. Historically, marriage was often an economic or political arrangement (dowries and royal marriages, anyone?), and it was not uncommon for the unreasonably young women involved to be treated like property. They were, after all, bought and traded like property in the process of “choosing the right husband for them” in many cultures and communities.

More importantly, the fact that something has or has not always been done in a certain way is not an argument for or against anything. Particularly when it comes to human rights. The world was always terrible; it is our job as humans to improve it. And that means recognizing the rights of ourselves and our fellow citizens.



You Might Also Like ...