Eric the Red

Every now and then, I get these email messages from the Alliance for Marriage. These emails are about gay marriage. Recall, I wrote about this topic months ago from an equality point of view. BoiFromTroy has a whole category on it. The tone of the debate surrouding the issue is what I would call theological.

While Bush says we need to defend the “sanctity of marriage“, I ask why are we passing constitutional amendments to defend the sanctity of a largely economic institution? Sure, we have the whole “love” thing, but should the government get involved in determining who loves who? What if politicians decide to extend religious principles into other aspects of our lives?

Lets look at some examples:

• In Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism is eroding the rights of women in academia and many were killed since the invasion. It seems that under Sharia law, womens rights erode mens rights
• Islamic theocrats in Iran have prevented women from dressing, working, traveling or choosing spouses freely. Honor killings due to “unchaste” behavior are common.
• In Afghanistan, the Taliban regularly amputated the limbs of criminals and dissidents.
• Fred Phelps routinely demonstrates at military funerals, an activity for which his family is currently being sued. Phelps preaches that the United States is under attack because it is tolerant of homosexuals.

If an Islamic leader were voted into office in 2008 and attempted to institute Sharia law in order to defend the sanctity of mens rights, or defend the sanctity of women, what would we say? What if Fred Phelps was voted into office and decided to institute the laws of Leviticus, so that we can defend the sanctity of cloth made of only one thread?

The bottom line is that the government can not and should not try to defend that sanctity of anything. When you remove the religious interests in marriage, what is there to attack? And while we are at it, how does a same-sex marriage attack anything, other than the Old Testament?

I would challenge anyone with an interest in the Federal Marriage Amendment to explain to me how same-sex marriages threaten any other couples. Instead, I’ll get the usual barrage of hate mail. What the gay community needs is a loudspeaker, to frame it as an issue of conflicting principles.