A Marriage Between Church and State?

Like just about every other social justice issue, it seems that the issue of gay marriage and gay rights has become a political one. It is, of course, disappointing, to say the least, when issues of social justice become politically polarized, because it automatically means they can’t be viewed objectively. Just as the GOP seems to be opposed to practically every pro-environmental piece of legislation that comes to vote (not to mention that they are staunch advocates of a lot of anti-environmental legislation), the issue of gay rights is similarly polarized by political party lines. However, unlike the former, the ethics of the anti-gay rights argument is founded not in logic, nor science, nor even economic interest, but rather in religious texts, traditions and beliefs.

I am infuriated that this continues to entertain this debate in the legislature becaus from the ethical argument that everyone should be treated equally under the law and by his/her peers, it conflicts with founding ideologies of our nation. The ideology I want to focus on is an idea inherent in the First Amendment. Though not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights – but rather quoted from a letter written by then President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 regarding the function of the First Amendment – we believe in a “wall of separation between church and state.” Almost a century and a half later this ideology was upheld in court when a 1947 Supreme Court ruling (Everson v. Board of Education) held that a separation of church and state means “that there should be virtually no contact between religious ideas and government activity.” But 200 years after Jefferson’s explanation and over 60 years since the Supreme Court case, we’re still fighting to keep religious ideas out of legislation.

With regard to fight to legalize gay marriage, I have yet to find someone whose opinion against this legalization is not grounded in (Judeo-Christian) religious belief and, as I’m sure you’ve heard before, this belief is grounded in one verse: Leviticus 18:22, which is typically understood to denounce homosexual acts in some way, shape or form. Before this blog post I would have, without hesitation, told you that it explicitly denounces a male from sleeping with another male and would have made the argument that this is ridiculous because we merely need to look at male and female anatomy to acknowledge that this is, indeed, impossible. But after doing a little scooping around, I fell upon a webpage (Religioustolerance.org) with different interpretations of Leviticus 18:22. I’m now beginning to think, “It’s no wonder people are using this verse as an attack against gay marriage legislation because some of these translations are ‘interpretation[s] that most closely reinforce…initial biases about the Bible and homosexual behavior.’” Translations of this verse range from “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman: it is [an] abomination” (English Standard Version) to “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin” (Living Bible). The latter, of course, translates a preconceived notion of morality, as the Living Bible translation extends the phraseology also to condemn sex between two women, whereas the first makes no mention of women’s sexual exploits. Now I’m no biblical expert, but I know enough Hebrew to know that these two translations absolutely cannot originate from the same text. Which brings me to this point: if, for a moment, we ignore our ideology that bars religious ideas in government activity, if we can’t even decide how properly to translate this verse – if we don’t even understand what it’s trying to tell us – how can we validate it as an argument against legalizing gay marriage?

If we run with this argument – that the Torah (Old Testament) forbids homosexuality in some way, shape or form, therefore we should write this into law – why do we only choose to continue to try to enforce this one verse? Our religious morals certainly do not pertain only to the issue of homosexuality. As a society, we look down upon, if not condemn, adultery, though I doubt you’d find many supporters for the ancient law that reads “the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” [sic] (Leviticus 20:10, King James translation). Or for dealing with a difficult teenager, I doubt you’d find many who think this law is just: “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother…then shall his father…bring him out unto the elders of his city…And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, King James translation). If, in agreeing that many of these laws are outdated, to say the least, and border on ‘cruel and unusual,’ why do we still maintain that ancient laws about homosexuality pertain to modern society any more than ancient laws about justice for unruly sons or unfaithful spouses?

I am Conservative Jewish and my experience has lent me to believe that I am more observant than most of my Conservative peers (note: Conservative here means Conservative Jews), yet I don’t believe in applying ancient law to a society that is so vastly different in practically every way from ancient times. Is this text that speaks out against men lying with other men in my religious history? Yes, but that does not mean I want to see this translated into law.

The First Amendment protects my right to freely exercise my own religion and my own religious beliefs and my right to be protected from “an establishment of religion.” I think I’ve made it clear that the way I interpret this ancient text is very different from the way others interpret it. I don’t believe – with regard to the Constitution or otherwise – that another’s religious beliefs should be forced on my lifestyle or anyone else’s. If you don’t believe in the institution of gay marriage then my advice is simple: don’t marry someone of the same sex. But don’t tell me that just because your religious preachings tell you not to marry someone of the same sex means that your belief should legally apply to everyone, regardless of their own religious ideologies.

As it stands, we live in a country that, historically at least, believes that religious doctrine should not be translated to law. Unless a logical argument, independent of religious bias, can be made, the arguments against legalizing gay marriage should be voided and the issue kicked out of Congress and off the ballots, because I don’t want to live in a state –or a country for that matter – that thinks religious ideas should be made into secular law, even if the decision is determined democratically.

Hands.

[Author’s note: This was written in response to a conversation I had the other day with a friend about the hand-holding sit in the LGBT center held last year in response to on-campus hatred toward same-sex couples holding hands..]

Last night in fleeting passion

Our hands, like two strangers, met.

And like lips in most ardent prayer, held fast.

In the shadows of your room

My hands were free to study yours.

Intertwined. And inseparable.

But today you are cold.

Your hand still beside you

Enclosed in shadows,

And studied in secrets;

Longing to find warmth in the comfort of a touch.

Relaying the sweet nothings we long to speak

Our hands brush briefly as we part

For our lips cannot.

On Equality

Equality. With Amendment 1 looming ever closer and the MLK commemoration ceremony last week , the issue of equality has been at the forefront of my mind. What does it mean to live in a country of equality? It seems to me that many of the arguments of equity revolve around the law. And despite the fact that winning equal rights has always been a struggle, perhaps guaranteeing a constitutional right before the law is the easier battle to win.

When we look at the major rights revolutions of the last half century we can benchmark progress: the Civil Rights Movement ended segregation and the Women’s Rights Movement of the 1970s gave rise to such laws at Title IX and the Equal Pay Act. But we are still fighting for that equality today. Nearly 35 years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. professed his dream that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” a CBS/New York Times poll taken before the 2008 presidential election showed that 24% of the country was not ready to elect a black president and that “five percent of white voters acknowledge[d] that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.” It goes without saying that equality is not merely defined in its legal sense.

The fight for LGBT rights is no different. It is not merely a fight for legal equity: for removing the façade that marriage is a heterosexual privilege, for allowing gay couples to raise children, for fighting politicians to cease writing into law that same-sex couples are second-class citizens. At its core I believe that the LGBT Rights Movement is a fight to end the perception of a heteronormative world.

Heteronormative: “of, designating, or based on a world view which regards gender roles as fixed to biological sex and heterosexuality as the normal and preferred sexual orientation” (OED). This definition is accurate, but limited. Let me expand:

Heteronormative: that LGBT individuals both feel the need and are expected to come out; that LGBT individuals face discrimination and rejection not only in the workplace, but in their homes; that “gay” is an insult used in the school yard; that “gay” is used as a synonym for “stupid”; that religious community leaders feel that they cannot marry two people of the same sex, who love each other, for fear of losing his job, even though he lives in a state where gay marriage is legal; that “gay marriage” is not simply “marriage”; that people make a bigger deal about gender reassignment surgery than they do about any other corrective surgery; that people use sexual orientation as a description of one’s character only when the person in question is gay or lesbian; that all love is not equal in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of men.

Well I, too, have a dream: that one day we will live in a country of true equality. That we will cease to live in a heteronormative world and embrace a “normative” world: where people will describe someone as “straight” as often as they describe someone as “gay”; where people will not use sexual orientation as a place mark for the content of one’s character; where straight individuals will be expected to come out; where no one will be expected to come out; where children can bring home the person of their choosing without making a big deal of it; where being called “gay” is considered no more an insult than being called “straight”; where neither sexual orientation nor gender inhibit one’s ability to find work or to find acceptance; where all individuals have the freedom to marry the person they love and are not only recognized, but accepted by their governments and by their neighbors; where LOVE = LOVE.

I have this dream today.

An Age of Tolerance?

Earlier this week we went to a family friend’s 80^th birthday party. My grandmother is best friends with the birthday boy and his wife, my mom grew up with the kids (who are all in their 50s) and I practically grew up with the grandkids. They are lovely people and we try to see them every few years, even though it means putting up with the man I am labeling “The Antagonist,” the husband of one the “kids." The Antagonist is one of those ridiculously avid Republicans who likes to let you know his opinions, no matter how offensive they are.

At this party I went over to The Antagonist's table to talk to his daughter (a friend of mine). My mother walked over at some point and he felt the urge to try to annoy us (we’re both very liberal). He said (admittedly with jovial kindness), “Liberals and abortionists are the source of all evil in the world.” Verbatim. He went on for a while saying equally ridiculous rubbish. Fortunately we left before he had the chance to say anything about the LGBT community.

Do you ever have instance where you pretend to have a conversation with someone and you come up with really witty answers that you wish you could have said out loud? Well I do. And this guy got me thinking: what would I have responded if his next sentence had been: “Gays are (also) the source of all evil in the world.” (I would like to note that I do not mean to put words in this guy’s mouth or ideas in this man’s head nor I do not actually know his opinion about the LGBT community, and I would very much like to assume he doesn’t have a negative one. He was merely my springboard for this post.)

Gays are the source of all evil? That’s funny because for most of our history, certainly throughout the Westernized world, Jews were thought to the source of all evil. (Note: Both The Antagonist and I are Jews.) In ancient times the Romans went on crusades to suppress the Jews; in the Renaissance and the Middle Ages the Jews were exiled from several European countries (most famously in the Spanish Inquisition in which Jews could either convert to Catholicism or leave the country); and most recently in the Holocaust. All because they were different: they believed in one God; they were not Christians; they were not “Arian.” For the better part of two millennia, the Jews have been hated. And then what happened? People stopped hating the Jews. I don’t mean to say that anti-semitism is not still rampant in certain parts of the world; I do mean that in a lot of the Westernized world people have stopped thinking that practicing a different religion means you belong to a different species. It’s as much “ok” to be Jewish as it is to be Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc.

I could go on giving these examples. Need we examine the history of blacks in the Americas? (For the sake of the length of this post, I am not going to delve into details, but you get where I’m going.)

What make the LGBT community any different? For too long both blacks and Jews were hated because of who they were. These were things that people could not change about themselves (note: I understand that one’s religion is more flexible than the color of one’s skin.) Now, at least in the parts of the world I have been, it is taboo to be racist against blacks and against Jews, but for some reason not against gays and lesbians and transgenders etc.

To me, it seems like the LGBT community is experiencing now what Jews and blacks were experiencing centuries and decades ago: either being asked to suppress who they are or being treated like second class citizens because of who they are.

I do not need to tell all of you that only 8 places in the US have legalized gay marriage and that only 6 more recognize same-sex domestic partnerships or civil unions. I do not need to tell you about Amendment 1. I do not need to tell you that even though transgenderism and transexuality are medically recognized conditions and that there are specialized psychologists and surgeons to help with transition, most insurance companies will not pay for gender reassignment surgery (the surgery itself averaging about $17,000, not to mention the additional costs for hormone therapy, doctors visits and therapy). I do not to tell you that even in states that legally recognize same-sex marriage, many religious institutions still refuse to hold service (for example, my congregation in New York will not hold a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples, mostly because many of the members object so the Rabbi feels his hands are tied). I do not need to tell you that being gay or lesbian or transgender has no more an effect on the quality of one’s character than does being straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, white, black, yellow or red. I do not need to tell you that in an age of tolerance it is unjust that our society continues to accept intolerance towards sexuality. I do not doubt that centuries (or even hopefully decades [or really hopefully much sooner]) down the road people will look back at our society's intolerance toward the LGBT community and view it with as much disdain as we look upon segregation and religious and ethnic intolerance. In such a relatively tolernt age, the LGBT community should not have to wait that long to receive the kind of acceptance (and legal rights) that Jews and blacks have received. Although, I know I didn’t have to tell that to you that either.

Community

[Editor's note: Please welcome our newest blogger, Jessye!]

Two interests have been constant in my life: environmental activism and issues surrounding the LGBTQ community. Though my studies (and most of my extracurricular work) is comprised of environmentally-related things, my interest in the LGBTQ community and equality issues never wavered. Though in middle school there was no GSA for me to join, when I entered high school the two clubs I signed up for were the Environmental Club and the GSA. When I was looking for colleges, two of my top priorities were that the school have a strong academic environmental program and an active LGBT community. The influences for why I am interested in environmental issues (the music I grew up to, my middle school's environmental club, etc) are abundantly clear, though my interest in LGBTQ issues are less so.

This summer my mom asked why I think I am so interested in being part of the LGBT community. I couldn't answer her. I was able to tell her why I care about LGBT equality issues--marriage equality, same-sex/domestic partner benefits, etc.--(because it is an issue of human rights), but not what makes me want to be involved with the larger community.

The question puzzled me and I meditated on it for a few weeks. The answer finally came to me when I was walking home from an LGBTQA religious service at the JCC near where I was living. The LGBTQA service was composed of about 20 couples, most of whom were in their 50s. The week I attended was a special one as the community was celebrating one couple's 20th anniversary. Outside of pride parades, it was the first time I'd really been in an environment where there were gay couples well over the drinking age. After the service, all the couples were mingling and eating and sharing stories and laughing (it was basically a Fab Friday with older couples). As I was walking home after this experience, the answer came to me.

In the largely heteronormative world in which we live, there is a separation between those who are straight and those who are not and between those who are male or female and those who are somewhere in between (or neither). As such, there is this invisible expectation that if you don't fall into a "normal" gender role, you have to "admit" to it. I once heard a woman say that being a lesbian in a heteronormative world requires that you constantly come out. And whether you are comfortable enough with your sexuality to share it when you first meet someone or not, this expectation is a tiring thing to live with. This expectation, however, is non-existant in the LGBT community because it fosters an environment it essentially rejects the ideology of a heteronormative culture.

Later in the summer my mom and I were sitting on a blanket at the beach and she posed the question again, "Why do you think you like being part of the LGBT community?" This time I had an answer: The LGBT community is unique in that its members share a commonality that is much deeper than one bound by similar interests (say, a typical student organization). It is a community that is bound by being and by an ideology of acceptance and that is founded on the principles of support and love. Why wouldn't I want to be a part of it?