CELEBRATE vs TOLERATE

Notes of Concern…

                               …Jackson Blair

CELEBRATE vs TOLERATE

Moving out of the realm of any political consideration lets look at this issue of Gay Marriage in its purest sense. The President has recently brought the issue again to the front of public discourse.

Accept that we all have history on this issue:

Our prejudices are products of our upbringing.

Our prejudices are products of our religious training.

Our prejudices are products of our individual life experiences.

We don’t question our prejudices or test them.

We should.

Can there be a man or woman who really believes that two committed adults in a relationship should not have the same legal rights bestowed on two heterosexual adults in a committed relationship?

Please reread the preceding paragraph!

It does not mention moral judgments.

It does not concern sexual preferences.

It does not involve any consideration whatsoever of religion.

It does not remove from anyone the right to their own opinion about the religious, moral or political acceptance of any such same sex unions.

It simply states that human beings in any committed relationship should have the same benefits under the laws of the nation as every other citizen.

For those citizens who have a religious or moral opposition to the lifestyle of gays I would say:

We are not required to celebrate what we tolerate.

For those citizens who are gay and find it difficult to be dealing with what they see as bigotry I would say:

Remember that there is no problem that gentle people cannot solve together.

The laws of the land were never meant to apply only to those whose personal feelings are similar to those individuals who currently constitute a majority. We found this to be inherently true in the matter of blacks during their long struggle for equal treatment.

My view is that it is our understanding of the word “marriage” as a religious concept that has undermined our ability to see the idea as having a broader definition. Take the word “marriage” out of the discussion and people seem more comfortable understanding and accepting the intellectual argument for equality under the law.

So perhaps we should leave the word “marriage” firmly in the context in which religion and society, currently and historically, have used it and honor those who have strong feelings about the sanctity of marriage as a historical fact and as a religious rite.

At the same time could not those who wish to obtain legal benefits for citizens who choose to partner outside the church settle on a word that would have meaning for them?  Some effort was made in coining the idea of a “Civil Union.”  Perhaps there is a better word or phrase acceptable to those couples who wish to live outside the church but be recognized by law.

Is it really necessary to try to force a religion to accept practices wholly abhorrent to the religious?

Is it necessary for the religious to refuse to grant civil rights to people who are not of their religious persuasion?

 We should not seek to argue over or complicate something as important as commitment, companionship, physical intimacy, and rearing of children.

No one mandates that we all celebrate our differences.

Everyone, however, should learn to tolerate differences.

The government is asking that we keep religion out of it. We are encouraged to look at the building blocks of equality, the chance to have health insurance with a partner, the opportunity to be present and make health decisions at the time of the death of a partner, the right to be entombed with a partner, the right to be the beneficiary of a partner’s life insurance, and in the end, simply the chance to live equally under the law of the land with everyone else.

The time has come in our country for us to accept that in our differences we find our greatest strength.

In our capacity for empathy we find our finest virtue.

In our willingness to want equality under the laws of the land in which we all live we might well find our most lasting contribution to the future, one that will be hailed by historians.

We are not a petty people.

The joining of two people under any terminology in the civil sphere deserves the same treatment legally across the board.

Remember who you are.

Remember who we are.

And know we are better than this.