Holy matrimony!

Well, you've read my marriage-equality posts, so I'm sure you have a gist of what this one is about. I'm really happy about Washington DC recognizing all marriages, including the same-sex ones, performed elsewhere. I know it's not quite full marriage equality, but hopefully the remaining 45 states will go the route of Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa.

What bothers me is the way several conservative groups and individuals (Ms. Prejean, I'm lookin' right atcha) have been saying that legalizing gay marriage will infringe on their own religious freedom. Or by saying that they are being "forced" to watch as all these things contrary to their own beliefs are unfolding. Some even say that they should be able to refuse service to a same-sex couple because they personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Only.

Well, from the way they talk, you'd think someone was forcing them to follow a state-sanctioned religion or having the state meddling around with their church's affairs. That is, after all, what "freedom of religion" protects against. Or that they're being "forced" to marry someone of their own gender. Sheesh. But no, it's just the heightened visibility and rights of the gay community that bothers them. And honestly, I think their reactions are completely wrong.

What they're basically saying, instead, is that their "right" to discriminate against someone because of his/her orientation is being eroded. If marriage rights are granted for both hetero and same-sex couples, it's making the same-sex couple just as visible as the hetero one. And I can see that that clearly scares some folks. As Harvey Milk said way back in the 1970s, "a homosexual with power...that's scary stuff."

And frankly, I don't think that they have much cause to complain. NO ONE should discriminate, let alone have the right to discriminate, against who they can and cannot serve. The reason why we have anti-discrimination laws in this great country is to make sure that everyone is treated with dignity, that all men and women are treated equal. Should every church have to perform same-sex weddings? No, because that is a matter left up to them (remember the separation of church and state?). But should someone have the right to refuse service to a same-sex couple simply because the couple contains two men or two women? A big fat NO. That's not a right. If you are basically asking for permission to discriminate against people you don't like or whose very existence bothers you, then you don't have that right. Sorry.

Let's look at it in another way. Suppose a Christian photographer thinks that every relationship should be a "good, Christian marriage." Well, if that photographer is hired to take pictures at a Jewish wedding, s/he would be taking pictures of a couple whose relationship certainly isn't a "Christian marriage." Should s/he have the right to say no after taking the assignment? Should s/he be able to walk out if all those yarmulkes and stars of David freak him/her out? Of course not. If you have a job, the most logical (and dare I say it? moral) thing would be to DO that job, no matter who your clients are. And no one is being "forced" to see their "morals" eroding away. If they don't agree with same-sex marriage, well, then they don't have to go to Maine/Iowa/Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts and marry someone of their gender. No one is making them do that. They are welcome to believe what they want about whomever they want, but it crosses the line when they try to take that right away from someone else.

Oh President Obama, what WERE you thinking???

Maybe it's not particularly nice or appropriate to make a judgement based on one stupid decision. No one is perfect, but...this just goes TOO FAR!

Apparantly President Barack Obama has selected Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation speech at his inauguration. For those of you who don't know, Pastor Warren is affiliated with the Saddleback Church of California. He's been a preacher for a long time, has a large following, and is considered a charismatic figure who can speak well and work a crowd.

HOWEVER...

Pastor Warren stands for a lot of things Obama's supporters are against and vice versa.
He supported Proposition 8, which denied gays the right to marry in California (after they had recently won that right this summer). He's compared gay marriage to incest, which is just an awful metaphor and not at all true.
He's anti-choice. Obama and his supporters are pro-choice.
He supports the use of torture.

While I'm okay with a politician being bi-partisan (and in fact am all for being bi-partisan), I think there would've been better choices than Warren for the inauguration. And apparantly Aretha will sing after Warren's talk. The combination of a liberal president, liberal musician, and bigoted preacher leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I mean, Warren is like the anti-Obama. It's like having the late Jerry Falwell be the grand marshal at a gay pride parade. Or Phyllis Schafly speak at a NOW or Feminist Majority event. Or, if you would like to turn the tables, having Robin Morgan address the Concerned Women for America (actually, Morgan did do a speech in front of a similar conservative group, and it was so scathing that they were appalled and asked her to leave. But what were they expecting when they invited her?).

Well, maybe I might be overreacting. Maybe Warren will just do a simple speech and work the crowd, and he might make it non-religious in nature. Sometimes people can surprise. I mean, McCain's concession speech was surprisingly classy (can't say the same about his audience). Guess only time will tell. And if Warren's speech is unlistenable, then at least the Aretha performance will be enjoyable.