Jesus, the USA and gay rights
- Styli Charalambous
- 20 Sep 2011 08:03 (South Africa)
It’s been a while since I last read the bible (mostly from fear of being destroyed by fire and brimstone), but to the best of my recollection and research, the much-lauded bearded one never spoke ill of homosexual acts. So it’s somewhat surprising when bible-bashing zealots seem intent to continue the ban on gay unions based on religious grounds.
Next May, the good people of the state of North Carolina will go the polls. Not to vote on something as important as tax cuts or public spending, or even to elect a new governor. They will instead be casting their vote on whether same-sex marriages should be allowed in the state. Apparently the term “Land of the Free” doesn’t apply so much to gay rights.
After having the motion put before the house, members of the North Carolina state senate voted 75-42 in favour of a referendum to decide on the fate of same-sex marriages. In a debate that took less time than an episode of The Graham Norton show, state senators showed just how eager they were to move on the motion.
Putting the motion before the senate, the two sponsors of the bill explained that a ban on gay marriage would help “preserve traditional marriages”, most likely an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of Jesus’ preachings about the sanctity of marriage in the book of Matthew. But this is a modern-day senate house and without any statistical proof to back up their claims, I’m bewildered no one called in the IQ or drug police for random testing.
How gay marriage can adversely influence “traditional marriages”, in my mind, isn’t exactly clear. Divorce rates in states that allow same-sex nuptials are similar to those where the practice is banned. The same goes for entire countries that allow gay unions, like South Africa. So in the absence of any supporting evidence, I can only deduce that some kind of bias is at play affecting the judgements of state senators.
You don’t have to look too hard to find other state laws across the USA discriminating against gay unions. Of the 50 states in the USA, only six currently allow same-sex matrimony, compared to the astonishing 22 states that allow first-cousin marriages. In other words, in almost half of America, the law is down with incest but not so much with same-sex marriages. And yes, you guessed it; North Carolina is one of those states where it is legal to marry your cousin.
And yet, the discrimination isn’t limited to just legal issues and principles. Same-sex partners are ineligible for the various benefits that would normally accrue to spouses under law. The discounted cost of health insurance, waived estate duty for spouses and even lower tax rates for married couples are just some of the economic benefits denied through the injunction.
By now, you should be asking yourself: how does a nation as progressive and “free” as the United States come to be as backward as allowing incestual matrimony but not homosexual matrimony. Well, the answer seems to reside in the pages of the holy book where incest wasn’t exactly taboo.
In the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, cousins aren’t explicitly cited in the list of prohibited relatives allowed to join in marriage. Which only adds to other references of the Old Testament where instances of incest and cousin marriage are accepted. It isn’t a far stretch of the imagination then to assume then that the legal acceptance of first-cousin marriages has its foundations in religious beliefs.
Given the lack of direct quotes by the late JC, religious sects have somehow equated his silence on homosexuality to condemnation. A practice, in my view, that is antiquated and quite simply, dangerous because it has evolved into discriminatory legal precedents around the world.
From a legal point of view, the issue with same-sex marriage in the USA originates at a federal level where only male-female unions are recognised. It is then up to each state to pass a law that will make it an exception to the federal law. So before they’ve even left the starting blocks, gay unions are fighting an uphill battle for equality in the eyes of the law.
Prior to 1996, marriage wasn’t even defined in federal law books, after which lawmakers took it upon themselves to define marriage as: “the union of one man and one woman”. Given the progress the gay rights movement had made up to that point, it was somewhat of a narrow-minded definition for the times. Although still hardly surprising, when you consider that sexual acts between people of the same gender has only been legal in the USA since 2003.
So where to now for the same-sex unions in North Carolina? Although the public acceptance of gay marriage has risen from 25% of the general US population in the 1990’s to a present-day majority, in conservative states like North Carolina it is unlikely gay partners will get a positive referendum result.
The only recourse for gay partners living there will be to elope to a gay-friendly state that will allow their union and hope North Carolina will one-day recognise their marriage. But why should that be the case? What should rather happen is for law changes to be enacted at the federal level to allow for same-sex unions, rather than forcing each state to waste resources arguing over whether to allow it as an exception to the legal norm.
And even if changes to law at the highest level were to happen, it would still take a serious amount of time and perception-changing to accept something as profound as same-sex unions. When South Africa passed the Civil Union Act in November 2006, it was the only the fifth country in the world and second outside Europe to do so. Yet five years on, we still encounter reports of resistance to gay marriages where city officials refuse to perform ceremonies based on harboured bigotries.
In a time when the world economy is dealing with its greatest challenge in almost a century, should the people of North Carolina really be wasting their time and public funds on a referendum that is so clearly inequitable, and out of touch with modern day practices? Rather, if two men or two women want to spend the rest of their days together, governors and lawmakers should accept their will without enforcing their own religious prejudices upon them. DM
- Read the writing on the paywall
- Balancing the budget, NDP-style
- Harnessing the power: ANC in action
- Operation Mangaung 2012: chaos reigns supreme
- Survivor: Media edition
- South Africa's bittersweet Olympics
- Ernie Els recaptures form - and the Claret jug
- The 50 Shades of Victoria's Secret
- Prohibiting prohibition
- A brief history of rogue bankers
- Boks v England: Dour end to series win
- Meyer and Boks pass first test hurdle - just
- Speartackled: The real story
- First Thing with Styli Charalambous: UN Security Council condemns Syria attack
- My coming-out story
- Dear Heyneke Meyer, April Fools' is no more
- Masters: Bubba breaks South African hearts
- Will the gays and women please rise?
- Don't touch me on my sponsor
- 25 Billion reasons why Apple isn't going away anytime soon
- The Entrepreneur Chronicles: Q&A with Ronnie Apteker
- Entrepreneur chronicles: Snapbill
- The Entrepreneur Chronicles: Dave Blakey & Snapt
- Final whistle blows for Capello
- ANC's mining solutions: a depressing exercise
- Analysis: Facebook's $100-billion reality
- Djokovic triumphs in clash of the titans
- Rugby: Letting the tiger out the bag
- The changing face of cricket
- Australian Open preview: Clash of the Titans
- 2011 - The sporting year that wasn't
- Bridging the funding divide
- Up yours! New Zealand style
- Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the best Springbok coach of all?
- What if Zuckerberg came from Sandton?
- Yippee - the Outsurance pointsmen are gone
- Six Nations is Bryce-less
- Kings of Leon: anything but a royal performance
- SA Tennis: no game, no set, no match
- Why the orchids of RWC 2011 reek of onions - An overview
- A generation later, All Blacks are World Champions again
- World Cup farce preview
- End of the Federer era? Don't bet on it
- All Blacks bundle Australia out of RWC
- Sacrebleu! as France stumble into World Cup final
- Where to now, Bokke?
- Australia break South African hearts
- Wales polish off Ireland in Wellington
- Quarterfinal crunch time at RWC
- Weekend of wonder at Rugby World Cup
- Boks bruise their way to win over Samoa
- All Blacks boss France off Auckland's Eden Park
- Bok selections: good headaches to have
- Jesus, the USA and gay rights
- Irish make mockery of the formbook and Australia
- Boks blow Fijians away in Wellington
- Boks scrape through in Wellington thriller
- The time has come: crouch, touch, pause... Engage!
- 'I got World Cup fever; she got World Cup fever!'
- Sonny Bill Williams and Rugby Union: End of a brief but dazzling affair?
- Wallabies beat All Blacks in Brisbane bruiser
- A team of 30, backed by a team of millions
- Hope restored as Boks put All Blacks to bed
- Smith's exit could be Boks' Achilles Heel
- US Open - last chance saloon for the Fed express
- John Smit drops to Bok bench for All Blacks encounter
- Moment of truth awaits the Boks in Durban
- The Global Financial Crisis - a bedtime story
- Blackout at Eden Park, as All Blacks demolish Wallabies
- Tri-Nations decider - a Pacific skirt-lifting affair
- Why I'm betting on the Boks to bring home the Rugby World Cup
- All Blacks blow Boks off Wellington's Westpac Park
- Tri-Nations preview: Winds of Wellington will blow Boks away
- Wallaby display dazzles Bok B-Team
- Tri-Nations: Short-term pain for World Cup gain
- Super Rugby fairytale Crusaders ending ruined by Red devils
- Brisbane promises breathtaking rugby as Reds face off to Crusaders
- Crusaders storm into Super 15 Final
- Serving up more economic empowerment
- LinkedIn: Taking the office Xmas party public
- Analysis: 100 billion reasons for Zuckerberg to smile
- U2 in Johannesburg - the real greatest show on earth
- Tis the season to be jolly, so hush about the church's lolly
- Beware the state of Nanny McUnfree
- Is the Internet is making us stoopid?
- Time to face reality about steroids?
- Cooler than English?
- In defence of Tiger