Jesus walks with fags, too.

Does anybody else find it hypocritical that certain Americans are trying to deny equal rights under the law to certain groups?

That's right, ultra-conservative Christians, I'm talking to you.  This op-ed gives a fair indication of what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about allowing gays to marry in church.  Oh, no.  That's up to the individual organization.  I'm talking about making it illegal for people of the same sex to get married. 

I wouldn't really voice my opinion about this if marriage didn't confer so many legal rights.  We're talking about rights of inheritance, tax breaks, child custody, health insurance -- you name it.  Married people get a lot of state-sanctioned perks. 

But some people wish to deny these STATE rights to gays.  Isn't that just a tad backwards?

As this editorial rightly points out, homosexuality doesn't even enter into God's Top 10, unless you want to (loosely) define it as adultery.  What's so important about this one sin that you actually feel compelled to legislate this particular part of the Old Testament into temporal law?  Didn't God also say to honor the law of the land as well as your own law?  Wasn't America founded upon the separation of church and state?

Why not prevent all thieves from getting married?  How about all convicted felons?  Liars?  Idolaters?  

Or, as this writer suggests, all adulterers?  That's right: from now on, anyone who has had sex out of wedlock, or cheated while married, isn't allowed to get married.  You won't hear too many campaigns for that, I guarantee. 

Why?  Probably because people who commit those sins can be redeemed.  Really?  Can't gays also be redeemed, then?  According to Jesus, everyone can be redeemed.  Jesus taught the Golden Rule.  He taught people to embrace others regardless of their flaws.

Call me judgmental, but I don't see a ban on gay marriage as an example of the Golden Rule.  I see it as an attempt to slam the state's door on a certain group of people because you don't like their behavior.  Imagine the outcry if religious figures tried to ban marriage for liars.  They wouldn't, though, and that's where the contradiction arises. 

Obviously voters can make their own decisions, and they can choose to reject religion's invasion into state matters if they want to.  Regardless, the whole notion of religious groups trying to jockey for position in affairs of state should be troubling to all religious leaders who shy away from hypocrisy.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit