Re-defining Marriage or Church & State?

I recently read A Priori Ad Lib’s blog, and that got me thinking about religion. The following bit was conceived from that blog.
_____________________________________________________________________________

With recent events in Canada regarding the re-definition of marriage and other occurrences around the world, I have been re-assessing my views on the Church and what it stands for. Despite my upbringing as a Roman Catholic, I was never what you would have called a religious fanatic. I have always been fascinated by religion, but I questioned my teachers often, and was often kicked out of class for “questioning authority”. This blurb is simply my take on things and my belief that open discussions and open forums about policies and belief systems are necessary for a just and fair society.

For Centuries, the Church has had a steadfast influence on its congregation, and in many cases, on the State. Decisions and policies were intertwined and the morals that the Church deemed fit for the times reflected upon the laws that were administered during those times. Church and State were very much a symbiotic entity – just think of France and England as quick examples. These laws may or may not be in effect now, but they have strong roots in much of our communities, whether they are rural or urban. Many of these ideas have become ingrained as part of a belief system that doesn't hold much water in current times. The Church is an extension of the House of God, and since it is run by Humans the Church is not a perfect institution. Humans according to the Church are out of grace with God due to original sin (Adam and Eve) and because of this we (well, not I) spend our entire lives trying to reach perfection in order to enter Heaven.

But how does the Church morally and ethically guide and instruct when it has been embroiled in controversy with pedophilia amongst its priests? The Pope and the church have turned their heads and brushed much of it under the carpet, instead focusing on gays and marriage, who have not hurt anyone else. How does the Church then oppose marriage between two consenting individuals who just happen to be of the same gender? Is this not hypocrisy and unethical as well as immoral? We know this much - the Church and any religion has its basis in superstition and moralistic behaviour associated to its times. In the Old Testament, Moses on Mount Sinai berates his Israelites for creating a “false image of God”, which is reflected in commandment numero deux. Does this mean that the 10 commandments are applicable to Hindus, who are polytheistic? Does this mean that those who do not follow the Judeo-Christian religion are sinners? Historically, the Church has also approved slavery and the supremacy of the ‘White man’, but would anyone suggest such an idea nowadays? I highly doubt it. So the question begs, how does the Church take a stance on one particular topic and avoid so many others, and should the State align itself with these beliefs?

Canada, in 2003, legalized the definition of marriage to include man and man. It has since been an uphill battle to gain the same rights as every other citizen under the law (constitution). The Church in retaliation, has gathered her forces to enforce the definition of marriage as two heterosexuals (ergo Man/ woman), who wish to be bound together in matrimony. Part of their tactics is to misuse Biblical scripture and parables to "prove" emphatically that the Bible, therefore God, has deemed homosexuality as a sin. Obviously, Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind as it is the story that has become a banner for most parishioners who follow blindly the morals of being straight and the evils of being gay.

Not to get all religiously acadaemic here, but I am going to go off on a bit of a tangent here. For those religious fanatics out there who simply follow religious dogma blindly, Sodom Gomorrah really is a lot more symbolic than what people think it is. Due to the mis-interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the word “sodomy” has made it into our lexicon synonymous with anal intercourse. If one were to read the script closely, it states that Lot met the angels at the gate of the city and invited them to his home for dinner. The angels were sent to Sodom because Yahweh saw that there were many sins taking place in the Valley of Jordan, none of which had anything to do with sodomization or homosexual sex. Afterwards, all the men of the town gathered outside of Lot's house and demanded that the angels be released to them so that they may “know” them. Historically references of “know” in the bible are direct references to sex or interrogation - the exact interpretations in this case are unclear even to Biblical scholars. Rather than give up the angels, who are supposedly non-corporeal (and androgynous) and beyond physical harm, Lot offered the crowd his two virgin daughters to be raped at their discretion (Genesis 18:26-33). I would hardly say, that offering your daughters up to be raped is godly…maybe god-fearing, but hardly godly. After Lot and his daughters are whisked away by the Angels to safety, they find shelter in a cave, where the daughters concoct a plan to have sex with their father to carry on the lineage, as their husbands and Lots wife were killed when Sodom was destroyed. I know I am off on a tangent here, but people have to understand that there were many political issues occurring at this time and that the Old Testament (OT) was written by Jews who at the time hated the Canaanites, Moabites and the Ammonites. The Jews who hated these groups of people created this story to show their contempt by creating a lineage derived from incest. In other words, the story is a historical bastardization of these people, and likely very inaccurrate.

The Bible is a historical reference and like all historical references, it is flawed by personal and religious bias. One cannot tell me that every historical news article from any country is not going to biased or influenced in some way by the political climate. The Americans have one view of the war in Iraq, as do the Iraqis. In Communist China, it is still forbidden to go against the State and government – it would hardly be logical to then believe that the last 30 years of Chinese history are going to be accurate. Catch my drift? What I am getting at is that we cannot blindly follow and believe everything we hear and see. Religion was a human construction and it serves a great purpose for many people, but not all. It brings people together under a common belief, but at the same time, it divides and destroys under false pretenses and misguided perceptions. When religion becomes entwined with the State it is used by the powerful to distort and influence, where it should not. As a gay male, I find it offensive that we are not given the same rights as every other citizen. We are not asking for “special privileges”, we are simply asking that we be guaranteed the same rights as everyone else as stated in the Constitution. The US and Canadian constitutions each guarantee that individual rights must be protected and that the Church and State must be separate to allow for these guaranteed rights. It even goes so far as to say that the political leader in power should not align him/herself with any religious belief or institution. So why is it, that President George Bush has made such a daring and bold declaration of war against Iraq in the name of God? He has also said that God is "watching over America" and alluded to God being on America’s side, fighting a war against evil. What this suggests is that all who do not follow the Judeo-Christian conviction, are evil. What about the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? In countries such as Canada and the States, where individual rights and freedoms are guaranteed under the law, there should be no place for an elected political leader to align him/herself with one religion. It may be his/her upbringing, but that upbringing and conviction is not representative of the state and its people. These are elected officials who are supposed to represent society as a whole, and not just one favoured sect or portion of society. To be a truly judicial and fair society, one must appreciate, accept and allow for all religious freedom and not suggest that one is better than the other. Government should be a representative of society as a whole, and not be biased by religion. Yes, this is a difficult thing to achieve, but it is a necessity if we want to achieve a future that respects and values the relationships, belief systems and lifestyles of all in our multi-dynamic society.

We were born with this thing called a brain, and if you believe in god, that means he created it, so use it. Go do your research and think about things first before spouting religious rhetoric.Thanks for listening to my rant.

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message
of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government
cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it
asserts that God prefers some."
~Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992~