Same Sex Marriage and Freedom, Power, & Authority

PART I

“Who are YOU to tell me what I can or cannot do with my life?!  It’s MY life, and I’ll live it the way I want!”

This could be a teenager sassing back to the “parental units.”  Or it might be anyone of us reacting to any others of us who would dare presume to tell us how we ought to live or what we can or cannot do with our life.

We don’t take too kindly to self-appointed masters controlling our lives: “No one is going to tell ME how to live!”  We are free and independent Americans.  We think for ourselves, choose for ourselves, and reserve the right to freely exercise the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  And that’s that!

Or is it?

At what point does the exercise of my personal freedom—to choose, to practice, to do, to pursue, and to BE—become an invasion and limitation upon your personal freedom to do the same, and vice versa?

Does a religious conservative, for example, not have the right to say, “As a professional photographer of deep religious conviction, I cannot in good conscience accept your invitation to become your hired photographer for this same-sex wedding of yours?”

If not, why not?  Where’s the freedom of conscience, of choice, of personal conviction, if he/she does not have the right to act upon his/her religious conviction in this way?

On the other hand, does not a couple, ANY couple, of any type, background, and/or sexual orientation, have the right to expect and receive professional and unbiased service with courtesy and respect in this country founded upon the assertion of freedom and equal rights?

If they cannot expect to receive equal access to all professional services, is this not being hypocritical in the face of our 4th of July celebrations, asserting American values of freedom, independence, and equal rights and opportunity for all?

In truth, there are always legal and structural limits to freedom.  There has to be.  Without them we have the definition of chaos and anarchy.  But how are such limits set, and who has the right to impose them?  In that sense, the question of individual and independent freedom is also a question of social and political (group) power, authority, and control.

PART II

Getting to the point, I think a huge social and relational mistake is being made on both sides of this question, respecting the acceptance and practice and the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The mistake that religious conservatives are making is that of arrogating to themselves an assumed right (superior and self-righteous) to demand and enforce religious (heavenly) authority over (earthly) social authority, as if this nation’s government is, or should be, a kind of Democratic Theocracy—a democracy with a direct rule from God, or more accurately put, a direct rule from God’s representative people.

The mistake that the left-wing progressive side seems to be making is really the same in kind; a mistake which liberals have always accused religious conservatives of doing over the centuries.  What’s that mistake?  The presumption that their way of thinking is more true to Reality and therefore better reflects what ought to be.  This presumption leads them to not only call for the general allowance and acceptance of same-sex marriage, but to demand that its acceptance be forced upon everyone as a kind of cosmic right in the universe.  In short, in an inverse way, the gay community is also treating the question of same-sex marriage as a “religious” right (cosmic and universal).  This attitude is effectively no different than that of their religious conservative opponents coming from the opposite end.

Thus, this is virtually a clash of two competing cosmic Worldviews or universal definitions of Reality.  Hence, perhaps the best way to address this clash is to respect the differences in a way that allows for a form of “Live and let live.”  Each side must avoid trying to outmaneuver the other side by the use of authoritarian means.  That is, avoid claiming the right and authority to superimpose one’s particular worldview’s perspective on the other by the exercise of naked power and control over the other.  For it is very likely that there will never be a time when all will agree on this particular issue of same-sex unions.  (Unlike, for example, the issue of slavery, where there was a time when some defended slavery as an acceptable practice, and using the Bible to do so; now of course it is universally agreed that slavery is just flat out wrong and cannot be defended Biblically or otherwise.)

PART III

How does this look practically speaking?  It’s simple really.  Same-sex couples could avoid asking or demanding that conservative, faith-driven individuals, change or give-up their conviction that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, for example, and should avoid requiring them to act against their faith convictions.  But, by the same token, the conservative faith-driven person should stop trying to impose, by social political and/or legislative law, his/her religious values, convictions, and practices upon those who neither believe-in nor accept the conservative’s religious premise and thus reject the religious application of his/her convictions.  In short, whenever possible, make room for each other.  However difficult it may be to do so, go out of the way to allow each side to live by their convictions so as to avoid blocking, oppressing, or obstructing the other side’s chosen lifestyle.  Live and let live!

This should work for the religious conservative, because, in the end, if one’s religious convictions turn out to be true and real, the real and true God will hold everyone accountable anyway.  It’s called Judgment Day.  That is, God will do the final judging and discerning as to who does or does not deserve condemnation for his/her actions here on earth.  Humans (religious conservatives especially) need not preempt God’s right to be the final judge.

This should also work for the progressive liberal in that he or she can allow the religious conservative to live by his her own conviction without much personal loss or inconvenience to him/herself, providing that his/her freedom are truly sustained in the larger society as a whole (which is a central key to the applied principle of “live and let live”).

Is this too simplistic, idealistic, and unrealistic?  Or are we just going to continue to fight it out in our law courts, businesses and professions (and churches), with winners and losers on both sides, one side managing to suppress and oppress the other side until the tables are turned (winner takes all)?