At some point, I may have commented that I would voice my thoughts on homosexuality and marriage in a more public place than I have used in the past, and now seems an appropriate time. Maine has just voted against extending marriage to same-sex couples, and while I am not a citizen of Maine, I despise seeing others force religious teachings into laws.
A Brief Detour
YSEE and the Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum (organizations in Greece) both have policies against homosexuality. The Societas Hellenica Antiquariorum prohibits people of alternative sexualities from being religious officials and marriage ceremonies because homosexuality is a “physical defect.” YSEE doesn’t support marriage equality because, back in the good old days of arranged Athenian marriages, it just wasn’t done. I am unsure whether YSEE is publicly coming out against marriage equality because they feel politically intimidated by the Orthodox Church or if they sincerely think marriage equality will destroy Hellenic tradition as we know it.
People debated those organizations’ stances several months ago. I don’t want to focus on them, mostly because I don’t want the comments to turn into a flamefest. (Consider this a moratorium.) Rather, I will focus on the United States.
Polytheism and Marriage Equality
Polytheists who don’t support marriage equality have very little to base it on. In the ancient world, arranged marriages generally prevented people from making any choice at all. Only in the modern Western world do we see the emphasis on love as a necessary factor. In Disney movies, weddings always happen, no matter what the social differences between the two may be: Cinderella and Prince Charming, Aladdin and Jasmine, Shrek and Fiona. Arranged marriages, the common Western wisdom says, only happen in third-world countries where women are treated like chattel.
“Arguments” Against
If love is now necessary in the West for community approval of a marriage, how is love between two men or two women any different from love between a man and a woman? Of course children cannot be produced in the same way, but how many married straight couples use adoption? How many don’t have children at all? With a population exceeding humanity’s carrying capacity (see: third world starvation), we cannot afford to believe that fertility is most important in a marriage. Indeed, overpopulation is killing humanity!
The immorality argument about homosexuality, along with the belief that civil marriage is against religious freedom, are both false. Think about all of the faiths that do have liturgy for same-sex unions. Unitarian Universalism. Wicca. Evangelical Lutheranism. United Church of Christ. What about their religious freedom to perform same-sex unions? What about atheists, who have no religious prohibitions against any behavior at all? In the West, the immorality argument comes from Judeo-Christian thought and the Book of Leviticus. (Christians who take Leviticus literally, when is the last time you had a mold-infested garment looked at by your priest?)
What about marrying cows or young children? How is “gay marriage” any different? These things cannot happen because marriage is restricted to sentient adults (and some teenagers with their parents’ permission). A cow cannot offer consent. A four-year-old girl cannot offer consent. A human of any age with a severe mental disability cannot, in most cases, offer consent. Spock’s father could. Chewbacca (oh, mental images!) could.
Reality Reloaded
Legislation against marriage equality is invalid, even if backed by popular vote, because the arguments against it are religious. Religion does not belong in American legislation, no matter how much the closet Dominionists want it to. Anti-equality laws are no more constitutional than those declaring one state or another Christian (one of which was passed in Missouri, where I lived for two-thirds of my childhood). The slope between legislation like this and legislation requiring [an equally unconstitutional] religious litmus test for public office is slippery (or even between this and religious indoctrination in public schools). Incidentally—and yes, slightly off-topic—religious favoritism is also why creationism or intelligent design should NEVER be taught in science classrooms.
The Place of Hellenic Polytheism
So, with that said, what do I think about marriage equality and Hellenic Polytheism? I think that religious ceremonies should exist for those in places where marriage equality is allowed, simply because this covers all bases.
What about tradition? I’m not talking about changing the marriage ritual for heterosexual couples, or even making same-sex couples use it. I’m talking about supplementing what exists now with something done in the Hellenic spirit, or at least admitting that such a thing is possible. We have done this before. Heliogenna, a Hellenic Winter Solstice celebration, is a response to Christmas and Yule. Dedicated people translated the spirit of the season into Hellenic terms and ended up with something meaningful.
There is a difference between reconstruction as a cage and reconstruction as a road. The road takes you places, some scary, some comforting. A cage leads nowhere but death.
Image credit: “Athena god statue” by mpalis on iStockPhoto.
8 responses:
The thing that bothers me about this is the fact that we're allowing referendums for popular vote for a minority group. This isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they set up the constitution (where I always like to point out that the first Amendment trumps the first Commandment). We had referendums in regards to slavery, and it went nowhere until Lincoln was elected. The Bible was also used to justify slavery. If we still allowed referendums for things like the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Rights Amendment it would instead have certain states be more progressive than others. In the latter we had the LDS Church use the bible for opposing it. I am furious at what happened at Maine, to the point of tears. I suffered the same outrage when this happened in my home state of CA.
-Darlene
We can't always choose what state we live in, but we can choose which religious organizations to be part of. I could never stomach being in a group that on the wrong side of this issue.
Excellent post. It is wrong to let states make these decisions. After all, it is the states who would not abolish slavery - it took the Federal government to do that. Left up to states, we'd still have segregation (at least, if not slavery) and we'd still likely not have universal suffrage in all 50 states. People should not be able to vote to suspend civil rights to groups they do not approve of. The Declaration of Independence says "ALL" are equal, and either they are, or we'd best change the wording. Thanks for speaking out!
"the wrong side of this issue". Because there's only one right view.
How about this. We undo all the damage gay marriage activists have done, by allowing civil unions once again. We have two forms at the county courthouse, one is called a civil union and one is called a marriage license. Since this issue is not at all about human rights, but about a word which we all know the meaning of, we now have two ways to go about getting this legal agreement. Whether gay or straight is irrelevant. Either can apply with either form; the only difference is which name the couple wants to call their agreement. Crucial to this is that sexuality is irrelevant. You don't get a prize or recognition for having sex or not having sex, and the deal is valid without validation of "consummation". All the rights currently given to married couples go with the territory that comes with either of these forms/agreements/words.
How about that?
Anonymous #2, civil unions don't necessarily grant hospital visitation rights or health care consolidation. Marriages do. Same-sex couples don't just want the name ... they want the legal security that goes along with it. Unfortunately, "separate but equal" was disproven decades ago --- the only alternative solution I could see would involve forcing both heterosexual and homosexual couples to get civil unions and save the marriage language for religious institutions.
"We have two forms at the county courthouse, one is called a civil union and one is called a marriage license. "
Sorry but I had to chuckle at this one. The phrase "separate but equal" came to mind, and, well we all know how it went last time they tried that.
I'm rather upset at this myself even if I don't entirely agree with homosexuality. No one should have to suffer because of another's religious convictions. -.-
Anonymous #2 here again.
"civil unions don't necessarily grant hospital visitation rights or health care consolidation. Marriages do" - @Kayleigh I am proposing that both agreements give the same rights. The only difference is what they are called. I believe that there are both gays and straights who don't like the term marriage, just as there are those to whom it means a great deal. While both forms differ only in terminology, neither is limited to gays, straights, or non-sexually inclined couples. These unions are open to all of these, including those who can now get married, and to gays who wish to get married. - @Ærinndís Freyjadóttir As far as separate but equal, any separation will be decided by the individuals involved, as it is they who will be choosing what form to acquire and what to call their union.
I wholehearted agree with what you've said. :) This is definitely a 1st Amendment issue, as well as an issue of all citizens being treated equally under the law.
Those in the Hellenic community who cling to the so-called "traditional" idea of marriage simply choose to ignore the differences between now and then. Perhaps they were no gay marriages back then because there simply wasn't a need. Homosexuality was arguably better tolerated in ancient times, and there were no special rights or benefits attached to marriage beyond a husband's control of his wife and any assets she brought to the marriage.
But today, marriage does have certain privileges that cannot be had in any other way. And even agreements forged with a lawyer have been turned down/overruled by family members/courts/etc. because without marriage, your partner is not next of kin. We also now have a majority religion filled with "one true way-ists" who insist that homosexuality is a perversion and justify making gays second class citizens with their religious bigotry.
Quite simply, gays today are being treated as second-class citizens by their own government and by many of their countrymen. This is not the freedom our nation likes to brag about. These are not the ideals people have fought and died for. There is no non-religious reason to deny gays equal rights...
Except the one people don't want to admit... People who don't necessarily believe that homosexuality is wrong, but they don't think that gays deserve the benefits they themselves enjoy. People who think that letting gays file jointly on their taxes means that they as straight person are somehow put upon "to support their lifestyle." *rolls eyes*
In the end it's either religious bigotry or selfish greed, neither of which I want any part of. And I will not support any organization that does not treat gays as the equal citizens they ought to be, in the US or anywhere else.
Post a Comment