Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Legislation with no defense

Caution: politically liberal views ahead.

The Quaker church that I attend had a 5-hour-long business meeting last Sunday. They are scheduled to go as long as they need to. What was the sticking point? Whether or not to put out a rainbow flag in front of the meeting house in support of our F/friends in the LGBT/Q community.

This was not controvertial for the reasons you might think. The meeting has been taking same sex marriages "under the care of the meeting" since 1986. That means that same-gender couples are welcome to be married using the same criteria as hetero couples.

It was controvertial because the older, straighter members of the meeting wanted to put the flag out NOW NOW NOW due to impending idiotic legislation to forever destroy legal protection for unconventional families. It was the members of the LGBT/Q community present who wanted to wait until a larger discussion about this to make sure that the whole community and not just the people who showed up for the business meeting were behind the idea.

It is too easy for me to forget that just because I am surrounded by people who accept same-gender couples doesn't mean they aren't under attack.

For me, aside from your feelings about homosexuality, I don't feel that who is allowed to marry should be part of legislation. I don't think majority rule is a good way of determining the right course in this matter. (How very Quaker of me.) Unions are a spiritual matter. They do also offer legal protections, which is I guess why the legislature feels free to put forth the so-called "Defense of Marriage" act.

It seems much more like the "Attack on Families" act. Particularly because it denies not just marriage but also "its legal equivalent" to same-gender couples.

Why is it harmful to offer same-gender couples some manner of legitimacy and legal protection. If you are against gay marriage, don't have one. Don't use legislation to impose faith.

And in that I have sympathy with religious conservatives who feel that this is a matter of faith. They are correct. Marriage is a faith-based institution. And I believe that legislation such as this infringes on the rights of religious communities to decide for themselves who will be married under their care.

If you are from Minnesota, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell your representative not to vote for this legislation that will affect real families with real children. Outfront makes it very easy to sign their petition.

Write letters. Call your representatives. It is very important even if you think you don't know any people in the LGBT community. Because you probably do.


Blogger Liz Opp said...

Me again, looking at your old posts, getting to know you a bit better. smile

Thanks for your words here, Kiara. I was not at this particular Meeting for Worship for Business, though you can bet I heard about it... for days afterward!

Liz, The Good Raised Up

9:14 PM  

Post a comment

<< Home