In light of the SCOTUS’s decision to allow gay marriage across the whole country, I keep hearing two complaints from conscientious objectors: 1) Religious freedom is under attack, and 2) Freedom of Speech is under attack. Part the First
For the first part, I’m going to use a post from Facebook reposted on Reddit through Imgur because it states what I think perfectly and beautifully. Unfortunately, I don’t have a name to give the credit to for the original text. I have made a few slight corrections for grammar and clarification, and put his/her words in Yellow to differentiate from my own.
Many moralities are generally accepted as universal, regardless of religion: things like murder or stealing is bad, and children are the future. Many moralities are dictated by culture and religion (like swearing or drawing pictures of Mohammed), and we must, as a free society and a decent people examine these with an eye towards different cultures and religions.
You may ask, "What about public officials giving marriage licenses to marriages against their religion?" My opinion is that they can deal with it (as far as I am aware the ruling does not address this). That is part of taking a job that serves the public indiscriminately. EMTs are still required to treat the drunk driver, with just as much care as their victims. Judges must abide by the decision of the jury even when they know an innocent man is convicted, or a guilty man going free. Public officials of any sort may be put in uncomfortable positions, and they still must perform their duties. It a sacrifice that is made for the greater good.
As for religions and clergy the ruling specifies they neither have to condone nor recognize same sex marriages. This is as it should be. A religion has the right to define marriage for the purpose of religion. The Supreme Court ruling changes nothing in the eyes of whatever God someone believes in. But as long as marriage is also a legal institution with various legal benefits it cannot be made available to only a select group from that standpoint. The ruling not only specifically protects the right of religion organizations to define marriage as they see fit, but to preach and proselytize that view. It encourages that discourse, and recognizes its importance in this issue. The ruling minces no words in very strongly invoking the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
Lastly, this doesn’t cheapen marriage or the family. The fact that people of all walks of life, and all cultures want to partake in marriage and family only speaks to its value and importance to the human condition. My love of mushroom pizza doesn’t discount your enjoyment of pineapple pizza; it just shows the variety that is possible. What marriage and family means has continuously evolved all through human history, and across cultures. This trend likely doesn’t stop now, and will likely never stop. Look at the myriad types of marriages across cultures today, or through history, even in religious texts.
Today is a victory for religious liberty, for family, for justice, and for all who want to live in an equal and free society.
Just to add my own thoughts, the government won’t (and I don’t think they legally can) force someone to perform a marriage against their will, but it’s the Justice of the Peace’s job to do so. As a 7-11 employee, I was required to sell cigarettes and alcohol even though I was Mormon at the time, and had the freedom to seek employment elsewhere if selling such things was "against my religion."
And just to add to the bit about different types of marriages, this image shows the 8 different kinds of marriage found in the Bible, some of which you may find repugnant. And as a special note to the LDS church, I find the push for monogamy between one man and one woman ironic. Officially, Monogamy is policy that can be found in the Church Handbook of Instructions, while Polygamy is still doctrine, as found in D&C 132.
Part the Second
For the second part, I’ll be tackling the “attack on Freedom of Speech” myself.
Freedom of speech isn’t being attacked. The freedom refers to not being arrested/imprisoned for saying something. You are free to make fun of the president and the government officials without fear of imprisonment. If this were not so, late night Talk shows would be very, very different (watch V for Vendetta for what it’s like to have this liberty revoked).
Because of freedom of speech, you are allowed to speak your mind and post on Facebook whether you are for or against Gay marriage (or any other law/bill/ruling). I am free to voice my disdain for the TPP without fear.
But that means that other people are also free to disagree with you, and (even though it’s probably not nicest reaction) to call you names if your opinions differ. If we change it to some other issue, such as whether the earth is flat or round, you will probably see what I mean.
To my complete bafflement, there still exists today a group of people who insist the earth is flat, aptly named the Flat Earth society. They are free to believe what they want despite the absolute mountains of evidence against their position. They are free to post their opinions on Facebook, and free to attempt to persuade you to see their point of view.
But we are also free to disagree with them, and to call them idiots for not understanding the science behind why we know (and can prove beyond all doubt) the earth to be roughly spherical. I’m sure they see themselves as being persecuted because their opinion doesn’t fall in line with the general public’s opinion, and feel they constantly have to defend their position against naysayers.
But nothing in the Constitution protects them from being thought of badly by the rest of us.
Wanting the freedom to express an unpopular opinion and being shielded from public scorn is a classic case of eating your cake and having it. Think if you had expressed the opinion that slaves should be allowed to be freed and even hold public office in the year 1800. You would have a rather unpopular opinion, and the public wouldn’t agree with you or like you for it.
If you held the reverse opinion today (that African Americans shouldn’t hold public office), you will be called a racist among other unpleasant epithets. But, again, you would be allowed to have such an opinion and no government pressure would or should dissuade you. You just may not be liked by a lot of people, and your business or friendship may be boycotted. And all the while why you hold this (hypothetical) opinion, African Americans will be allowed to hold public office despite your thoughts because the general public has decided that equality should be the rule of the land.
(written by Joseph)
