The Silent Dick Cheney has finally spoken.
All through the same-sex marriage debate, which raged to high proportions of indecision this summer, Dick Cheney has been silent. During this period, one could have only assumed he was casting his lot with the president, preserving their united front.
This is not the case. Dick Cheney announced recently that he would not support a constitutional amendment supporting a same-sex marriage ban. This is not at all surprising considering his daughter is a homosexual.
This is where the true division lies in the nationwide debate. This is not a debate about politics or legislation. This is about personal values.
Psychologists and social scientists have, in recent years, claimed that homosexuality is inherent in a person’s being, that it is neither a psychological disease nor a perversity. A decade of steadily changing views has led to an increased acceptance of homosexuality. This transition was perhaps best shown through Jerry Seinfeld’s exclamation, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
On a more legalistic level, the Supreme Court has overturned the infamous sodomy laws in the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas. Laws attempting to govern consensual sex between adults in several states, including Mississippi, were finally put to rest.
Homosexuality has now become politically correct and accepted in today’s media. Homosexuals are living with a greater freedom in America and the Western world than has ever been demonstrated through history. This is a huge change, especially considering that homosexuality was previously outlawed in many countries, as well as our own state.
Not everyone agrees that homosexuality is a natural state, of course. That is the main argument of conservative Christianity, an argument headed by none other than George W. Bush. As most people know, the book of Leviticus in the Bible treats homosexuality as a perversion of the love between a man and a woman and an abomination in the sight of God. Since this is in the Old Testament, these beliefs are held by Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
I am not here to denounce either view of homosexuality. I am leaving my personal beliefs out of my argument. I merely wish to point out the contradictions in the political treatment of homosexual marriage.
One of the defining characteristics of America is the separation we have placed between church and state. This, of course, has been controversial in the past, especially with decisions to remove Christian-centered symbols and references from state and federally-endorsed buildings and organizations. No matter how much Christians rail against this practice, it actually stems from the belief that the church should not be an agency of the government in controlling the people. I am referring, of course, to the historical Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
Many people moved to America to escape countries that coerced them to attend a certain church and hold a certain value system. While most early American settlers were intolerant of differing values within their community, this intolerance was not included in the ideas surrounding the formation of the government and the Constitution.
This all comes back to one thing: the government cannot legislate religion.
When you really get down to it, who would want the government to legislate religion? Wouldn’t that mean that the government would end up endorsing one religion over all others? America prides itself for diversity. Even within each of the general religions, there are many factions and denominations divided by, of course, doctrinal differences and values. This would lead the government to try to pick some doctrines over others. The religious groups would not stand for that, and for good reason. It is not the government’s place to conduct religion. That is the true definition of freedom of religion.
So what does this have to do with same-sex marriage? Not all people hold the same value system. Not all people have the same view of homosexuality. Since homosexuality is not against the law and generally accepted by society, the government should not impede such legal unions for religious reasons. You can’t forcefully convert people to your own code of ethics. Stop trying to.
Angela Adair is a senior English major. She can be reached at [email protected].