Why I will vote no
Contributing writer
To every conscientious columnist there comes a time for writing a column which almost is certain to antagonize the majority of readers. I guess this month is my time.
Faced with a crisis in school finance, the deterioration of many of the state's highways and bridges, and other authentic problems, our legislators chose to waste their time and energy and our money on a frivolous election to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, which already are illegal under Kansas law. You will, of course, vote on this issue (or non-issue) as your conscience dictates. As for me, I plan to vote no.
In the first place, I do not think regulating personal behavior is the purpose of a state's or nation's constitution. It should be a document to provide a framework for the operation of a government. Within that framework legislators can pass laws regarding conduct and change those laws when or if the situation demands it.
One reason our national Constitution is so much more workable and less unwieldy than the state constitution is that the United States has usually resisted the temptation to misuse the document to push a moral agenda. A notable exception was the prohibition amendment, which historians agree was a disaster.
I am not necessarily on a crusade to change the laws defining marriage. I certainly have no plans to marry someone of the same sex — or the opposite sex, for that matter. However, if lawmakers ever did decide to allow homosexuals to marry, I cannot see that it would have much impact on my life.
Oddly, many of the most vocal supporters of this effort to control the most private area of people's lives are the same people who oppose laws requiring employers to provide a living wage and safe working conditions for their employees, for instance, on the ground that government should not interfere in people's lives.
Fanatics who regard same-sex marriage as a burning issue would have us believe that it would destroy the institutions of marriage and the family. Forces undermining the family are adultery, divorce, promiscuity, abortion, and lack of responsibility among heterosexuals.
Perhaps it is easier to try to shift blame to the homosexual community than it is to get our own act together. Approximately one of every two marriages ends in divorce. About one out of three babies is born out of wedlock. Can anyone find a way to hold gays responsible for that trend?
Although I have lived a sheltered life on the buckle of the Bible belt, I have known a few homosexuals. They are not monsters or freaks. The ones I know work hard, serve their communities, care for their aged parents, and stand ready to help a neighbor.
The only homosexual I know well enough to discuss the matter honestly told me, "I was born gay. It is the last thing I would ever have chosen to be, if I could have had a choice."
Someone who has counseled a number of homosexuals tells me they all say much the same thing. They would prefer to be "straight," but were born with a different orientation. Those who have "changed over" have ended up simply "living a lie." It is hard for me to believe that is what God wants from anybody.
Considering all this, telling a homosexual he/she has to change to merit God's favor almost is the same as telling me, "Eyes are supposed to be blue or brown. Yours are hazel, so you'd better change them if you want to go to heaven." Faced with such a judgment, I could buy blue contact lenses and go where no one has seen my natural eye color. I might be more socially acceptable to some people, but underneath the contacts my eyes would still be hazel.
I admit that the only Biblically approved course of action for a homosexual is a celibate life. Of course, this also is the only Biblically approved way of life for a heterosexual who never marries or whose marriage has ended in divorce. I haven't noticed any movement under way to ban the marriage of divorced people by law, let alone by constitutional amendment. In fact, most churches do not even enforce that restriction on their members.
Incidentally, while homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament and Saint Paul's epistles, Jesus himself, strangely enough, never mentioned it. He did, however, have a lot to say about self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Isn't it ironic that some of the homosexuals in our midst are likely to find more favor with our Lord than Fred Phelps?
I find it hard to determine whether homosexuality is a sin or simply a biological aberration. If it is a sin, it is certainly not the only sin. I think one reason it receives so much attention and opprobrium is that condemning it is safe. Only about one in 10 people is homosexual. A person can bash gays, feel quite holy about it, and arouse hostility in only a small group of people. Furthermore, he deflects attention from other sins which might require some serious examination of his own soul.
A minister, for example, can pound the pulpit and loudly condemn homosexuals and gain a reputation for fearlessly denouncing sin. At the same time, he runs no risk of offending the respectable married couple in the fourth pew who deserted their first spouses and married in an effort to legitimize their adultery or the successful business man a few seats back who made his fortune with shrewd business practices which were tantamount to stealing. Most of us relish a denunciation of somebody else's sin, but flinch from any mention of our own. My mother used to say that most people listen to a sermon with a pitchfork, when they should use a rake.
If the time ever comes when gays in Kansas are allowed to marry, I see no reason why that should detract from the sanctity of your marriage any more than the casual bed-hopping that goes on in the heterosexual world reflects on your marriage. The sanctity of your marriage is in the hands of you and your spouse.
If we heterosexuals take responsibility for our own morality, I have a feeling that may be about all we can handle without worrying about anyone else's behavior.
