It takes a person of character to admit their wrongdoing, and a person of worth to correct it – why should the same not hold true for a government? I accept that there are many complicated political situations; some of these are legitimately complex, many simply exist because the men and women with the power to act are simply too afraid of losing their seat at the table. When President Obama assumed The White House I expected a degree of shortcoming from his claim for change; but never did I expect such a liberal administration to turn a deaf ear on homosexual rights. I equate homosexual rights to civil rights in that it is/was a natural contract being barred by a group of selfish, close-minded people who remain trapped in an obsolete way of thinking; the opportunity exists to do the moral right and correct such an obvious wrong.
The first issue with which I take offense is homosexual marriage. As is evident in my previous piece (Oh Republicans, where art thou?) it should come as no surprise that I am a robust advocate for the separation of church and state and concurrently support homosexual marriage rights. While many of our social values may find their roots in religious text and can be used to shape legislation or policy, religious policy does not and should never equal social policy. To demonstrate the preposterousness of using religious text as a basis for policy, I’d like to give a nod to an old West Wing episode:
* * *
(excerpt of a scene from The West Wing, S2E3, in which the President is speaking to a conservative talk-show host)
President Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here.
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?
Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Think about those questions, would you?
* * *
The second issue with which I take offense is one which I would almost expect agreement from conservatives given their appetite for a larger national defense: gays in the military. The current policy (if one can call such a directive “policy”) is “don’t ask, don’t tell”, which is self-explanatory. Rachel Maddow’s May 19th interview with Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach tells a very personal story about an honorable American who has defended the nation for nearly two decades, however because he is a homosexual he has been discharged from active duty.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Someday the next generation will laugh and wonder how we existed in a world without homosexual equality, the same way we are baffled by a world before civil and women’s rights; but this future only exists if we are the change we want to see in the world. I implore the media to take note as did Ms. Maddow, I hope the American population will demand we live up to our claim as the land of the free and I urge my government to commence on these social changes which they so promised and we so require.
