Friday, September 08, 2006
Judge not; rather, understand
Editorial commentary
Recent contributions
- Can we be a two-trolley town?
- Striving for civility
- School funding no fantasy
- Pesticide board's work will continue through merger
- Commentary archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
John W. Priddy
Priddy, of Roanoke, is a family physician who practices in Salem.
Opposition to the proposed marriage amendment against gay and civil unions in Virginia is not limited to "godless" liberals. An evangelical Christian and Baptist, once a young Republican, I join many believers who firmly oppose the amendment. This should give pause to those who crafted this amendment on political grounds; as such it is like a house built upon sand. Should it pass, it will surely one day be repealed, for we have learned well that fairness and justice ultimately prevail.
This is a bad amendment, denying our inalienable pursuit of happiness and certain legal and financial privileges to gays and those who elect civil union over marriage. The precedent is a threat to all Virginians. Who will be next?
Virginia was a model for our republic and constitutional government, promoting ideals that -made America "a beacon on a hill." In this context, the proposed marriage amendment is an effort to sanctify the denial of human rights with the backing of constitutional law. Yet, central to the constitution is the guarding of the rights of all from any majority or minority.
As such, the proposed amendment is itself unconstitutional. This is not distorted high-brow logic, but high school level Government 101. The writers of the amendment must have skipped class.
People of faith can rally against the marriage amendment, because this is a straightforward civil rights issue. On this issue alone the amendment should never have passed committee. There were prophetic voices in opposition, but they were overpowered, and the course was set for the abuse of sacred Scripture and defamation of our constitution, all for the purpose of denying rights to Virginians. Now it is up to the fair-minded and reasonable to correct this course.
No reading of biblical or other religious text and no political grandstanding will ever negate the civil rights center of this issue. To succumb to such a temptation would bring us to the level of the fanatic fascists against whom Americans are now united. Ratifying this amendment would institutionalize discrimination, taking a huge step backward, earning us a deserved place among history's most shady characters.
The defeat of this amendment will not threaten any church's right to refuse to join gay couples in marriage. Regardless of how the vote goes, numbers will never define righteousness, nor will righteousness be achieved at the expense of justice, denying our own brothers and sisters the same privileges we enjoy and take for granted. The gospel hymn "Just As I Am" has never implied the exclusion of "you, just as you are."
This amendment is not about sex, but about succumbing to the base temptation to view different as evil. America's sex sin is not homosexuality, but hypersexuality, crossing the line between celebration and exploitation, making sex just another commodity in a hedonistic culture.
We, the church, confess that we have often been on the wrong side of civil rights issues, slow to come around. Our nation and the world moved forward only when believers with vision and courage locked arms with secular forces for justice.
However strange homosexuality may seem, however odd believers may consider those who choose civil union over marriage, we still know intuitively the meaning of justice. Our gay fellow Virginians are our relatives, friends and co-workers. They are us. Gays are not represented by scary extremists we see in the media any more than straight Virginians are represented by the promiscuous or the church by political extremists. There is no hidden "gay agenda," for their agenda is the same as ours. Yet because they comprise a small percentage of the population, gays are natural scapegoats, safe to hate, easy political prey.
Why would a straight, happily married father, a moderate evangelical mission-minded Baptist physician who usually votes Republican take this stand? I believe it's what Jesus would have me to do, and yes, I love and read the Scriptures -- through eyes of faith, in the discerning spirit of grace.
It may be easier to judge than to understand, but which is the right thing to do?
May the people of this great commonwealth rise above the political fray and once again take a stand for human rights, making history, reversing the worrisome trend of states that have turned their backs on their own.
