By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard about the California Supreme Court decision that overrode the will of the state’s people and legalized same-sex marriage. I’ve been waiting to comment until seeing some of the responses, some of which are laugh-out-loud funny. For instance, there’s this from More Light Presbyterians:

This is a day in LGBT equality history and in the life of a democracy to remember!
MLP is apparently of the opinion that “democracy” means rule by philosopher-kings. Then there’s the United Church of Christ’s John Thomas:
“I am gratified by the decision of the courts in California to reject discrimination and affirm the dignity of same gender couples. As recent decisions in other states makes clear, until all couples are able to marry, their separate status will never be equal status.”

What does “until all couples are able to marry, their separate status will never be equal status” mean? I have no idea. But it certainly sounds confused, doesn’t it? But he’s topped by the Rev. Susan Russell of the Episcopal gay advocacy group Integrity:

The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena said she is thrilled that her church, which has been blessing same sex unions for 15 years, will soon be able to offer official wedding rites.

“It is a very exciting day,” said Russell, who had her union with her partner blessed at All Saints last year.

That will no doubt come as a surprise to her bishop, who claims that no such ceremonies are allowed in his diocese, and to Episcopalians across the country who keep pointing to the Windsor Report, which calls on the Episcopal Church to stop doing same-sex blessings, much less weddings. Finally, there’s Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which claims, believe it or not, that this is an church-state separation issue:

To the government, marriage is a civil institution, and the California Supreme Court has simply determined that the benefits of that institution cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Southern Baptists and other like-minded faith groups don’t have to marry same-sex couples, but religious liberty means they can’t stop congregations that do.

The battle over this issue, of course, isn’t over. There’s likely to be a referendum on it on the California ballot in November. Rev. Duke and folks like him are gearing up for a fight.

“May God help the citizens of California to win this battle for the family,” he said.

Many Californians, religious and non-religious, have an opposite understanding. They see the referendum as a battle for church-state separation. They have families too, and they don’t want them to live in a theocracy.

So apparently, until yesterday, California has spent the last 150 years as a theocracy. Until 2003, every state was a theocracy. In fact, virtually the entire Western world has been a theocracy until Scandinavians decided that they didn’t want to live in a theocracy, which is defined as a political jurisdiction where marriage is restricted to one man and one woman. In the United States, meanwhile, there has been no separation of church and state for lo these past two centuries–it was all just an illusion held to by people who didn’t realize that defining marriage the same way it has been defined in the West for centuries meant that we were living in a Dominionist paradise.

Isn’t it good to know you’re now free of those theocratic restraints, and can marry anyone of any gender you please. So, here’s the next question: when do we proceed to legalizing polygamy for the sake of not discriminating against those whose religion is OK with it?

Advertisement
Privacy Settings