The "West Wing" watcher series--Volume 2.
In Season 2, Episode 7, entitled "The Portland Trip", President Bartlett is on a trip to, yes, Portland. There are several big political issues on which the White House must make a decision. One of those, a marriage protection bill, has passed both houses and is now on the President's desk. Josh speaks with a Republican Congressman, who happens to be gay, about the issue. He is trying to determine whether or not the President should veto the bill. President Bartlett states at one point that the bill is "gay-bashing." Josh says to the Congressman that the government is trying to tell him who he can love. These are two examples of the misdirection often used in the gay-marriage debate, and any type of "gay-rights" debate for that matter. There are many issues involved in the homosexual debate, and there are many issues not involved in the homosexual debate. Both sides need to be honest enough to distinguish between the two.
The first issue not related to the homosexual debate is the issue of love. In our modern culture, it is almost impossible to talk of love without talking of sex. The two have almost become synonymous. A sexual relationship is going to be part of a loving relationship, but a sexual relationship does not indicate a loving relationship. Most people understand that sex and love don't always walk together. When a persons says that he believes a homosexual relationship is wrong, others incorrectly infer that to mean that love between two homosexual people is wrong. That is unfair and untrue. The Bible clearly says that we should love all men. The Bible also clearly says that sexual relations between two men or two women is wrong. The latter can and should exist without the former.
A related issue is the confusion between the act and the actor. Condemning a homosexual act is far different from condemning a homosexual person. The well-worn phrase, "Hate the sin; love the sinner," is very applicable here. Any person who demonizes any other person for their actions is a hypocrite. We must realize that all sin is wrong. The sin of homosexuality is as wrong in God's eyes as the sin of lying. How many more liars than homosexuals are there? Is condemning a person's lies the same as condemning the liar? There are certain acts that are morally wrong. People condemn these acts all the time. Yet, the people who commit these acts are still people. They are people like every other person. Our worth as a human does not stem from our actions. Whatever worth we have stems from our humanity. Everyone is a sinner, therefore everyone sins. We are not our sins. If God sees us as our sin, then we are hopeless, for sin cannot enter heaven. God sees us a people who sin. The cross separates us from our sin, so that one day we might enter into heaven sinless. A non-Christian mindset is the least philanthropic, for it does not distinguish a man from his actions. There are cruel Christians, but Christianity is not cruel. It treats people with more respect and more dignity than any other religion.
In the episode is another issue not related to the debate. A bill that recognizes heterosexual marriage as the only legal marriage does not automatically "outlaw" homosexual relationships. A marriage is, among other things, a legal entity. One of the responsibilities of government is to define various legal entities. There needs to be specific definitions for a business. A bum with Windex and a squeegee is not considered a business. A lady with a cart full of light bulbs cannot apply for a business license and sincerely expect to receive one. She may have a bright idea. She may have extensive ability. She may have every intention of starting a successful business. None of these are valid enough reasons for giving her a business license. Does that men she cannot sell her light bulbs? Does that mean she is less of a citizen because she cannot get a license? God forbid. There must be guidelines, and government must determine those guidelines, though they must have valid reasons for their decision. The decision regarding a marriage protection amendment is a policy decision, not necessary a moral one. Morals will of course play an enormous role in it, but the end result isn't an attempt to implement a specific morality. A homosexual couple can enter into a communion that, for all practical purposes, is a marriage. However, they will not be able to get the legal privileges of marriage. Some consider that discrimination. It is, in the same sense that it is discrimination to refuse a business license to the light bulb lady.
The homosexual debate contains many complicated issues, non of which can be easily resolved. Neither side is doing any one any good by compounding the complexity with non-related jetsam. The only way to honestly deal with the issue is to take the issues as they are, without distorting or expanding them.
