Why Is God Injected Into The Gay Rights Equation?

I've been hearing so much about the mess that is prop 8 (in California). This proposition to ban gay marriage remains controversial, and I feel disappointed that people are conflating legal rights with religious beliefs.

After all, we're not all Christians right? What about the Californian atheists, Buddhists, and so on? Why is it prop 8 is considered legal when it is born out of beliefs specific to a kind of religion? They're not trying to force churches to marry them, people, they are trying to gain the right to be recognized as monogamous married couples! Who wants a "domestic partnership?" It doesn't carry the same social message that "marriage" does.

It's not about God, it's about rights and recognition! Ayayay!

I know it's a bit annoying to see the kid being fed his lines and such, but you get the picture. What they say is very enlightening.

A friend of mine shared this interesting piece about protests against the newly implemented proposition 8 in California, which bans gay marriage.
"Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

[...]Los Angeles-based and Tony Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman ("Hairspray") wrote a blog saying he would never allow any of his shows to again be licensed or performed by California Musical Theatre while Eckern was employed there."

The way I see it is that just as Mr. Eckern has the right to express support for policies he believes in, others have the right to withhold their support of Mr. Eckern--specifically because he supported a change in California's constitution that they do not agree with, and a change in the constitution affects everybody.

For example, Marc Shaiman refused to have any of his shows be performed at the California Musical Theater while Eckern was still employed. Those shows are his. He has the right to prevent Eckern from making money off Shaiman's work. Why would Shaiman want to continue contributing to the earnings of Eckern who has directly donated money to a political cause that Shaiman is firmly opposed to?

Shaiman has the right to cut the flow of capital from his work to Eckern, and I think it is just for Shaiman to deny Eckern profit from his work when Eckern is trying to deny gays their legal rights based on his religious beliefs.

In sum, Mr. Eckern, in donating the thousand, made a political statement. A political statement is meant to be heard. He made it clear that he did not support gay marriage rights, and many people decided to take a stand against him.

Finally, why does God and Gay have to be mutually exclusive? It's ridiculous to believe they don't mix, when they do.
blog comments powered by Disqus