Willie Nelson celebrates same-sex marriage ruling, says no to homophobia #SSM http://t.co/nV8ymSXdbT
— Austin Statesman (@statesman) June 28, 2015
Willie Nelson celebrated the Supreme Court’s latest ruling by flipping the bird to homophobia and sharing the photos to prove it on Facebook (warning: explicit content). The Texas musician shared a few choice photos of himself with his 4 million Facebook fans on Saturday, the same day that the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was now legal nationwide.
Willie was actually in Portland to give a concert at Edgefield in Troutdale with Alison Krauss on Friday. Erin and I unfortunately didn’t have tickets; it would have been to see him again. At his age, I’m grateful that he’s still playing music…because I know every time I whiff on the opportunity to see him when he’s in town could be the last chance I get.
Though he hails from deep in the heart of uber-Conservative Texas, Willie Nelson has consistently stood for a very healthy live-and-let-live ethos. If more Texans reflected that sort of open-minded deference to individual choice, I might miss the Lone Star State a bit more. Sadly, though, most Texans fall well on the other side of the authoritarian/laissez faire spectrum, as do a distressingly large number of Americans who unreasonably believe their moral code to be superior and therefore deserving of being the law of the land.
I’ve run across so many whose attitude is reflected by one of the commenters on Nelson’s Facebook post: “There’s a huge difference between homophobia and the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” I agree; there’s certainly a difference, though certainly not in the way the (deservedly unnamed) commenter believes. The belief that “marriage should be between a man and a woman” is absolutely valid…to the person holding it. One of my Conservative friends in Houston’s posed the question, “So where do we draw the line, Jack? Who is the moral authority?” My response to him reflected my belief that no one has the right to tell another how they must live and/or whom and how they may love. NO ONE’s moral code should be deemed superior and deserving of being woven into the legal fabric of a free society. In fact, there’s no need for ANYONE to be a “moral authority”…because such a role represents only an invitation to tyranny and oppression.
Why must there be a moral authority? If true Conservatism is about keeping government out of the private lives of Americans- and it is- the State has no dog in this fight and no right to determine who may or may not marry. Beyond that, how does the idea of two people wanting to enter into a lifelong loving commitment NOT represent a net benefit to society? Marriage equality is a WIN/WIN.
There’s a simple solution available to those who are put off by same-sex marriage: don’t marry someone of the same gender.
No one possesses the right to determine who has the right to marry. It’s a simple argument you should be able to relate to, based as it is in classical Conservatism. You’re free to believe as you choose, but the rights that flow from that don’t extend beyond yourself.
If you call yourself a Conservative and yet believe the role of government encompasses enforcing a narrow definition of “traditional marriage,” you’re not a Conservative. You’re a hypocrite. Traditional Conservatism is about minimizing the control and influence of government over the day to day lives of Americans. It’s about freedom and liberty…and not just for those who believe that marriage is and should be only between one man and one woman. If that represents your personal moral code, they good on you…but that’s as far as your influence and control should extend in a truly free society.
There need not and should not be a moral authority. There’s no line needing to be drawn. Same-sex marriage neither adversely impacts nor is a threat to our collective morality. It’s not inviting God’s wrath for willfully subverting “natural law” by legalizing sodomy and sin. The SCOTUS decision means there’s no longer a distinction to be made between “traditional marriage” (good) and “same-sex marriage” (bad.) There is only marriage, and it’s to our collective benefit to recognize and foster loving, caring, committed long-term relationships. Denying that truth out of a sense of “sincerely-held religious conviction” only means that you’re using religion to camouflage your hatred and prejudice.
An American is guaranteed the constitutional right to hold what opinion(s) they may choose. Free speech and expression is part and parcel of makes us what and who we are. For too many, though, that free speech and expression, especially as it pertains to one’s right to make the legally-recognized lifelong commitment that is marriage, applies only to those who believe in “traditional marriage.” They claim “sincerely-held religious convictions,” “God’s law,” and numerous other claims to religiosity that, when broken down, reveal a foundation of bigotry, hatred, and homophobia. It’s about the belief that their “sincerely-held religious convictions” should be held to be morally superior. It’s about the mistake belief that those convictions should become the law of the land and deny others what the Supreme Court just ruled to be a basic human right. Even more than that, it’s about meddling in the lives and affairs of others when those things will in no way have a deleterious impact on the quality of your life…or marriage.
Why must there be a moral authority? Why should it be the role of government to decide who’s worthy of marriage and who’s “less than?” The Conservatives belief that government has the right- indeed, the duty- to enforce their narrow, exclusive, intolerant moral code upon all Americans represents the height of self-righteous arrogance and hypocrisy. Failure to recognize that arrogance and hypocrisy only leaves me questioning the moral fitness of those hold themselves and their beliefs so far above others who think, believe, live and/or love differently.
I’ve heard all the ridiculous worst case arguments- “What’s to stop people from marrying their dogs?;” “What happens when people want to marry an underage child?;” and so forth, as if allowing same-sex marriage will lead inevitably to an epic collective moral breakdown where no rules apply. The willingness to assume and envision ridiculous worst-case scenarios doesn’t translate to legislating against same-sex marriage in an effort to protect good, God-fearing, heterosexual patriots from the inevitable privations of rampant immorality and sin. Many of the same arguments were made against interracial marriage back in the day, and 1967’s Loving v. Virginia didn’t push Christians into a moral crevasse, as many feared would happen. Today interracial marriage attracts no attention at all, which is as it should be. A just and free society doesn’t erect barriers to love and commitment; it celebrates, enables, and supports the desire of two people to love and cherish one another…because love can only add to our collective harmony and happiness.
Friday’s SCOTUS ruling can be boiled down to a very simple, straightforward calculus: Love won, hate lost. You don’t have to like that truth, but that no longer matters. Government no longer has the right to enforce a narrow pseudo-religious definition of marriage that excludes a class of people simply because of who and how they love. Conservative hypocrisy lost, even as classical Conservatism won.
Live and let live. Allow others to be who they are. Stop believing that your personal moral code affords you the right to determine how others may live and love. Try remembering that Jesus Christ taught love, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion. Understand that if legalizing same-sex marriage represents a clear and present danger to your own marriage, you may not be the completely and unfailingly committed godly heterosexual you believe yourself to be. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course; the problems begin when you use that lack of self-knowledge to deny others their right to fully be who they are.
In the end, it’s not about you, your fears, or your “sincerely-held religious convictions,” whatever that may mean. It’s about allowing people to be who they are, love who they will, and enjoy the opportunity to formalize a desire to make a lifelong commitment to a loving long-term relationship. How could that possibly be a bad thing?
