So I be Written in the Book of Love
During the November election proposition eight, rescinding the vote on same sex marriage, was passed. In the special edition by Keith Olbermann he adamantly explains why the passage of this proposition is “horrible, just horrible.� Furthermore, he states that this is not “a question of right or wrong, gay or straight, it is a question of love.� This is not a position defending whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not, but more a position on whether a person wants to take away another’s right to love unconditionally.
The special edition news feed by Olbermann was well put together. Olbermann conveyed a realistic message with real statistics. His discussion overall intrigued me because this was the first time I had heard the discussion about same sex marriage put on a pedestal about love, not right or wrong. My thoughts on same sex marriage have always been in favor. The thought of discrimination against a certain group of people by taking their rights away, to me, is uncalled for. By posing this as a question of love, I am even more steadfast in my feeling that same sex marriage should be legalized across the United States.
It is unfair that a person can have a view of something, like same sex marriage, to the point where they will vote against the rights of that person to show their expression of love for another. Olbermann stated it best when he said “all you need to do now is stand and let the little ember of love meet it’s own fate, you don’t have to help it, you don’t have to applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it, just don’t put it out.� Because some people don’t feel that same sex marriage is appropriate, or the fact that it is against how they feel, they have no right to say that others should not be granted the same right to marriage as they themselves. Love is the same wherever a person goes. Whoever love is between, it is still the same love that a man and woman share, the same love a man and man share, the same love two women share, love of a couple.
Another statistic that struck me as interesting is the fact that only fifty percent of all marriages will survive no matter how hard they try. The excitement that those who cannot get married get from the thought of having a fifty percent marriage compared to that of those who are just excited to know that they can get married strikes me as an excellent example. Why strip someone of their undeniable right to love who they want to, and express that love just like we have the right to do. Even if there is only a fifty percent chance that a gay persons relationship may survive, I’m sure they would snatch that up. Furthermore, I’m sure if they had a marriage that had a twenty percent chance of lasting, it would excite them just the same.
The love that God has for his children is considered an agápe. Agápe means unconditional love. Without conditions God will always love us. Love is something that without asking for forgiveness God will give to each and every one of us. So why must we stop others from loving who they want. We are going against our own book by saying that same sex marriage is wrong because of what a book says, because no matter what book from what God you read, I am sure that it states that “your neighbor shall be treated like yourself,� and that you should “love one another.� Do not take away these undeniable rights that God has set forth for us. These are not rights that are in our constitution or rights that are stated somewhere, they are rights that each and every living person has due to life.
Same sex marriage should be allowed. Not because I believe that it is unlawful by our constitution, but because this goes against all that every person on this earth stands for. Clarence Darrow defended young men in a murder case, pledging for their life because of the unconditional love we shall have for people. He didn’t necessarily agree with what the boys did; yet he didn’t think that their lives should end because of it. The boys had the right to love, as do every one of us. In an old parable by Omar Khayyam he states the following: “So I be written in the book of love, I don’t care about that book above, erase my name or write it as you will, so I be written in the book of love.� Simply, love overrides anything, including thoughts of right or wrong.
Comments
I believe that the passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California is more complex than believing, "It is unfair that a person can have a view of something, like same sex marriage, to the point where they will vote against the rights of that person to show their expression of love for another" (1). That is the dominant, or preferred reading of Olbermann's arguments. It brings up a valid point, that love between two people is the same regardless of their sexuality, however, it also derides supporters of Proposition 8 to loveless, almost savage people. This is not true.
The passing of Proposition 8 is perhaps a continuation in the symbolic struggle for where the power of U.S. government resides. It is a battle between religion (Christianity) and several different types of philosophy (including those in the Constitution). In particular, the battle for religion in government has been present throughout the history of the United States, but has reached a resurgence in recent years. Many arguments on abortion, war, and same-sex marriage utilize religion as a main driving factor. For example, citing the Bible against same-sex marriage, or claiming that god has created all fetuses equal, etc.
Due to its implications, had Proposition 8 not been passed, it would have been a victory for secularists all across the country, and a loss for all supporters of religion in government. It is much, much more complicated than supporters of Proposition 8 being against love. Such a postulation is ridiculous. In illustration, "why must we stop others from loving who they want" (1). To assume that because someone does not support same-sex marriage, because they do not support love is logical fallacy. There are many different viewpoints for and against Proposition 8, and it is foolish to generalize all of them on the opposing side to the author.
Works Cited:
1. mulhe020, "So I be Written in the Book of Love."
Posted by: Reid Olson | November 25, 2008 3:35 PM
I have to agree that discussing same-sex marriage on the basis of love rather than right or wrong makes for a much more compelling argument. Religious beliefs polarize the argument so that neither side is likely to sway the opposing side. Removing the polarizing factor from the argument serves to form a platform upon which true conversation can happen. As you summarized, Olbermann expertly crafts his argument to use a perfect blend of logical reasoning and emotional appeal to create a very strong case.
Despite the strong points of Olbermann’s argument, though, you failed to examine how his separation of religion and society cannot be accomplished in the real world. People do not live their social life separately from their religious life; rather, religion and the culture surrounding a religion often serve as central pillars of a social structure. If they believe that their religion says that same-sex marriage is wrong, but that discrimination is also morally wrong, how are they supposed to reconcile those differences? Thus far people have chosen to abide by their religion because religion serves as their moral compass. Overcoming or reconciling that hurdle is where most of the argument lies, and hence why I believe most of the arguments surround the question of right or wrong.
After viewing Olbermann’s monologue, I also think you should have stressed the argument for same-sex marriage compared to interracial marriage before the Civil Rights Movement. That argument serves as a powerful reminder that interpretations of “facts� change with time. According to Wikipedia ¹ ² (citing Noah’s Curse ³ by Stephen Haynes as one significant source) Biblical passages were used to justify the enslavement and denial of marriage of African-Americans. Similarly, the argument could be made that current interpretations of religious texts will eventually change, leading to interpretations which are more accommodating/tolerant of same-sex marriages.
Overall, I think the love argument is a powerful argument, but after stepping back from the argument Olbermann gave, the obvious reason why the same-sex marriage debate is not as simple as he made it seems becomes apparent.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#After_American_Independence
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
[3] Stephen R. Haynes (2002), Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery, Oxford University Press US: http://books.google.com/books?id=ioYDJ4GK3tYC
Posted by: Justin W | November 25, 2008 5:50 PM
I disagree with the position on gay marriage that it is “not a question of right or wrong, gay or straight, it is a question of love.� People can love unconditionally no matter what laws are working against them. No marriage is necessary for one to love another unconditionally, but denying the right to marriage is a restriction against gay people.
Gay love, the idea, is about love. Gay marriage, the legal institution, always comes down to the argument of right and wrong. Politicians and United States voters will always bring the vote back to the argument that marriage was an original institution between one man and one woman, and it should stay that way, because God said that that was right.
The facts are that the United States were founded on the ideas that everyone is created equal. So everyone should be entitled to the same rights. The separation of church and state also exists in the United States, which means that not everyone is Christian in this country, which also means that our laws should not be based on Christianity. The point is that the argument over the legality of gay marriage always comes down to what is right and what is wrong, but it shouldn’t because everyone has their own ideas about what is right and wrong. Everyone should be free to love who they choose, and no law should restrict them from consecrating their love.
Posted by: Nora Nolden | November 26, 2008 9:55 PM