Chicago, IL

By A.B. Dada

—

Longtime reader Dennis posted this comment in response to my Day with a Gay post from a few weeks back:

I have been reading your website for years and find your economical analyses insightful. Although you are clearly rather religious, your stance on gay rights is shocking, as is your pigeonholing of whatever motivations one may have for supporting gay marriage. FYI I am a straight married Dutchman and I can see a point against church gay weddings (each their own). Civil rights however cannot be discriminated upon and your religious group-think is surprising coming from an otherwise clearly well informed person.

I appreciate Dennis’ attempt to call me out on my “religious group-think,” but I do disagree with his point of view.  First, my view on religion is more on the negative side than most people who would label themselves adherents of any faith: I detest religion.  Religion has been one of the biggest reasons for warfare, both military and cultural.  I do not adhere to any particular religion, but I do have my own faith that I believe in.  To me, faith is an individual decision, and not something necessarily affiliated with any group’s mandate or creed.  Those who come to faith through individual study are those who have an understanding of what their faith means to them.  To many people come to faith through groups, via religion, which ends up pigeonholing them into the mandates and creeds of that cult, rather than through logical progressive education from the individual’s perspective.

I don’t think I pigeonholed one’s support of gay marriage into a “religious or atheist” viewpoint.  In fact, if anything, I propose that marriage in any form is an economic process.  When two individuals want to marry, they may have religious reasons, they may have social or cultural reasons: either way, the end result is an economic union.  This is true when seen from a State perspective, it is also true when seen from a cultural one.  A marital union is a contract between two individuals to perform certain duties, and refrain from others, based on that mutual agreement.

The State, though, sees marriage as different.  To the State, marriage is something that must be regulated.  The State believes that a marriage contract is a contract that must be forced upon others.  If two people marry, the State can force specific treatment of the contract by individuals that have nothing to do with the contract.  Employers of certain sizes are given tax loopholes and even certain mandates to acknowledge the marriage contract between two individuals.  In States that approve gay marriage, external parties and individuals are also given these tax loopholes or mandates to treat the two gay partners’ contracts in a certain way.

This is an economic mess.  To force a contract of others on an independent and neutral party is a ridiculous mandate.  If two people want to contract with each other to agree on providing lawn mowing services, why should a third party be involved at all?  Why should the third party be forced to acknowledge that contract, or modify their relationship with either party because of the “significance” of marriage over other contracts?

To me, gay marriage mandates by the State are as disgusting as heterosexual marriage mandates by the State.  These mandates, regardless of the reason, force third parties to submit to the will of two other parties.  It is against freedom to force individuals to accept anyone else’s contract unless that third party is involved specifically in the contract.  As soon as individuals or groups are giving rights over other individuals, freedom is lost.  It doesn’t matter if it is gay marriage, straight marriage, adoption, or other social utility contracts: what people do with one another through mutual agreement should not effect how third parties interact with those individuals, if they want to or not.

“Civil rights” is the normal response by those who support gay marriage rights.  I think that is a ridiculous debate point.  Civil rights laws create an illusion that the State can mandate how people treat others.  The laws don’t work.  They SEEM to work because society as a whole has become more accepting of other people’s races, abilities, sexual preferences, and values, but it is not due to the law but due to more information about the differences of others.  As more gay people have “come out of the closet,” more people who harbored anger or hatred of that sexual preference have become comfortable knowing that it is far more common than it used to be.  Laws did not create this change in comfort level, society as a whole has due to the more open display of gay relationships by those who are involved in them.

As a Christian, I’ve removed myself from the majority of religious groupthink by doing deeper research into Scripture.  I do not believe that the God I believe in harbors any anger or negativity towards gays (or straights, or the celibate or the sexually promiscuous).  I believe the Old Testament rules and laws are vanquished as displayed in the New Testament and history since.  To me, gay people and straight people are just people.  We all have things we like and hate.  We all make decisions that help us and harm us, help others and harm others.  It is those specific instances of loving and hating action that I think can be judged by others, if they wish, in terms of how much they want to be involved with the lives of others.

That doesn’t mean to say I believe that the State should FORCE anyone to like or dislike anyone.  That’s what freedom is about: forming and disbanding relationships with others based on how much you like them or dislike them, how much you trust them or distrust them, or even how much you approve of their lives or disapprove of their lives.  Even if the law says you have to accept someone regardless of their race, education, ability, sexuality or sex, it doesn’t mean that people will.  There are always ways to avoid someone, legally, if you disagree with who they are or how they live.  I try not to judge people on their preferences but on their character in how they treat me or how their decisions treat my freedoms.  If others want to harbor prejudice SOLELY on someone’s social or physical build, that will only reduce the prejudiced person’s ability to select from the best providers of the services or products they seek.  As an employer, it would be ridiculous for me to not hire the best candidate for a job because of their color or sexual preference.  For the employers who do make those negative decisions, the employer loses out far more than the employee, who would be stupid to want to work for someone with prejudices.

I appreciate the “calling out” by Dennis, but I just don’t see how my disagreement with gay marriage (AND STRAIGHT MARRIAGE) as mandated by State fiat is part of any group think.  I, as an individual, do not want to be party to ANYONE’S contract unless I am directly involved in it.  Get married to men, women, or parties of both, if you want.  As long as you do not hamper my freedoms, and you can provide me with a service or product that I need at a price I am willing to pay, we will work together.  It has nothing to do with your social agreements with others.

Related posts:

1. Day Without a Gay? Gay Without a Pay.
2. Forming a just and loving response to public figures who err.
3. A response to praying at the pump comments
4. Defending Religious Persecution
5. I support the legal ban on gay marriage
6. Public Leaders should be taken out and beaten
7. A response to Why I stopped volunteering
8. A response to a Christian’s view on Intellectual Property
9. A response to avoiding teamwork
10. Samuel Israel: I forgive you, now run.