A Direct Challenge To Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY

When it comes to the practice of people pretending to be what they are not, and then being rewarded for it, it's no wonder that Halloween and Election Day are so close together on the calendar. Think about it: A stranger (trick-or-treater / politician) visits you (to your front door / through your TV), wearing a mask (Spider-Man / fake smile), asking you to reward him (candy / vote), and as soon as he has what he wants, the mask comes off (usually that night / usually when it comes time to actually govern). But just as some of the scariest masks on All Hallow's Eve are worn not by the trick-or-treaters but by those who dole out the sweets, some of the scariest masks on Election Day are worn not by the politicians, but by the voters.

I've spent nearly a week trying to articulate my opinion on the passing of California's Proposition 8, which, technically, defines marriage as being valid only between one man and one woman. But really, for all practical intentions, it is a ban on same-sex marriage.

For the record, I believe Proposition 8, and any other new or existing legal measure that prohibits gays from marrying, to be nothing more than bigotry masked as the will of the people; hate scribed on parchment.

However, I've had trouble banging the keys on this issue. I've read tens of thousands of words about this, both online and in print; words ranging from pure polling statistics to Constitutional debates to arguments of rights vs. privileges to venomous and hateful blogs. So much has been written about this issue, I wasn't sure that I could add anything new. Plus, I've railed against this type of hatred before, and while the issue certainly warrants ongoing discussion, I usually try to look for different topics to comment on. Besides, a prescient argument was excellently crafted by Mark Boggs in The Salt Lake Tribune on October 18.

Then I noticed a pattern. Throughout many of the comments I have read, there are common defenses made by those who approve of the ban: homosexuality is a violation of God's word; homosexuality is a threat to marriage/procreation/family; homosexuals are okay, it's homosexuality that is the problem; homosexuality is a choice.

But it wasn't what I read that finally got me going; it was what I DIDN'T read. Sure, those in support of gay marriage have made fine arguments for their cause, but beyond the usual pro-gay language and basic name-calling, not one supporter of gay marriage has really taken one detractor of gay marriage to task for his or her negative opinions. I thought maybe someone should.

I thought maybe I should.

I've always believed that people who discriminate against gay marriage - and homosexuals - are not true proponents of God's Word, nor protectors of marriage and family and children, nor sympathizers of the gay plight. I've always believed that people who discriminate against homosexuals are misguided at best and ill-willed at worst, and use "God's Word" or "protection of marriage/procreation/family" or "love the sinner, hate the sin" as threadbare rhetoric to mask darker feelings that might otherwise invite unwanted social persecution.

But I'm a fair guy. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY, I will give those of you who declare that your opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is not hate-based, but is indeed based on God's Word, a chance to do more than just quote Scripture; I will give you the chance to affirm your conviction. Below is a holy trinity of challenges that, should you accept them and live by (or up to) what they ask, will make you aces in my book. If you cannot execute all of these, you are nothing more than a poser, and possibly a hater. With that, let's begin.

First, I CHALLENGE YOU to live by ALL the Words of God, not just those that suit your particular agenda. And by "all the Words of God," I don't just mean the Ten Commandments and one cherry-picked quote from Leviticus (18:22). I mean all of them, including the obvious, like "Do unto others...", and the easy, like "Let he who is without sin...," as well as the not-so-obvious, like killing adulterers, and the not-so-easy, like completely disassociating yourself from women who are menstruating. Remember, you consider Scripture to be the rulebook, so it is only fair you play by all of the rules in it.

Next, I CHALLENGE YOU to take umbrage with everyone who violates any Word of God. If you are going to boycott gay marriage because you believe homosexuals violate the Word of God, then consider boycotting professional football, whose players violate the Word of God by playing on the Sabbath. While you're at it, boycott all other people who work on the Sabbath, like policemen, firefighters, and ER doctors. Just remember to take a moment to pray that no crisis befalls you on Sundays, because if your house is burning down, 12:01 AM on Monday won't come soon enough.

Finally, I CHALLENGE YOU to contact your local, state, and federal politicians and demand a ban of every other religion that isn't your religion. There was a great line in the TV show HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, where, at the end of a religious debate between two men of different faiths, Detective Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) says to Detective Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor), "If my God wins, you're screwed." Is this not the perfect summary to the great, unspoken hypocrisy of modern faith? Publicly, members of one religion respect the beliefs of other religions, even when the basic tenets are vastly different. But behind closed doors, each swears all others are patently wrong. Why bother dancing this dance? If only one religion will win come Judgment Day, why not make sure it's yours, and why not make sure today?

I think that should do it. Let me know how you make out.

NEXT WEEK: PART II

God, Guns, and Gays: An Unlikely Ménage à Trois

Pop quiz! According to Amazon.com, the inside flap of WHOSE book includes the following text:

"In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, [the author] gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do."

If you answered "Chuck Norris" then go to the head of the class. Norris' book is called Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. Seriously. As for the rest of you, meet me after school to clap erasers.

While I don't place any more value in Chuck Norris' solutions for this country than I do in Nancy Pelosi's martial arts techniques...embrace the visual...I am concerned that people will listen to him simply because he is Chuck Norris, especially since I read an answer he recently gave during an interview with Reed Tucker of PAGE SIX MAGAZINE (September 7, 2008).

Tucker asked, "Do you think people are born gay?" Norris answered, "Yes, I believe many of them are. I don't think all of them are. I believe that they have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gay community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gay. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

This notion of homosexuals supposedly "making a big issue" of their lifestyle has always perplexed me. When people make accusations like Norris', statements that usually include the word flaunt, I often wonder how, exactly, they define "flaunting homosexuality." A public display of affection? A bumper sticker? A public gathering in support of the cause? Regardless, the message seems clear: live and let live, just don't flaunt it.

Then I came across a September 6, 2008 story by Bill Vidonic for the online edition of the BEAVER COUNTY TIMES and the ALLEGHENY TIMES (www.timesonline.com). The piece reports how John Noble, a Beaver County (PA) man, was arrested - some claim falsely - near an outdoor rally for presidential nominee Barack Obama. The arrest occurred because Noble showed up with a gun strapped to his hip. He did not violate Pennsylvania's open carry law, he claims he has worn his gun in public before and always without incident, and he declared that, according to the piece, "...Obama's constitutional rights didn't take precedence over his."

Listen, I'm not a gun guy, but I respect the Second Amendment. In fact, I feel kind of sorry for Mr. Noble. I mean, all he wanted to do was...oh, what's the word? He just wanted to demonstrate something that is important to him...you know, make a big issue out of it...and yet, he was punished for it. What IS that word?

Anyway, I came across another story, this one involving police. According to reporter Julian Walker of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (www.pilotonline.com), in a September 25, 2008 story, Virginia state troopers who volunteer as chaplains for the force were told that at "sanctioned government events," they were no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ; any public prayers may be spiritual, but they must remain non-denominational. In private prayer matters, though, the troopers can still speak of Christ. As a result of the rule change, six of 17 affected troopers resigned their posts as chaplains only (they remain troopers with no change to their trooper status, as their religious work was always voluntary). According to Walker's story:

"One of the six chaplains who resigned that post, 13-year trooper Rex Carter, said his faith had compelled him to conduct religion-related duties. 'There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions...about what the Bible says, we couldn't agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,' said Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia."

Listen, I'm a Catholic, born-and-raised; I come complete with 12 years of parochial school, memorization of every prayer and hymn you've ever heard, and all the guilt you can eat, so I get it. I understand what these poor troopers are going through, being denied their chance to...rats! What is that word? It's like they're being told they're not special, that no one is special, that they are what they are. Oh, my awful memory.

I kid, of course, because I love. The word is FLAUNT.

Mr. Noble wants to flaunt his right to carry a firearm in public. He probably even has a bumper sticker with a pro-gun statement on it - something like Body Piercing by Smith & Wesson or If You Can Read This, You Are In Range. He might even attend gun shows or NRA rallies.

The troopers who forfeited their pastor roles want to flaunt their love of Christ. In fact, I bet at least one of them has one of those fish things stuck to his bumper, or one of them might wear a crucifix pendant every day, or one might even promote creationism. And hey, they all get to have mini-conventions every Sunday.

You know, the more I type, the more I realize that the gun people and the God people are really no different than the gay people. Just as gay people want to show their love of each other through public displays or bumper stickers or large gatherings, so too do gun people and God people want to show their love of guns and God the same way.

It begs the question, Why is one person's outward display called "flaunting" while another person's outward display is called "Second Amendment rights," and a third person's outward display is called "Ash Wednesday?"

The answer is hypocrisy. The gun guys and the God guys don't think the same standards apply to them as they apply to the gay guys. Don't believe me?

Imagine the reaction if someone said, "I believe that gun owners have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gun-owning community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gun owners. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

Better yet, read aloud...seriously, if you can, read right out loud...how it would sound if someone said, "I believe that Christians have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the Christian community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were Christian. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

So, if you say such a thing about the gun guys, you make them victims of attempted rights-stripping; and if you say such a thing about the God guys, you make them victims of attempted religion-assaulting; but if you say such a thing about the gay guys - as Norris actually did - you imply that no group should be treated special? You demand parity from a group that whole religions discriminate against?

With the goal of refuting their own intolerance towards their fellow man, people might say, "No one is special," or they might say, "Live and let live," or they might say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What they are really saying is that despite societal evolution, intolerance hasn't changed...people have just gotten better at masking it.