A long and winding road to marriage equality

Life, all life, obeys a fundamental tenet – the propagation of its genetic material. It is a mandate which shapes the behavior of amoebas and turtles and elephants and all of us.

This is often recognized as two subsidiary goals: survival of the individual and survival of the species.  Over and over again in nature we can see this in action as prey strives to escape predator and predator strives to devour prey – all in a constant battle to survive.  Heroic efforts to produce and feed and nurture offspring are observed in the labor of Emperor penguins and Canada geese and stockbrokers and soccer moms.  Life demands perpetuation and procreation.  It is embedded in our genes, imprinted on our DNA.  This monumental struggle can no more be denied than the urge to draw that next sweet breath of air.

According to Thomas Hobbes, the “life of man (is), solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  An appropriate description of primitive life, for an aged Neanderthal likely died in his thirties. The survival rate of children was atrocious, with perhaps only one of three surviving past the age of six. Even in the Middle Ages, it was unusual to live past forty-five.  It is only in the last century that human lifespan regularly exceeded 70 years.   The discoveries of antibiotics and vaccines, fresh and waste water treatment, and the science of nutrition are largely responsible for this remarkable advance.

Throughout history, humankind has been preoccupied with the procreation of our species. Evolutionary pressures have established that, at least for humans, a family unit is the preferred method for maximizing both individual and species survival.  Where procreation was the goal, a combination of a pair of adult parents with the resultant offspring offered the greatest opportunity for individual and collective survival.

As humans evolved and looked with wonder upon their world, they invented theories and myths to explain what they saw, and to provide comfort. Native Americans created a Great Spirit, just as the ancient Greeks and Romans described a panoply of gods.

It should not be surprising that as religions developed, the strategies that enhanced individual and species survival were enshrined.  Marriage of man and woman became the basis of social organization, with the primary goal being perpetuation of the species via the survival of offspring.  As human populations grew, this strengthened society and, by rule of numbers, the predominant religions.

But by the modern age, things had changed enormously.  No longer was the day spent almost wholly focused on procuring today’s sustenance.  The survival rate of children is now measured in the high 99^th percentile, a far cry from the disastrous effects of predation and influenza and dysentery of prior ages.  A complex society has evolved to overproduce food, shelter, and clothing to the extent that delivers an almost embarrassing surplus.

Our political and religious structures have continued to recognize the value of the familial unit that contributed mightily to our attainment of this nirvana.  But things have, indeed, changed.  Survival of the individual, while still threatened by carjackers and heart disease and other unpleasant things, is largely guaranteed by our booming economies and generous social programs.  Procreation of the species can be achieved via traditional methods or by a number of sophisticated fertility techniques.  Almost any couple can now bear children, and those who cannot may adopt. The strict imperative of male/female bonding for species propagation has been relaxed by a combination of factors.

The original purpose of marriage, between a man and a woman, has long been fulfilled.  We have survived, we have bloomed, and matured. Religious constraints, created during times of disease and duress, are now free to evolve.

The Supreme Court is correct. There is no longer a justification for denying like-gendered couples the societal benefits of marriage. It does no harm to our specie’s survival and adds to the store of human happiness.

That’s an easy case to argue.

Imagine a world without enlightenment

Three hundred seventeen years ago, a few months shy of this 21^st birthday, Thomas Aikenhead was put to death in Edinburgh, Scotland. He was the last man to be executed for blasphemy in Britain.

Aikenhead, a student at Edinburgh University, had an inquiring mind and it was his wont to read. His crime? Reading books by “Descartes, Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes and other so-called atheists” and having the temerity to discuss them with his classmates. One of them informed on him.

At that time the power of the church was absolute. After his conviction, and asked to intercede on Aikenhood’s behalf, the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly demurred, urging “vigorous execution to curb the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land.” So was Aikenhead’s fate sealed, and he was hanged on January 8, 1697.

But great upheaval was at hand as Europe entered the Age of Enlightenment, a humanist movement that was powered by philosophers, the printing press, and the increasing literacy of the citizenry. Over a  two hundred year period beginning in the 1650s, the absolute power of the church was shattered.

Voltaire, Kant, Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, (Isaac) Newton, and Hume are just a few of the thinkers to whom we owe our physical and intellectual freedoms.  Dorinda Outram, a Professor of History at the University of Rochester, describes the Enlightenment as composed of "many different paths, varying in time and geography, to the common goals of progress, of tolerance, and the removal of abuses in Church and state.”

And the church was ultimately, rightfully, put in its place as subordinate to the civil state.

As a result, unshackled thought and unbounded creativity, free from religious dogma and constraint, led to an explosion of invention and discovery known as the Scientific Revolution.

So was born our Western civilization, with our deeply held values. The twin goals of liberty and progress in harmony and balance. Religion as choice, not as coercion or forced submission.

Where you are free to take the name of the Lord God in vain. Where you can create “art,” publicly funded, depicting a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine. Where you can eat pork or publish satirical images of religious icons. Or burn a bible in public. Or worship any god you like, in any way you want. Where you may open mindedly support equal rights for all, men, women, straight, gay, of any race or persuasion. All without fear of reprisal.

So it was with great shock, regret, and deep disappointment in the lack of human progress to witness the execution of twelve Charlie Hebdo staffers. They were killed by two Islamic Wahhabi fanatics for the crime of blasphemy on January 7, 2015, nearly 317 years to the day that Thomas Aikenwood was hanged.

It should be immediately obvious, the central issue. The Charlie Hedbo staffers were not Muslim, yet were executed for blaspheming the Islamic prophet, Muhammad.

Imagine a sect of fundamental Episcopalians situated on the shores of Lake Huron. They believe fervently that tennis balls are blessed by God and are not to be struck. Tennis balls are placed on altars and worshiped as holy icons. Tennis courts and matches are banned in their communities, as striking the balls is blasphemous. But, not satisfied only to follow these strictures themselves, they demand that we all do so as well. They mount horrific attacks on tennis courts all over the nation, wreaking carnage and demanding that tennis be banned everywhere.

This would be absolutely crazy and we would not stand for it for a moment.

But that’s precisely what these Islamic fanatics are demanding. Not satisfied to practice their own religion, obey their own prohibitions, they demand that the world submit as well.

This cannot stand. We cannot submit. This is a battle of civilizations, and cultural or religious relativism has no standing. We are moral in this. We are right. And we must fight.

Giving up our rights in the face of evil is cowardly. Refusing to allow the voices of debate to be heard is worse. It is time to stiffen our spines and defend our free society, gained with so much blood, torment, and travail over hundreds of years. To retrench is unthinkable.

Thomas Aikenhead would agree.

Is tolerance banned in Boston?

Argonne Cross, Arlington National Cemetery

Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston made headlines recently by vowing to withhold permits from an organization wishing to locate in the city. “Catholic Charities does not belong in Boston,” Menino proclaimed, disagreeing vehemently with their values. “I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.” Catholic Charities opposes abortion on religious grounds, a viewpoint that the liberal Menino abhors.

Well, almost. As Dan Rather would say, this story is fake but accurate. Actually, Menino promised to block Chick-fil-A, a fast food operation, from the city because he disagrees with founder Dan Cathy’s religiously-based views on same-sex marriage. The story and the reality both hinge on religious beliefs that conflict with the Mayor’s views. But that is precisely the domain of the First Amendment, whose text is brief and unambiguous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is very clear that Menino, as a public official, cannot impose his viewpoint on another. However, as a private citizen, he is free to boycott Chick-fil-A and encourage others to do so as well. As are we all.

Does this mean that government is powerless in the face of bigotry? Indeed not. We have laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and accommodation of customers. These laws can and must be vigorously enforced.

On another religious freedom front, there is a group called “Freedom from Religion Foundation” who, with their willing ally the ACLU, remove prayers from school walls, crosses from war memorials, and crèches from public squares. This organization of atheists militantly imposes their views, often to the distress of  citizens of such disparate places as Cranston and Woonsocket RI, and Steubenville OH. The FFRF interprets the First Amendment as strictly banning religious practices and artifacts from the public space. This is a tortured interpretation.

One must step back and ask, what is a religion? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism all provide a model for how to live, how to behave well in a moral fashion, and require that adherents accept certain tenets of faith. In other words, part of the belief system must be accepted without proof because it is unprovable.

Atheists, likewise, believe in the goodness or badness of certain behaviors. Else, why would they intercede to prevent certain acts which they consider bad? And they share a belief that God does not exist. But that is an unprovable tenet of their belief system and must be accepted on faith. 

It appears clear that an alien visiting from the Cygnus constellation would be confused. Are not the atheists practicing their own religion? Are their attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the public space not, therefore, unconstitutional?

Perhaps the answer is to interpret the First Amendment in its simplest terms. The government shall not impose a religion, such as the historic Church of England. The government shall not prohibit the practice of religion, such as the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Taliban to Christians. Perhaps the answer is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you object to a cross on a war memorial, then add symbols of other religions, do not ban them all.

Tolerance, it seems, is a kinder and more peaceable approach than Menino and FFRF's belligerent intolerance.