Social media is tool for both good and evil. Yes, I said it. I realize as you read this, you already understand the duality of your precious Facebook and your beloved twitter. So I will resist the urge to remind you of all the ways that social media has served to benefit the quality of our interpersonal relationships while simultaneously destroying them bit by bit. I will resist the urge to describe to you in long form just how much we determine about one’s personality, integrity and convictions from 140 characters or a lengthy status update on FB. If you have ever participated in social media, you are well aware of these facts. What is considerably disturbing are the things you learn about people who you thought you knew well in real life as they willingly display their positions on hot button issues in a way they may not have otherwise done if not for the protection afforded by social media.
The hot button issue of the day, President Obama (who by the way has no unilateral legal authority to place into law anything related to this specific issue) came out in an interview with Robin Roberts and declared his personal support for equality as it relates to the rights of American citizens to marry anyone they want to marry, even if they happen to be of the same sex. He said specifically this was a state issue and that his declaration of sorts was really about him sharing his personal position on the issue as it relates to civil rights. Just like that, President Obama added another historic notch to his belt by becoming the first sitting President to come out in favor of same sex marriage (SSM).
The nature of this discussion is often centered around ones feeling about homosexuality as it relates to religion so I recognize the sensitivity of the issue and what a personal journey those of devout faith must take in order to decide their opinion on such a topic. I not only recognize that journey but I respect it tremendously. Religion is a very personal thing. Positions on social issues and public policy based in religious convictions are tricky given the personal aspect of religion. Social issues and public policy impact everyone; religion only impacts those who choose to participate in it. The belief of some being placed upon all via laws and policy is inherently unfair and wrong. To be in support individuals rights to make choices they personally believe are right for them and in line with their value system does not require that you agree with their beliefs or their value system. It just says that you believe in their right to have a value system and belief that is different than yours and that the government shall make no laws that discriminate against those whose views differ from what people consider to be the view of the so called masses. For example, one being pro-choice does not mean they are pro-abortion or in favor of women terminating pregnancies regularly. What it means is that they are in favor of a woman making an individual choice with her body about whether or not she wants to have a child. Just as we are free to practice whatever religion we choose in part because of the personal aspect of such a choice, a woman should have the freedom to make a choice about her reproduction, an equally personal choice.
When it comes to marriage equality (going back to the hot button issue to the day), the defense of “traditional” marriage is again often based in religion. But as a person of faith, I argue that marriage in America has not been a strictly religious institution since the days in which it was no longer required that a representative from a religious institution be present in order to solidify and legitimize a union. Men and women who are married at the marriage bureau in their town are not rejected by their church when they arrive on Sunday. They are not told their marriage isn’t legitimate or real. And if one never ever attends a house of worship during the course of their marriage, does that somehow make that marriage illegitimate in the eyes of the faithful? That question is imperative because those who argue against SSM often do so based on their religious convictions as it relates to the rules of marriage. By that logic, any marriage between any two people regardless of gender, that doesn’t happen in front of a religious leader in a house of faith, is not in fact a marriage. Does that argument seem rational?
I don’t seek to defend those who support SSM. I don’t seek to demonize those who are opposed to it. But for all my life, I have and for all my life I will argue against discrimination. I will argue against those who seek to deny civil rights. I will do this if for no other reason than my race and gender, both of which faced opposition from the masses in the deliverance of equal civil rights as it relates to more fundamental and basic human rights than even that of marriage.
This discussion can be framed around feelings about gay people or religious convictions. That conversation will be less productive for sure given the sensitivity. Or this discussion can be framed around equal protection and rights under the law. That isn’t any sensitivity around equality and rights. And there is no room to stand on the wrong side of equal protection and rights for all.
Social media allows you to learn about the thoughts and views of people you may not have otherwise known. And some people opt to degrade or disrespect those who they are in opposition of. Some go even further and delete/unfollow those they feel differ from them. I support any and all those measures as it applies to anyone reading this who feels strongly against anything above. Because even in social media, I support your right to choose!
No comments:
Post a Comment