Same-Sex Marriage

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very happy that Prop 8 was overturned as unconstitutional. Perhaps it's obvious by now that I agree with that assertion. Of course though, not everyone's happy about it, else I wouldn't figure it's worth blogging about.

The opponents of same-sex marriage honestly only have religion as their argument. However, a pesky little thing called the First Amendment makes purely religious arguments invalid. So, opponents have been forced to come up with other arguments:

"It's not natural!"

Only a very small step away from being a religious argument, this seems to be an attempt to merge religious with scientific. Unsuccessfully, though. For one thing, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural. Why should we stop at something that causes no harm? Another argument they make though is that humans are the only ones "perverse" enough to practice homosexuality. Guess again, suckers. So... I guess it is natural, then?

"Homosexuals spread AIDS!"

Well, so do straights. Straights also spread any number of other STD's and other diseases. A lot of society's more hateful members like to think of AIDS as god's punishment for gays. What about all the other diseases and disorders, though? If Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) were to come down with, say... syphilis, who would he blame it on? Or what about just having a monster heart attack during one of their protests? Would it be god's punishment then? Diseases being called a punishment from god is nothing new. In the old days, the smallpox vaccine was considered by many to be a terrible sin, as it interfered with what they perceived as god's plan/retribution. There's some compassion for you, huh? Anyway, there are several different disease-spreading behaviors. Shall we ban them all, or just keep using it as an excuse to discriminate against some? Let's not forget about certain races being more prone to some diseases - Native and African Americans seem more vulnerable to diabetes. Native Americans and southern Europeans seem more vulnerable to milk allergies. African Americans seem vulnerable to heart problems. Asians seem disproportionately vulnerable to certain kinds of cancer, TB, and Hepatitis B. The list goes on. Shall we ban all those and just move on to Hitler's "super race" ideals?

I've seen many opponents of same-sex marriage become very angry when the issue is compared to the older civil rights movements involving racial equality and the like, but can anyone tell me what the differences really are? That is, without bringing up religion?

Religion and Medicine

Catholic church is furious about being required to provide birth control through church-linked hospitals and healthcare.

Admittedly, this did require some thought on my part. My initial reaction is, "so the Catholic church hates birth control. What else is new?" My feelings about how much involvement the church has taken in politics and in holding back science as a whole are no secret. This did require a little more thought, however. The reason? Quite simply because I do respect the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does protect religious freedom... it does say that government and churches should not tread on each other's turf, despite how often the churches in particular try to do so. I do however believe in leading by example, as "...but they started it!" comes off as a rather childish argument. So initially, it does seem that there is some merit to the church's argument that the government just treaded on church turf.

Let's take a closer look, though. When you start looking at the various hospitals, it seems that a lot of them have some sort of religious affiliation at least by name. Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic (or mention of saints), etc. For one reason or another, healthcare seems dominated by religious organizations. I suppose it makes sense to expand spiritual healing to physical healing, and the churches actually do have some history of this, at least as far back as medieval nuns and monks in Christianity, and druids with the pre-Christian Celts, and the list goes on, I'm sure.

The question however is whether we should be able to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. Should atheists or other non-believers be turned away from such church-connected hospitals? Birth control in itself may seem a small issue. But for the woman who just got raped and needs a Plan B pill, it's something of a bigger deal. It's also a predecessor to a bigger issue. What about those churches who feel that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from their god, and therefore should receive no treatment? It wouldn't be anything new - the same has happened throughout history, whether it be disease such as smallpox, or a tragedy such as an earthquake or hurricane. Should any organization that can call itself a hospital be allowed to deny treatment over religious beliefs on these? I don't think so.

While it is kind of churches to build these hospitals, if they are going to treat them as public hospitals (not to mention accepting government aid and funding as such), then they must accept, at least in their hospitals, the same treatments accepted by other healthcare organizations. No one is dictating that churches change their doctrines, just that their hospitals catch up.