The Ethics Of Reciprocity

Some time ago, I mentioned in a quick take that I was going to write a letter to my representative in the Indiana legislature in which I would state my opposition, in suport of Indy PFLAG, to SJR-7, the insidious piece of proposed legislation that would seek to further isolate gays, lesbians, and transgendered Hoosiers by denying them domestic partner rights, in addition to making it constitutionally illegal for them to marry.

A day or two ago, I got a form letter in the mail, from Buell, thanking me for contacting him about my yadda yadda yadda. Paragraph two notes that the resolution passed overwhelmingly in 2005. Paragraph three says that it failed to pass in the most recent session, but that it could still be placed on the ballot for 2008 if it passed the next session. The paragraph ends with this sentence, quoted in its entirety: “Although I understand your opposition to this proposal, I believe that this issue should be decided by the people of Indiana, rather than giving activist judges a chance to legislate from the bench.”

Don’t you just love it when a conservative Republican passes the buck? Of course the people of Hillbillyana would vote to amend the state constitution in such a way that would make gay marriage illegal. On a short list of the many, many things wrong with this state, the state of mind of its uneducated electorate would be very near the top. It’s no wonder that smart, upwardly-mobile, creative, thoughtful people want to leave here and live elsewhere. Sometimes on other continents! And that’s not just liberal propaganda - I have recently learned that two such people with whom I am acquainted are making plans to leave North America for better opportunities on a different continent. Not because of this issue, I don’t think, but the picture this kind of thing paints about America is destroying the American dream for a lot of people.

I’m tired of hearing that shit about activist judges legislating from the bench, too. Judges interpret laws; they don’t write laws. If legislators write bad laws that break laws already on the books, it is the job of judges to step in and say, “Hey, knock it off, yutz!” It’s high time we stopped discriminating against gay people based on the antiquated “teachings” of an archaic and arbitrary tome that is day by day losing its relevance of specificity.

There are a lot of verses in the Bible. I haven’t counted how many there are exactly, but there are a lot. Only one, however, is relevant. It is Matthew 7:12, which says (in the New International Version), “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” It goes by the more common name of The Golden Rule, and it’s common sense. If you have to delude yourself into reading divine inspiration behind it, fine with me. Just don’t ask me to buy it. And how about that summing up of the laws and prophets? It's not quite the same as saying that that one theory reduces everything else in the Bible to a "set of guidelines," but I woudn't mind hearing Captain Jack Sparrow give a sermon one day. What fun!

I don’t know the Bible chapter and verse, so I had to go to Google to find the location of that chapter and verse - and I found something interesting along the way. There was a link listed as “Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions,” and it led to ReligiousTolerance.org, which listed passages from quite a lot of religious texts - under the heading of "also known as the Ethics of Reciprocity" - that all say basically the same thing as the Christian Bible on this subject. (Check out that link here.)

Oh, heck...I’ve left the point back there in the dust somewhere. Crap. Let’s see...form letter from Buell making it clear he wants this resolution...activist judge argument is dumb...common sense to treat others the way you would want them to treat you...oh! There it is.

SJR-7 has nothing to do with treating people equally and treating others the way you would want to be treated yourself. It has, instead, everything to do with one group of people - heterosexuals - trying to dominate the culture and suppress everyone who isn’t like them because they incorrectly interpret a largely irrelevant and archaic religious document and believe it is the divine word of some god they made up out of the ether. The proponents of this resolution hide behind an incorrect interpretation of Christianity - in much the same way that the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center hid behind an incorrect interpretation of Islam. Quick - what's the difference between Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden?

About a hundred pounds.

How far away is a time when the thinking starts to shift substantively in a more progressive direction? I think it’s a least a generation away. I probably won’t live long enough to see it. I wonder what little Jackson Scott Peddie is going to think about this kind of thing when he’s twenty-five; he’ll be born with Larry Buell as his representative in the state legislature, but hopefully he’ll turn out better than that.

Current song playing on iTunes:
"Interstate Long Song" by Stone Temple Pilots