Graham Glusman: Yes
Opponents of marriage equality have long cited Scripture to defend their positions and take refuge from accusations of homophobia. Frankly, using the Bible as justification to deny basic human rights is a hypocritical and antiquated perversion of Christianity founded exclusively in an irrational aversion to homosexuality — homophobia.
Firstly, and most importantly, the recurring theme in the Bible is love. Countless mention is made of how love is to be regarded as the most important part of being a Christian.
Corinthians 13:13 states, “These three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Romans 13:10 plainly says, “Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” In under 140 characters, these two lines of scripture, which together comprise merely four of 310 references to love in the King James Bible, cite love as being more essential than faith itself and consider it to be in accordance with the law.
Thus, love can be rightly presumed to preside over the laws mentioned in Leviticus 18:22, Mosaic Law prohibitions, the most commonly cited piece of scripture used by crusaders for "traditional marriage." Why is it then that a few lines of scripture regarding homosexuality as a sin supersede 310 mentions of love and its essentiality? The answer to this question is not strict Scriptural adherence, but rather, hypocrisy and intolerance.
To understand just how outdated and irrelevant the laws mentioned in Leviticus truly are to today’s standard practicing Christian, it is necessary to examine what other things are both forbidden and mandated in this oft-referenced segment of scripture. In addition to sexual prohibitions, Leviticus offers the death penalty for those who use the Lord’s name in vain, adulterers and spiritualists. It forbids the consumption of fat, trimming of facial hair and the ingestion of pork. And perhaps most infamously, it allows for the owning of slaves, “as a possession for ever” (Leviticus 25:44-46).
Needless to say, it is not a far stretch to assume that modern society has done away with the vast majority of the aforementioned biblical decrees. Yet mysteriously, it is the forbiddance of homosexuality that has lingered, regardless of the fact that this particular edict, unlike every other found in Leviticus, is contradicted countless times by the basic Christian concept of loving thy neighbor. This is not tradition — it is homophobia.
Most egregiously, opposition to gay marriage for religious reasons goes far beyond the abhorrence of the union between two women or two men. As convenient as it is for advocates of traditional marriage to claim that they have a set definition of the union in accordance with the Bible, these individuals fail to consider the detrimental implications their “traditional definition” has. To deny the ability to marry is to forbid a couple from raising a child together. To deny the right to marry is to say to children of gay couples everywhere that their parents are inferior to straight ones.
At one point in our nation's history, the Bible was used as justification for slavery. Escaped slave Frederick Douglass described the role of Christianity in his life by saying, “I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding ... and hypocritical Christianity of this land.” Let the United States, a land of hope and opportunity, never be the land of that Christianity ever again.
Andy Wilson: No
Is opposition to same-sex marriage always rooted in homophobia, even when opponents claim religious objections?
A growing number of Americans say it is, including major media outlets and the U.S. Supreme Court. In their June ruling of this year on same-sex marriage, the majority opinion claimed that to oppose same-sex marriage was to “disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians.”
And indeed, to those who view the current gay rights movement as analogous to the civil rights movement, resistance can have no other motive. Business owners then who refused to serve black people didn’t really have any reason not to besides racism and, as the argument goes, business owners now don’t have any reason not to provide services to gay weddings except homophobia, or animosity toward gay people.
To label someone as homophobic is to shut down all discussion and remove any common ground between you and the person you attack. It is an ad hominem attack that conflates disagreement on the issue with hatred for gay people.
In an article in The Atlantic, Brandon Ambrosino, a same-sex marriage supporter, wrote, “I would argue that an essential feature of the term 'homophobia' must include personal animus or malice toward the gay community. Simply having reservations about gay marriage might be anti-gay marriage, but if the reservations are articulated in a respectful way, I see no reason to dismiss the person holding those reservations as anti-gay people."
Instead of adopting this fair-minded view, gay rights activists have relentlessly sought to demonize their opponents by equating disagreement with prejudice toward gay people.
Opposition to same-sex marriage has been spearheaded by primarily evangelical Christian groups, which raises the question: Are all these Christians homophobes? It is, of course, possible for a Christian to be a homophobe. Despite this being contrary to the whole weight of Scripture, there are those who feel that the Bible denouncing homosexual behavior as a sin justifies their prejudice. I have personally experienced people like this. But a Christian or believer of another faith who feels that baking a cake for a gay wedding would be affirming something that is against their faith is motivated not by a pre-existing and vicious hatred of gay people, but by deeply held religious conviction.
Most evangelical Christians and many members of other religions such as Judaism, Islam and Baha’ism believe that marriage has an objective definition as an exclusive monogamous heterosexual union tied to procreation and child-rearing, a definition which has persisted for millennia. People who believe in this objective definition of marriage cannot and will not accept a societal mandate that attempts to change its meaning. To them, a political and social climate shifting toward broad acceptance of same-sex marriage carries no weight against the vast historical and religious precedent for the traditional definition of marriage.
Recent court rulings indicate that our government believes it is able to and should force into compliance business owners who object to providing gay wedding services, even if that causes them to break their consciences. Battles are still being waged in this nation’s court system to determine the extent to which religious liberty should be subjugated to civil rights, but American culture and politics have decisively shifted toward gay rights. If current trends continue, evangelical Christians and other traditionalist religious orders will soon be the groups marginalized by society, with dire consequences for those who refuse to conform.