Yesterday, Mike Huckabee admitted that he wants to change the U.S. Constitution to make it comply with his biblical god beliefs. For years now, politicians whose motives were clearly theocratic, have hidden behind supposedly secular rationales for their attempts to change the U.S. Constitution. Just look at the “secular” arguments for traditional (i.e. Biblical) marriage to be imposed on all civil marriages:

· Studies show children fare better with male/female parents (reliable studies actually show that the gender of parents makes no difference in their children’s well-being)

· Civil marriage rights are given solely for the purpose of biological procreation (in reality, couples who can’t or won’t procreate get civil marriage benefits anyway; and adopting parents are also permitted to marry, but only if they are a female and a male – unless they are in Massachusetts)

· Appropriate gender roles require that a marriage include a bread-winning male and a nurturing submissive female (don’t even get me started on this one!)

Now we know, thanks to Huckabee, that the real reason was, the Bible told them so … and even if you don’t share their belief, you must live under laws comporting with their belief.

Here at the Secular Coalition for America, we couldn’t help wondering what other laws would need to change to comport with Huckabee’s biblical god-beliefs:

· Would birth control be prohibited? This would require a change to the Constitution since the U.S. Supreme Court decided such laws were unconstitutional.

· What about spilling one’s seed? Would masturbation be prohibited … and if it were, who would be tasked with enforcing the law? (Given his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia would welcome such a law.)

· Would blasphemy require a death sentence? And if so, what words would be considered blasphemous? Would only Huckabee’s specific god be included in the prohibition against taking the lord’s name in vain, or would Yaweh, Allah, Thor, and the Great Plate of Spaghetti in the Sky (all hail his noodly appendage!) be included?

Suffice to say, Governor Huckabee gives us much to ponder.

No good deed goes unpunished, as is illustrated once again with yesterday’s rebuke of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders by East County Republicans for recently reversing his position on gay marriage. The mayor, a moderate Republican who had long been against gay marriage but for civil unions, last week held an emotional press conference in which he recanted his previous position and pledged to sign a bill passed by the San Diego City Council in support of same-sex marriage. While holding back tears, Sanders explained that,

I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.

Mayor Sanders should be lauded, not criticized, for his amazing show of integrity. The reversal is politically very risky—San Diego is a generally conservative city and Sanders faces re-election in which he’s challenged from the right. But, as Sanders acknowledged, his daughter and one of his staffers is gay, and, “In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana.”

Politicians and pundits have argued against Sanders’ position by pointing out that the majority of San Diegans are against gay marriage and thus Sanders is ignoring the will of the people. But politicians don’t just have the responsibility to serve by following popular sentiment; they also have the responsibility to protect minority rights, no matter how unpopular such measures may be. If the right to marry is up to a majority vote then it’s not really a “right” at all. Can you imagine many heterosexual couples tolerating the government deciding they were undeserving of marriage and they’d just have to be content with a civil union instead? Certainly not. In fact, that marriage means so very much to people is exactly why gay marriage is such a big issue in the first place, and also points to the whole Jim Crow-esque feeling of civil unions.

Thus, no matter how politically unpopular supporting gay marriage might be, it’s the right thing to do. I only wish that there were more politicians like Jerry Sanders across the U.S. willing to take a political hit for what they know in their hearts to be just (Ahem, Dick Cheney?). Here’s hoping his courageous move will inspire others to follow suit.

The latest events in the gay marriage controversy occurred on September 18th when Maryland’s Court of Appeals upheld a 34-year-old state law defining marriage as the union of husband and wife, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry. The judges in a 4-3 decision acknowledged that LGBT people have been targets of discrimination, but held that the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children. However the judges gave advocates another tactic to pursue. Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. writing for the majority said this:

Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex.

I didn’t know the state had an interest in promoting procreation. (Maybe we should have a Day of Conception like they do in Russia.) Nor do I see how gay marriage infringes on the state’s interest in protecting children. So how do Humanists view this issue?

Another story relating to the gay marriage issue appeared in the New York Times: “Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue.” The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization in New Jersey is losing it’s tax exemption for a Boardwalk Pavilion it owns after the group rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Pavilion. Lisa Jackson, the state commissioner on environmental protection, said this:

When people hear the words “open space,” we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people. And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.

Read the rest of this entry &raquo