The world just isn’t progressive enough for the year 2014. Cell phones still have poor battery life, the Mackinac Bridge is still under construction and minorities across the globe are still being oppressed by the people in charge.

A prime example of this oppression is Gambia, a small African nation that has made it their business to put homosexuals behind bars just for being gay, said the Huffington Post. In 2005 an existing law was amended to include lesbians, too, and now it’s not just 14 years in jail, it could be a life sentence. The president of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, explicitly stated that he would cut the heads off any homosexuals found in his country. Keep in mind, this is from a governing body that wears business suits, holds “elections” and watches television.
This statement from Jammeh is certainly cringe-worthy, and the U.S. has never been quite so oppressive in domestic policy as Gambia against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transexuals (LGBT). However there are still more favorable places than the U.S. to be gay.
Canada began legalizing same-sex marriage in 1999, and in 2005 it became the fourth country in the world to legalize it across the board. U.S. Congress struck down legislation on Thursday Sept. 4 in Indiana and Wisconsin, two conservative states, that banned same-sex marriage. Multiple states now wonder if the U.S. will follow the example Canada and other forward-looking countries have set, legalizing same-sex marriage state-by-state until the federal government decides to make a blanket ruling.
While the world at large seems to be stuck in backward behaviors, a beacon of progress was visible in Marquette Tourist Park this past weekend.
The Upper Peninsula Rainbow Pride (UPRP) Festival enjoyed some success with their inaugural event, including a healthy turnout and an intention to return next year. The festival is the first of its kind in the Upper Peninsula.
Pam Johnson, festival board member and participant in the day’s events, was walking around the event area with fellow board member, David Shew, and both were eager to discuss the start of their involvement with the pride movement.
Johnson said she and Shew had faced many problems because of their respective lifestyles. “Sometimes we had to literally fight people just to make it out of a bar at the end of the night,” said Johnson.
Shew gave a big smile then and added, “It’s nice to see where we [the LGBT community] are today, to be able to say ‘Here I am, and this is me.’”
Both Johnson and Shew expressed excitement at the number of people in attendance and the fact that the festival was absent of any aggressive opposition. According to Johnson such displays are common at pride events, and she was grateful to have avoided that issue.
Most commonly it’s religious groups vocalizing their opinions against gay marriage. However, such arguments are without strong support, even in the scripture they cite. The same passages that call homosexuality a sin also impose rules that women should serve their husbands and people are not to wear clothes of mixed fabrics. The specifically anti-gay stance is often a case of hearing what one wants to hear and not thinking critically.
Allowing same-sex marriages in this country would, as some say, mean a change in marriage’s definition. However this isn’t necessarily a negative thing. We have changed our definition of “voting public” to include all races and genders, we have changed our definition of “crook” to include Richard Nixon and we have changed our definition of “freedom of speech” to include this very article, though critical of the federal government it may be.
Now our country is being called upon again to redefine legitimate marriage; discriminating in this way based on someone’s sexuality is not only unjust but inexcusable. It’s time that we, as a nation, embraced the trend of social progress and rid ourselves of this prejudiced legislation holding us back.
David • Sep 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Andy,
1. Do you think that churches should have the right to determine who can and who cannot get married within their individual congregations or denominations?
2. Are you willing to accept legal, government sanctioned legal unions (call them whatever you want it doesn’t bother me if you call them marriages), separate from but legally equal to those performed by religious organizations?
3. Or do you believe that churches should be forced to perform marriages for anyone requesting one?
Martin • Sep 24, 2014 at 3:15 pm
“When gay people attain the right to marry, they aren’t forcing anything on you any more than someone with tattoos is forcing that on you and everyone around them. ”
That would be true…if the “progress” stopped there.
When an activist group forces a church to perform rites against the doctrine of the church, it violates religious rights. This has already happened with other religious doctrine. Historically speaking, it is likely that progressive statists will push this upon churches in the future.
Bookmark this article and revisit the issue in 2016.
Andy Frakes • Sep 24, 2014 at 12:04 am
I forgot to mention a wonderful little clause about how this is a free country. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get one. An analogy: tattoos are legal, but maybe you don’t particularly care for them yourself? You don’t have to get one, but you can’t outlaw them, since it’s other peoples’ business how they illustrate themselves. Just some food for thought that perhaps should have found its way into my original article. When gay people attain the right to marry, they aren’t forcing anything on you any more than someone with tattoos is forcing that on you and everyone around them. But by denying a right to a certain group based on things that are none of your business, you are forcing your beliefs on them, and now you’re the bad guy. This is along the same lines as denying women the right to own private property, or some other outdated law that we now recognize as totally absurd. Am I wrong?
David • Sep 16, 2014 at 12:29 pm
” Can progressives force churches, synagogues, and mosques to perform same sex marriages?”
No. Absolutely not. To do so would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
I am all for the government, local/state/federal, getting out of the “marriage” business altogether and dealing strictly with “domestic union contracts” which can be entered into in one of several ways.
1. Traditional marriage within a church.
2. Modern marriage at a Justice of the Peace or Courthouse
3. Legal contract through a lawyers.
I’m perfectly fine with multiple meanings for a single word. What the two individuals who enter into a “domestic union contract” call it is completely up to them and in no way affects me.
I have my doubts, however, that progressives will agree with my way of thinking. I think this has more to do with forcing churches and their members to change their ways. My wife and I were married by a “marriage commisioner” with no religious services whatseoever for what its worth.
Martin • Sep 15, 2014 at 10:39 am
Mr. Frakes forgot to mention that Gambia is a nation 95% Islam with the majority Sunni Muslim. Since marriage is a religions rite, where do religious beliefs fit in? Judaism and Christianity have pretty much given up stoning. It would be nice if Islam reconsidered beheading. To change Gambia and many other nations in the region, you need to change their religious beliefs.
Moving Mr. Frakes argument to the US, where do religious rights fit? Can progressives force churches, synagogues, and mosques to perform same sex marriages? The President offered federal recognition of a same sex social contract equal to marriage with a different label, but that wasn’t good enough.
If I support the right of all people to join in a social contract guaranteeing specific legal benefits, then I must also support the religious freedom of individuals and their church to define marriage as a covenant between God, husband (male partner), and wife (female partner). I’m sure Mr. Frake’s progressive society can find it in their hearts to honor the diverse beliefs of all people; not just those who agree with them.