I have reached a point where I no longer think that those who oppose the Civil Marriage Protection Act are confused or misled about bringing their, dubious, theological points into what is a debate over, well, a civil marriage. Knowing that they have no legitimate leg to stand on from a secular position, these people seek to frighten and bully people into voting against the act through a combination of casuistry, and Biblical obfuscation. There is no mandate forcing the Rev. Dr. Emmett Burns, the Rev. Harry Jackson, his Eminence Rev. Cardoma; Donald Wuerl, nor the Most Rev. William E. Lorito to preform, or even countenance a same sex union. There is no force of law to prevent them from preaching or teaching their moral theology. However, we are continually faced with arguments, based not upon arguments from the point of view of civil law, or even from the Constitution. Rather, we have repeated arguments that are of a theological nature, and then theology that is contestable. This is for a simple reason: unable to win on the actual facts, they change the subject.
We do hear that this is a matter of "special rights." Terms like "extra-rights," "inherently disordered" and the like also help to preserve the idea that GLBT persons are not fully human, with the same civil rights as others. The odium of the sub human comes far too quickly to the lips of the opponents of Question 6, and also serve as a way to deflect from the facts of the law. We are dealing here with a civil matter, not one that touches, except passingly in name, to the rites and sacraments of any religious body. Now, as the assault from the National Organization for Marriage closes in on our fair state, it is best to keep the facts in mind, and not be distracted by the innuendo, fear mongering, casuistry and blatant distortions of truth that will play across our TVs and radios.
John R. Robison
LaurelCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun