"The Truth About What Just Happened..."

History In Real Time

By Charles M. Blow, Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
March 27, 2013

Witnessing a historic moment is such an odd and exhilarating thing. It is hard to register the full scope of it because you are chest deep in it. That is how I feel about the gay-marriage arguments made before the Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday.

However the court rules on California’s Proposition 8 and the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act, there is no denying that something historic has just happened: an aggrieved group has taken a stand and given voice once again to the American — and indeed Democratic — ideals of justice and fairness and freedom.

On Prop 8, the justices seemed wary of overreaching, but on DOMA, most of the justices seemed to signal an unease or even all-out contempt for the law. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it, DOMA creates two, unequal categories of marriage: “the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”

And regardless of the final ruling, the tables on this issue have already turned. Democratic lawmakers are jumping over one another to get to a microphone and declare their support for same-sex marriage, and conservatives appear resigned to — or possibly overcome by — the change.

As even Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, who vacillates between reason and hyper-reaction, said on his show on Tuesday, during a segment with his Fox colleague Megyn Kelly on the Supreme Court hearings:

“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is. ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that, you’ve got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

That is quite perceptive of O’Reilly (can’t believe I just typed that, but I must give the man his due). In fact, much of the discord in this country over cultural issues is just that: a battle between compelling arguments of basic fairness and rigid religious concepts.

That said, don’t believe for a second that O’Reilly has seen the light and emerged on the right side of the debate on the place of religion in the public square. Just last week he ranted that the “Judeo-Christian tradition is under attack in America” by “secular progressives” who are “running wild with President Obama in the White House.” Their latest target, according to O’Reilly: the Easter Bunny. I kid you not. He finished his rant with this flourish:

“So, if the far left can marginalize Santa and the Easter Bunny, if they can tell the children ‘those symbols are obsolete and unnecessary,’ they then set the stage for a totally secular society in the future. That’s what you have in Scandinavia, and that’s why the Easter Bunny is on the run here in America.”

Yes, that happened.

Now, if you’re finished laughing — or crying — can someone please tell me where to find the Easter Bunny in a religious text? Would that be Eggsodus 3:31? Help me out, folks.

A Discovery News article last April called “What Does the Easter Bunny Have to Do With Easter?” noted:

“According to the University of Florida’s Center for Children’s Literature and Culture, the origin of the celebration — and the origin of the Easter Bunny — can be traced back to 13th-century, pre-Christian Germany, when people worshiped several gods and goddesses. The Teutonic deity Eostra was the goddess of spring and fertility, and feasts were held in her honor on the Vernal Equinox. Her symbol was the rabbit because of the animal’s high reproduction rate.”

So the Easter Bunny may not have Judeo-Christian origins? Bill, what say you? Will the Easter Bunny be in your upcoming “Killing Jesus” book? Oh, never mind.

Anyway, back to the more somber subject.

I believe that in the end, history will record this period in our country’s development as a struggle over the weight that religious mores should have in our system of government and code of laws.

This is either to be America’s Era of Enlightenment or Entrenchment.

Will we move into the future guided by ancient religious texts or current scientific ones? Will we follow the dictates of supposed deities or the prescript of universal dignity?

This is not to begrudge anyone their faith — whatever gets you through the night, brothers and sisters. Rather, it is to say that you should be free to have your faith govern your life but not to extend it to the governance of others’ lives.

I strongly believe in the sovereignty of self — the idea that you are the sole dictate of your own body and your own life as long as no one else is unwittingly or willingly negatively influenced by your choices.

As they say around the way: Do you.

Which brings me back to same-sex marriage. I haven’t heard a single credible argument — either intellectual or moral — that can long sustain the codification of this particular injustice.

********

"Fear Eats the Soul"