SCOTUS made a good call

I am an LGBTQ ally.  If you know me you know this.  I am thrilled that gay and lesbian people are now being afforded the right to marry.

It is saddening to see that so many people are less than happy about this decision and using their faith as the reasoning for their opinion.

The area in which I live is heavily Christian- and that is great. No problem.  But what I have an issue with is Christians expecting everyone else to abide by their version of morality-- because the bible said so.

My faith religious belief does not impact my support for gay marriage at all-- as my faith is mine no one else's.  And even if my faith dictated that gay an lesbian people should not be allowed to marry based on the bible it still does not impact the secular rights that need to be afforded to all people.

This is one of the greatest things about America-- we have a separation of church and state. Church beliefs do not get to impact state laws. Not everyone has the same faith or beliefs even if they have the same holy book- and as we cannot email G-d and ask for clarification the best thing we can do is to offer love and acceptance.  I firmly believe that love will be more acceptable to G-d than condemnation and judgement.

Just because the bible says that we must "keep holy the sabbath" we do not have laws that force people to go to church (or other house of worship)

Some people cite that G-d calls homosexuality an abomination--- well there are a bunch of things that are said to be an abomination to G-d.

Proverbs 12:22 "lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal faithfully are His delight" where is the outcry against dishonesty (have we seen what happens in politics?)

Proverbs 6:5 "Everyone who is proud of heart is an abomination to the LORD, Assuredly he will not be unpunished"

I can keep listing these quotes--- (thanks Mom and Dad for religious education-- see I did pay attention)

If so many things are an abomination to G-d why are we so obsessed with this one?  Why is this one the lightening rod?  Why are we so convinced that we need prevent other people from entering a loving committed marriage and enjoying the legal benefits that come because of it?

If people are/were making a push to force a church or house of faith to wed a gay couple then I would support the church-- as a private house of faith they have the right to stick to whatever they believe- without government interference.

It does go both ways though-- if the government cannot force a church to marry a gay couple then a religion cannot force a government not to marry a gay couple.

Separation of church and state is a fantastic thing.  The ruling has literally NO impact on anyone who is not LGBTQ and does not want to get married.

In a follow up post I will address how the SCOTUS ruling is not violating states rights.

Why I don't support gay rights

I support human rights.

Let's start with the basics: LGBTQ people are people- people being the operative word.  People= human- so they by virtue of being human deserve the same rights and protections as any other individuals.

I live in a very conservative town.  The majority of people in this town are people who are dedicated to Christianity.  To be emphatically clear, I take no issue with that, as long as their faith is their faith and it doesn't become something they require others to abide by.  Many Christians assert that the bible says that marriage is defined as a promise between one woman and one man (we can debate what the bible says about marriage in another post).  This is what leads us to one problem:

A significant percentage of people in the country, do not believe in the bible as a source of faith or a guide for moral living, as a significant portion of people do not garner their ethics or morals from the bible asking them to follow its teachings regarding marriage makes no sense.

One of the best things about the US is that the US is not a Christian nation, we are not a Jewish nation, or a Islamic Nation. Our country was founded on the ideals of separation of church and state, where citizens are guaranteed the freedom of and from religion, therefore for laws to be written and instituted based on a religious text is in direct contradiction to our nations founding principles.

Whether or not two adults are permitted to marry in no way lessens the value and the importance of any other marriage.

Back to point-

LGBTQ people do not need special privileges or rights; they need and deserve the same rights granted to any other citizen.

Let us not forget that not terribly long ago, it was illegal for people of different races to marry now we have moved past this (mostly) hopefully we can move past this being a problem as well.

Death with dignity

There is a video has gone viral in which a woman has relocated to Oregon to avail herself of the Death With Dignity statute on the books in that state.

This is a pretty hot button topic.  Should an individual who is terminally ill have the right for request a doctor to request a prescription for a medication that will end their life?

I support this right.  I have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness. I have watched people I love suffer horribly, and yes, I have prayed for their suffering to end.

No one deserves to suffer and spend their last time in pain or dealing with unbelievable anxiety. Illnesses like this can rob a person of everything.  In the small amount of experience I have had dealing health issues- the lack of control is paralyzing. Giving  a little control of their destiny is just and compassionate.  Individuals can choose when they die, surrounded by people who love them. Not alone, in fear, in the hospital.

Life is precious and sacred.  Prolonging life by prolonging suffering is not respecting life it is not protecting the value in a person.

"First do no harm" is a crucial doctrine of medicine.  Is it harmful to make a person suffer? Is alleviating that suffering more important?  The Oregon law does not permit a doctor to administer the drugs to the individual.  They must ingest them themselves. This protects doctors from violating their oath.  Doctors are also not required to write these prescriptions.

There are safe guards to help ensure that people are not coerced, that individuals are competent, that individuals understand what they are doing. It doesn't make it perfect, but it helps.

There was a case of a person who wanted to to continue his fight and pursue more treatment, but his insurance declined to pay for it and instead offered only palliative/hospice care up to and including death with dignity.  This is horrible.  This is a decision that an individual needs to make on there own, not because of an insurance companies assessment of value.  This is one of my primary concerns with this law. No one but the individual affected should have a say in when enough is enough.  Different people will have different lines in the sand as where that is.

In a perfect world cancer wouldn't happen or be able to be cured with relative ease.  As that is not the case a person needs to have the right to protect their dignity.

I am not in this situation, but people who are need to have this choice. It is not the right choice for everyone and that is fine. We are all individuals and one size does not fit all.

There are lot of people who say this is against their beliefs and that is okay, one persons beliefs should not dictate another's rights.

Many more prescriptions have been written under the Death With Dignity law than have been used.  Suggesting, that having that piece of mind and sense of control is extremely important as well.