Kansas HB 2453: Spitting in the face of History

You ask me to be proud of my home. You say "take PRIDE in where you live!"

How am I supposed to be proud of the state that is advocating discrimination of the highest order? How can I even begin to say "I'm from Kansas" when we are now LEGISLATING the right to discriminate and, even more egregiously, wrapping it in the sheep's clothing of "religious liberty?" This is the state that fought so strongly for abolition it became known as "Bleeding Kansas." Do you know why all baseball/basketball/football games played by our major colleges against Missouri are referred to as the "Border War?" It's because Kansans stood up and challenged the status quo and fought AGAINST becoming a slave state. Now we turn our backs on our history and our heritage, and for what, exactly?

Here is the burning question that should have been asked before this travesty of a bill even left committee: HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE IS GAY UNLESS THEY TELL YOU? Are we going to make it a standard practice to try and "pick them out of the crowd?" If so, I have news for you: your efforts will FAIL. How do I know this? Well, I am a man who is happily married to a beautiful woman. Yet I can't tell you how many times I have been mistaken for a homosexual man. I've been HIT ON by gay men, asked on multiple occasions if I'm gay, and been tagged as gay behind my back. One of my closest, genuine friends first came up to talk to me BECAUSE HE THOUGHT I WAS GAY!!! He's still a great friend to this day, but that's beside the point. The actual point I hope people understand is this: YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU ASK OR I TELL YOU IF I AM GAY OR NOT. The only way for this law to work without full disclosure is TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. I'd like to see how that goes over the next time two women (for example) give each other a quick hug and a kiss before shopping around at a store owned by a bigoted individual. A kiss and hug does not in and of itself indicate a gay relationship. Unless you see groups of flaming homosexuals making out like heathens in your place of business, you really have no idea if they're gay or not.

Now here's the sticky part: Do I think churches and church organizations should have the right to say "No, I'm sorry, we are not going to perform a marriage ceremony for you because you're gay?" Yes, I absolutely do. The doctrines of most Christian (and Jewish, and Islamic) churches declare homosexuality a sin. Under that doctrine, gay marriage is not an acceptable practice, so the church would be well within it's right to decline (respectfully!) to perform the ceremony. Should the State (Kansas in this case) refuse to allow legal unions? Absolutely NOT! Why? Simply put, IT'S NOT THE STATE'S JOB TO TELL GROWN ADULTS WHO THEY CAN AND CAN NOT BRING INTO THEIR PRIVATE BEDROOM. Or more accurately, who they can love.

"But I'm a Christian, and I own a business, so I can refuse service to anyone I want!" Well, that's NOT entirely true. Civil Rights laws (in place since 1964) already prohibit refusing service to the impaired, or because of race and/or religion. You still have to serve African-Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans, Greeks, Germans, ethnic Bosnians, Hungarians, and yes, even the occasional Frenchman. You have to serve the hearing impaired, the blind, the mentally ill, the mentally challenged, paralytics, amputees, and yes, sometimes people who are just plain STUPID. You have to serve Jews, Muslims, Sikhs (they even get to wear their ceremonial dagger), Ba'hai, Kabballah, Satanists (yep, and that one even stings me), Hindu, Shinto, Buddhists, and even the occasional Jedi. Now, tell me this: Out of those, how many of them can you actually even IDENTIFY if you wish to advocate discrimination against a particular group? Only the most flamboyant of the group (and the Sikhs, because they are required to dress a certain way). A gay man walks into a restaurant, alone, to order lunch. How do you know he's gay? Is he effeminate? Is he wearing pink? Perhaps a shirt that says "Stand back, ladies, I'm gay?" Nope. Most often, he's going to look one way: NORMAL. And the most important point is this: You are a Christian (though if you advocate blatant discrimination I would take issue with that) BUT YOUR BUSINESS IS NOT. Unless you are affiliated with and sponsored by a church entity, you are just a business, like everyone else.

But let's set aside the legal aspects of this, and look at it from a purely Christian ethics viewpoint. We once used God as an excuse to segregate and discriminate against Native Americans (in many cases violently so). We did the same with the Caribbean natives, and with Mexico's native Aztecs, with Africans, etc. Catholics discriminated against protestants (sometimes even killing them), Baptists against Lutherans, you get the idea. Now, instead of embracing the fact we have moved BEYOND such rampant barbarism, wen want to take ten steps BACKWARD, ALL WHILE DECLARING IT A MOVE TO PROTECT AGAINST RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. What utter nonsense! Do we as Christians REALLY think that such an action is justified? Can you as a Christian look in the mirror and say "I can accept discriminating against people because their lifestyle is sinful?" Go ahead. Do EXACTLY that. I dare you to look yourself in the eye and feel good about it. I don't. Do I think practicing homosexuality is a sin (here's where I get myself into trouble)? Yes, I do. Do I think that I am then justified to use that as an excuse to MAKE A LAW that actively advocates full discrimination from not just the private business sector BUT FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS WELL? No, absolutely not. If anyone thinks this action is justified, I highly suggest you go re-read the Gospels, particularly the Beatitudes.

It's not wrong to say "I'm sorry, I don't agree with your lifestyle. I believe it to be a sin" to a gay person any more than it is to say the same thing to a drug addict or agnostic/atheist or EVEN TO YOURSELF (I remind you that we are all, after all, sinners who fall short of God). It IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG to use that as justification to reject someone, to refuse them service at a restaurant, or hotel, or gas station, or WIC office, SRS, or any other government entity. Christians fought for quite a few centuries to avoid persecution and discrimination, and then we turn around and use our Christianity as a WEAPON to do it in return, over and over again throughout history. That, my friends, is just not right. Neither is this bill.