Ricky Gervais:

“On my Twitter feed, I express MY feelings. If that hurts YOUR feelings you should immediately unfollow or block. Hope that helps 🙂 ”

Whether it is my place to judge, I have the ability to share my thoughts here, just as if you and I were having a conversation. Under that light, it is is harder to be so demanding about the requirements of justifications, explanations, or accountability. I’m not singling out a specific religion and I’m the first to admit that each of us has our own opinion about the matter at hand. Where religion lives, opinion is the rule, although most of us wish to paint our beliefs as if they were infinitely perfect.

“Assuming they ever had one,  a person will lose his or her mind when religion walks into the room.” -x

I’ve written before in this blog about my lack of enthusiasm for religions or denominations which do not allow women to be clergy. In my opinion, all of them are critically wounded and flawed. Having visited many, many types of churches, I can still say that some of my disfavor with modern churches and dogma is the lack of objection toward religions which prohibit women from being clergy.

The religions which do so have a long and complex rationalization for it and their ongoing campaigns have surprisingly not been stripped entirely of their ability to convince women to willingly submit to its ongoing existence.  I know many women who are members of such denominations; many are fiercely loyal to their churches, despite being relegated to a “lesser” status. Apparently, many women don’t feel “lesser” as members of these churches.They each have found a way to accept it and persist in their application of loyalty toward their churches. I’m fascinated by this. I know that many churches are wrestling heavily with this issue and that many women are beginning to agree with me.

I’ve no doubt that in the future, churches which unilaterally prohibit women from being clergy will change their dogma or wither away – and rightly so. The historical arc of this development is undeniable, in my opinion and after years of watching.

But even if churches willingly or unwillingly have women clergy, there will still be those who would want to continue the old traditions, even if no longer accepted.

I personally can’t attend any church which prohibits me from being clergy based on physical characteristics. It’s hard for me to understand anyone who would knowingly allow it in their own case, either.

Finally, after years of me insisting it was inevitable, a judge in Arkansas ruled that bans on gay marriage were unconstitutional. He mentioned, among other things, the 2004 amendment passed here in Arkansas. Whether the appeal is strong or successful, the inevitable tide has turned. I am glad to be alive to see another indicator that our society is moving toward acceptance and inclusion. Some people have not reacted well to the confidence I’ve shown toward this social justice issue, even though history demonstrates that we are moving toward a very progressive society, whether individuals want it or not.

Whatever your opinion, be honest and rational about it and go on about your normal life and treat people like you want to be treated. The moon is not going to crash into the earth tomorrow and there isn’t going to be a gay army running to grab you away from your regular life.

10 years is a long time ago. The stats indicate that 3/4 of the population voted for the amendment. Without getting bogged down in the details, it amuses me intellectually to see so many people trot out the “will of the majority” argument, as if majority arguments are constitutional. Were it so, the status quo of any social issue would remain stagnant: women wouldn’t vote and some minorities still would be denied the right to vote, equal housing, etc.

I’ve from a declining area of Arkansas. Were this area in control of the law, there would be very little social justice in Arkansas. People insist that life must remain as it is. All change is thrust upon them involuntarily and every imaginable argument is made to fight social equality. For many, much of the argument toward maintaining the status quo is based on their own interpretation of religion. That people violently disagree on what religion indicates is immaterial to them. That our society is based on a system of secular laws that cannot be dictated by religion is anathema to them. They don’t “get it.” I would hate to be accountable to any dogma that encourages me to marginalize other people, regardless of whatever ‘sin’ they might be perceived to be committing.

(People do “get” that some religious folk have a problem with homosexuality and that even some don’t believe that homosexuality is not a choice. We really do. It would be easier to get our heads around it if most or almost all religious people shared a similar outlook – but they don’t. If people within the same denominations of a religion can’t agree, then I’ll go out on a limb and add that agreement is almost impossible in general society, too.  It’s not a question of ‘sin,’ but rather one of law. Our society is secular and we can’t limit one group’s options because of our religious beliefs. There has to be an overwhelming justification for any limitations based on discrimination. Then again, some people still believe that world is flat and that the planet is a few thousand years old. We need to listen to these people talk and then, without comment, turn our attention to people who are engaging meaningfully in our world.)

The reactions are going to be strong for many people. I’ll hear the same cliched and tired logic from those who oppose social change. The volume will proportionally increase as the validity of their claims decrease. But it will be interesting.

Decades after forced integration of schools and laws designed to FORCE people to comply with race equality issues, we still see racism and subtext to disparage minorities. It will be the same with gay marriage. Those who resent it will fume and fight the permanent change in attitude now required to be considered civil in our society. But time cures these people of their resistance. Even if their bitterness sticks with them, it will lessen with the next generation until it is a footnote in history.

In a few years, people will forget what all the fuss is about. Gays will be marrying, divorcing and proceeding on with their own private lives, just all we all do now. If you disagree with gay marriage, chances are that you won’t remember the sting so clearly. You will wonder why it was such a big deal at the time. That is how all social justice issues develop. After huge exaggeration and upheaval, the issue settles into a background concern.