by Rev. Stephen Parelli
October 4, 2012
Bronx, New York
While supporting the right of his teammate Brendon
Ayanbadejo, a Baltimore Ravens linebacker, to publically declare his support
for same-sex marriage, Matt Birk, a center for the Baltimore Ravens, took issue
with him and advanced his own counter-view on the marriage equality debate by
authoring an opinion editorial that was recently published in his home state,
in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Birk offered but one argument for defining marriage as
between a man and a woman: “The union of
a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as ‘marriage’ for a
reason, and it's not because the government has a vested interest in
celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes
marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable,
nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.” Later, in the same piece, he repeats his
argument: “Marriage redefinition will
affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled
to care about both.”
This NFL player’s opinion needs to go up against the big
league. How about the Iowa Supreme
Court?
In their April 3, 2009, ruling that decided “the state
statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman
unconstitutional,” the Iowa Supreme Court
examined the argument that “the optimal environment for children is to be
raised within a marriage of both a mother and a father.” The Court, after hearing “an abundance of
evidence and research,” and confirming the findings by independent research,
“that the children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex
parents,” concluded that opposition to same-sex marriage “is less about using
marriage to achieve an optimal environment for children and more about merely
precluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage.” This conclusion led the
Court to further remark that “stereotype and prejudice, or some other
unarticulated reason [rather than optimal environment for children], could be
present to explain the real objectives” to same-sex marriage.
At the end of their ruling, after having rejected other
arguments against same-sex marriage, the Court writes: “Now that we have addressed and rejected each
specific interest advanced” in defense of marriage as limited to a man and a
woman “we consider the reason for the expulsion of gay and lesbian couples from
civil marriage left unspoken . . . : “religious
opposition [emphasis mine] to same-sex marriage.”
Obviously, Birk is no match for the Iowa Supreme
Court. In fact, his plea for dropping
the “bigot” and “homophobic” labels for “people [like himself] who are simply
acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman”
losses ground against the Court’s statement:
“Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex
marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained – even fundamental – religious
belief.”
In place of “bigotry,” one might say Birk is “religiously
intolerant” especially in view of the fact that “marriage is a civil contract”
and not a religious order or rite or creed.
Just as government, says the Court, “does not prescribe a definition of
marriage for religious institutions,” neither, explains the Court, in a free
society, do religious institutions, through the implementation of laws, impose
upon society their particular religious views and practices. “Civil marriage,” wrote the Iowa Supreme
Court, “must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection
and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.” In this sense, Birk is either un-American,
uninformed of the American way, or simply religiously intolerant of his
fellow-citizens who hold a different belief system on marriage.
Is he “homophobic?”
Sure he is, even in spite of the fact that his pro-gay-marriage teammate
Brendon Ayanbadejo tweeted “I don’t think he’s homophobic.” Matt Birk is buying
into, and playing on, people’s fears when he says: “Marriage redefinition will
affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society.” And when
he ties his homophobia to his religious beliefs by saying “as a Christian and a
citizen, I am compelled to care about both [society and children]” he is
displaying his religious intolerance, tempting others to come very close to
using the words “religious bigotry.”
If we go with the Iowa Supreme Court’s assessment, Matt
Birk, on the issue of gay marriage and optimum environment for children, is
prejudice, or is being stereotypical, or his religious beliefs have left him
totally partial.
According to Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, “Maryland
state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Ravens fan, wrote a letter to the Ravens
owner, Steve Bisciotti, asking him to prohibit his players from offering
political commentary.” Matt Birk might
do well to take that advice long enough to do his homework. As for Brendon Ayanbadejo who was the player
that upset Burns with his pro-gay marriage comments, he needs to go right on
upsetting the state delegate long enough until the state delegate sits down and
carefully reads, and fully comprehends, the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.
