Human Right of Love Part II: Valentine’s Day Special Student Post

Editors’ Note:  Last year on Valentine’s Day Lauren E. Bartlett wrote a blog post here examining the human rights love.  Her terrific student, Desirae Bedford, has agreed to share some of her thoughts on love and religion, in loose reaction to Lauren Bartlett’s post from last year.  Desirae Bedford describes a struggle between devotion to the Christian faith and support for the expansion of human rights that is all too common across the U.S.  Desirae Bedford is from Cincinnati, Ohio, and went to Wilmington College in Wilmington, Ohio.  She is President of the Black Law Students Association at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law and she will be graduating in May 2016. Ms.  Bedford can be contacted at d-bedford@onu.edu. Ms. Bedford writes:

 
Love is in the air and for the first time in U.S. history, nationwide same-sex marriage will be celebrated over Valentine’s Day. For decades same-sex marriage was illegal in the United States, with the exception of some states. With the disproportionality of the gay marriage laws, what one person could celebrate in New York another could not in Ohio.  In the infamous case Obergefell v. Hodges the U.S. Supreme Court leveled the field in a 5-4 decision, which ruled that same-sex marriage was guaranteed under the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14^th Amendment. The United States became the 21^st country to legalize same-sex marriage.  With over 190 countries recognized by the United Nations, the LGBTQI community is not even halfway close to same-sex marriage recognition worldwide.  In some countries before same-sex marriage can be discussed, talks of basic LGBTQI human rights have to happen first.  In countries like Ghana homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment. 

There are other countries that find homosexuality so repulsive that such acts are punishable by death—Yemen for instance.   For many of these countries, it is their religious beliefs that influence their thoughts on love, relationships and moral responsibility. In this battle of universal love, it’s a fight between religious moralities and human rights.  Bishop Gyamfi of Sunyani, a Catholic bishop in Ghana, spoke openly about the need for Ghanaian’s to rebuke European cultural and its heavy influence on the Ghanaian families.  He described these influences as both direct and indirect attacks on the family structures. He urges families to restore the family God had intended.

For many people they are their religion and their faith, and devotion to their faith is a reflection of who they are.  In the United States we guarantee everyone the right to believe in and practice their faith according to what they see best fit for themselves. We call this freedom of religion, but when does the support of one human right make another subordinate?  Though same-sex marriage is recognized in the United States, the conflict of Christianity and human rights is one that is still apparent in the United States and around the world.

There are two types of Christian believers. There are those who believe that they are their faith and because so they must make decisions according to how God would want them to represent him, even if that means depriving someone else of happiness. Then there are those who believe that they can represent God without having to project their own belief onto someone else.  Therefore, on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, they do not vote according to their own belief, but with the thought that other people should be allowed to make their own decisions. People who vote or make decisions with this latter ideology struggle with the notion of doing God’s work. By allowing everyone the freedom of choice, are they sacrificing salvation? 

Followers of the Christian faith believe in the notion that God wants people to choose Him, and do not want people forced to believe in Him. With our ability to reason and use logic, God wants people to use their rationale to believe and develop a relationship with him without force.  With this thinking, are those that would vote to allow people to make their own decision, and to believe according to their own faith, correct?

If you choose to be a believer and decide not to vote on matters based on your beliefs does that mean that you are not choosing to entirely follow God, and does the opposite mean that those who vote entirely on their faith are the true followers? This is circular reasoning, but is one that explicitly describes the reason why so many people struggle with allowing LGBTQI rights in their country. In order for LGBTQI rights to be openly supported, navigating through these questions of faith and religion have to first be accomplished if LGBTQI rights are going to be accepted without animosity or hostility.