To make things even more interesting, Hurley and Hayar already had a Christian ceremony at an English castle. On the surface, this would lend support to the view that the Indian nuptials, with the hefty sum coming from Hello! for the rights to take pictures, might have been motivated by profit. Or maybe they wanted both a Christian and a Hindu wedding to honor both of their cultural traditions and they made money off of a celebrity magazine’s coverage instead of dealing with the constant harassment of paparazzis. Whatever the reason, this is classic example of people using tradition as a bludgeon. I mean, really, sending people to jail because you don’t like how they got married? Puh-lease!

Shaky Faith

I humbly submit that this is an example of people whose religious faith is so threatened by what other people do or don’t that it actually reveals a lack of strength in that faith. It’s part of something I called the Truth in Numbers Principle, or, to borrow from Stephen Colbert, “Truthiness” in Numbers. I’m sure someone else has come up with this before, but this is the notion that people’s conviction that a particular belief is true depends on the number of other people they can persuade or force to agree with them. Thus, the incessant need to proselytize and, in this particular case, use the law to force dissenters, heretics, apostates, taboo-breakers and other assorted theological riff-raff to conform. Truth demonstrated, not by evidence or reason, but by rhetoric.

The good news for Hurley and Hayar: Legal experts don’t believe the case will get anywhere. Unfortunately, the kind of mentality underlying the lawsuit isn’t restricted to India; there are plenty of Christians right here who’d be quite happy to bludgeon everyone into their way of thinking, as exemplified by the Christian right and issues such as teaching creationism in schools.

The Episcopalian Exception

Thankfully, there are some lovely exceptions of independent thinking, which brings me to giving credit where credit is due. In a past column, I criticized Catholic bishops for their anti-gay stance. This time, I will offer some praise to Episcopal bishops. As reported by the Associated Press not long ago, the Episcopal Church rejected demands from the rest of the Anglican Communion that they withdraw their support for gay relationships and accept the authority of a “primatial vicar.” They also rejected a proposal for conservative Episcopalian dioceses – those dioceses that have rejected the leadership of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and opposed the consecration of openly-gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson – to be led by a special committee. I’m not sure this is logically consistent with their rationale for rejecting the primatial vicar…if they are willing to split from the Communion, shouldn’t they be willing to let conservative dioceses go their own way as well? Wouldn’t this be in line with freedom of religion? But I admit that the complexities of the Anglican church structure, rules and regulations probably make the issue more complicated than a few rhetorical questions can deal with.

The point, however, still remains: There’s something admirable in that, where many of the established churches continue to be in denial regarding homosexuality, Episcopal bishops are willing to buck the trend. Where institutionalized religion tends to be dogmatic and inflexible, it’s encouraging to see that this isn’t always the case. Then again, maybe it’s not that much of a surprise: How much of the history of religion consists of theological bickering, splintering and posturing?