"Marriage is the first bond of society."
- Cicero
"Tut, Faustus, marriage is but a ceremonial toy."
I. D'Souza's Challenge
After he gave a speech at BYU two weeks ago, I had the chance to talk to Dinesh D'Souza, a Catholic from India who speaks and writes about religion and politics. An impressive think-tanker, I decided to get his two cents on the conservative stance on gay marriage.
D'Souza said that if the conservatives don't figure out a way to frame the gay-marriage argument more succinctly and more convincingly, they'll lose the debate. Essentially, we need a slogan (apparently "God hates fags" isn't working).
D'Souza's right. The gay activists' stance is simple and easy to understand: "Gays are human, just like you, so why can't they have the same rights you do?"
The argument is basically an extension of the civil rights rhetoric of the 60s, and except for a few dismal wackos, most people today (myself included) believe that the extension of those rights was a good thing.
By framing the debate this way, the gay rights activists label anyone who opposes them a bigot, a label I'd like to avoid.
So I've been trying for the past two weeks to frame the conservative side of this argument succinctly and with love, but I've found it near impossible. D'Souza said that he didn't have an answer either.
What I mean is that I can think of no way to talk about this issue without having someone call me out as condemning a certain kind of sexual love. Sure, I believe that God doesn't condone gay intercourse, but my personal belief on this matter is useless in a public debate since it is an internal evidence—coming from conscience, the Holy Ghost, etc.—and the public square (rightly) only permits external evidence.
So when it comes to explaining why gay intercourse is wrong in secular terms, I'm in the same spot as D'Souza is: a dead end.
II. What My Stance Is Not
Perhaps I must back up and define my stance not by what it is, but by what it is not. My stance—which is synonymous to the official LDS stance as I understand it—is not a call akin to Islamic Sharia law, a law that imprisons and kills homosexuals.
Such laws promote only cruelty, which is the exact opposite of the LDS stance on the issue. Here is the plea Church leaders sent to all California Mormons last year:
"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."
That one sentence, which connotes no cruelty, was the sentence that caused thousands of Mormons to donate millions of dollars to the cause.
If President Monson, someone Slate magazine says is the world's most powerful person over 80, could send a one-sentence plea to church members and thousands of us donated, think of what he could have done if he were truly motivated by a visceral hatred of gays. He could have called for the Church to support anti-sodomy laws, could have told us that God won't condemn us for mocking gay people. (In contrast we believe God condemns the mocker. See my personal stance on compassion here.)
In addition, if they wanted, the LDS apostles could focus general conference speeches on gay marriage. As it is, something like 0.001% of recent talks have addressed the issue, and when they do, the approach is one of love.
It might not be widely known, but inside the Church we focus mostly on things like scripture reading, staying out of debt, teaching and nurturing our children, attending the temple, or supporting our neighbors. Gay marriage isn't a focus.
What I mean to say is that if President Monson simply hates gays, he's doing a very poor job of showing it.
Therefore, even if you don't believe that the LDS plea on Prop 8 came from God through a prophet, even if you believe that the plea was un-inspired, you'd be wrong to assert that it was grounded in hate.
So while I still haven't found a succinct way to frame my stance positively, I know what it is not.
III. Civil Unions and Religious Rights
The LDS stance is also not, if I can say one more thing in this vein, opposed to governments granting more rights to gays than they currently have in most states. Here is a message that came out at the same time as the plea sent to California Mormons:
"The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."
The acceptance of these five major rights answers affirmatively the simple question gay activists ask: "Gays are human, just like you, so why can't they have the same rights you do?" That is to say, we don't posit that governments should deny gays these rights.
So why is the LDS Church so opposed to gay marriage?
When the LDS church first spoke out about Proposition 8, I heard a fellow BYU student question why. If the sole reason for speaking out centered on religious rights, as the Church claimed it did, why bring gays into it?
This is a worthwhile question, a question I harbored throughout the Prop 8 debates. Even after listening to recent speeches from President Obama and LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks I was still left wondering why gay marriage would necessarily eclipse religious rights.
Since that time I've scoured several sources, some of which, such as The Meaning of Marriage (edited by Robert George, a conservative Catholic law professor at Princeton) and The Conservative Soul (written by a gay conservative, Andrew Sullivan), I'll have to address in later posts.
The more I read about this issue, the more I'm convinced that civil unions wouldn't infringe on religious rights.
I believe advocating for civil unions is an option open for Latter-day Saints who agree with the official LDS stance. I also think it is the best option for affirmatively answering the question gay rights activists ask about rights.
I've seen protesters claim, "I didn't ask her to 'civil union' me," as though civil unions were a resurfaced case of "separate but equal." A fellow graduate student at BYU, Vilja Johnson, refutes this point solidly here. The marrow of her argument is that since marriage is currently tied up in religious rites (and has been for centuries), calling the union "marriage" creates a conflict between religion and state that civil unions wouldn't.
"If a church refuses to perform a civil union," Vilja argues, "it is because they do not believe in that specific rite from a religious perspective. It is an action which is outside of the practice of their religion, and so they have no obligation to comply with it."
She then goes on to argue convincingly why civil unions are not synonymous with "separate but equal."
My reading has led me to believe that civil unions are simply the best middle ground on this issue. Civil unions still allow gays to openly commit to fidelity, but civil unions also ensure that no affronts to religious rights will ensue, affronts that run contrary to the notions of love and freedom and security.
I think those who support civil unions are in the best position for affirmatively answering questions about rights for all people. The supporter of civil unions pushes at once for rights for gays and religious believers.
If gay rights activists are looking for a verb that could express what it means to be have the government recognize a civil union, I'd offer the verb "commit."
In my mind this is what a civil union would represent: "I'm done looking for other partners. This day marks the day I commit to fidelity."
10 comments:
Here's an op-ed I came across months ago (and used as a reading in my classes on a series of readings about the separation of church and state). Thought you might be interested. It's definitely a tough one!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=1
A very nice commentary. I think that a compromise like this would be the best solution, given the situation.
Thanks for the link!
Nice post, Jon. While I can't agree, based on my extensive examination of the legal issues involved, that gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) would even come close to infringing on our free exercise of religion, I see civil unions as a solid compromise between the two sides (for now). As a side note, I actually know Vilja, and I think Becca does, too. At least, I know Becca knows Vilja's sister Meri. Funny. Also, I liked her paper, because it wasn't just a reiteration of the church's stance on gay marriage like so many of the papers on that site; she was looking for a solution to satisfy both sides--something I haven't been able to see the church as doing.
I'm impressed that you and D'Souza are willing to admit that your stance is a religious one, because I think that initial honesty is crucial to defining the debate.
Once we agree that one side is trying to protect or promote their religious views (or both), the debate becomes clear: Would gay marriage really infringe on others' reasonable free exercise of religion (which I agree would be unconstitutional and bad), and, if not, does a religious majority have the right to promote its belief system democratically at the expense of a minority that does not share that belief system?
We can have that debate here, or not; I'm just happy to see people really thinking about it, rather than blindly following or simply hearing and regurgitating.
Nice post, Jon.
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk. levitra I can not recollect, where I about it read.
Jessie,
Can you point me to some links that show that gay marriage wouldn't infringe on religious rights?
I think it's difficult to prove either way, since both sides are arguing about future scenarios, but I'd be interested to read more on that.
This fellow (sorry, it's a video, but it's worth watching) gives a pretty decent rundown of the legal arguments in the context of California's Proposition 8 and from an LDS perspective. He's well educated (Columbia Law) and is currently a law professor.
I actually think he's being a little cautious in saying it's "unlikely" that that part of California's decision would be overturned. Of course we can't be 100% sure about what the future holds, but the court cites the free exercise clause of California's constitution in support of its finding that "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." A court would basically have to overlook the free exercise clause entirely to change this finding.
Common sense and all of US history support the finding, too. Religious organizations today use any number of arguably arbitrary or discriminatory reasons not to perform wedding ceremonies. The Catholic church won't marry people who have been divorced, for example. Religious groups may refuse to marry people who won't agree to bring up their children in that faith tradition. Allowing gays to marry wouldn't change any of this.
If you're still concerned, look at the gay marriage laws that have already been passed. They include explicit protections for religious groups against being forced to perform any ceremony they don't agree with.
I understand that this particular issue may not be the only way you foresee gay marriage impinging upon your right to free exercise. If you have other concerns, I'd like to see if I can address those as well.
In the end, the answer to whether gay marriage will infringe on one's free exercise of religion depends almost entirely on how one defines that free exercise right. The right has long and, I believe, correctly been limited to a "reasonable" free exercise: you may not exercise your religion in a way that hurts others.
There are a few questions that arise from this issue:
1. What counts as "exercise of religion"? For example, in the case of a religious group refusing to rent out its property (that is held out by that group for public use) to a gay couple, is such a refusal an exercise of religious freedom worthy of constitutional protection?
2. How far may one's free exercise (and free speech) go before we, as a society, decide it is harmful enough to outweigh the underlying religious convictions? I believe the answer to this question is actually "pretty dang far." As long as the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to picket military funerals with signs that say "God hates fags," I think the preacher's right to speak out against homosexuality from the pulpit (especially in the way the LDS church goes about it--as tactfully as possible) is going to be safe.
Jessie,
I concede your and Wegner's point that the laws currently protect religions from forced compliance. But I'm still wondering whether anti-discrimination laws can really be contained indefinitely so neatly.
I think both sides realize that the gay marriage debate is largely one of symbols, especially since gays can already live together without state or federal punishment. Therefore, if gay marriage passes it won't only mean that government has been granted power to redefine a central rite in many religions, it will also, by implication, act as a U.S. government "stamp of approval" on homosexual relationships, when the government should remain neutral on this matter to avoid discrimination on either front.
Groups that don't agree with that stamp (i.e. traditional churches) will be viewed more and more as homophobic, a terrible insult because it denotes irrationality; it assumes negative motives for all opponents, something that makes real discussion impossible. If I'm labeled a homophobe for my religious views, I'm by definition perceived as an irrational being, and it becomes very easy to trample over the rights of the irrational.
While I agree the debate is riddled with symbolism, I think the symbols are different for both sides, and I think the debate is about much more than that for gay marriage supporters. Gays want marriage as an outward symbol of their commitment, as you said. And opponents want to keep the symbol of marriage as they perceive it to be.
I’m not sure many gays would consider it a bonus that they can live together without state or federal punishment, and such a “right” certainly doesn’t leave symbols as the only issue in the debate. What about state and federal tax benefits? Inheritance laws? Hospital visitation?
I think the problem with the status quo is precisely that the government has given one kind of relationship, and not the other, its stamp of approval. By not allowing gay marriage, the government is not remaining neutral. It’s important to remember here that the government does not give any kind of religious stamp of approval with its civil marriage laws. No religious group’s version of marriage is held up above another, and religious groups are free to recognize or not recognize marriages for their own religious purposes (e.g., Catholics’ non-recognition of divorce or remarriage after divorce, or the special status of temple marriages in Mormonism). The government’s recognition of marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore, though it may have at one time. Nowadays, you can get your marriage solemnized by a government official and leave religion out of it altogether. So your claim that gay marriage will redefine a central rite in many religions is unfounded, though deeply felt, I’m sure. Gay marriage will redefine only the civil laws that were based, in a time long past, on a religious concept. It couldn’t possibly redefine the religious rite, because, as discussed above, religions are already free to define their concept of marriage however they choose. The root of the problem, as far as I can tell, is that religious groups don’t want to separate the discrete concepts of religious and civil marriage, while this civil marriage is the only thing gays are after.
A further question: if religious groups are willing to compromise with the distinct terms “marriage” and “civil union,” why is there such resistance to the distinction that already exists between “religious marriage” and “civil marriage”?
In response to your last point, you need only replace the concept at issue with miscegenation and the word “homophobic” with “racist” to understand the opposition’s response. There is arguably better support in scripture for a religious resistance to miscegenation than to gay marriage, but should we then avoid giving the governmental stamp of approval to interracial marriage just to protect those who, like Bob Jones University, oppose it for religious reasons and may be labeled racists? I disagree that that danger of labeling should be allowed to decide the debate.
[url=http://italtubi.com/levitra-generico/ ]levitra prezzo [/url] wpAl tuo posto non avrei fatto. levitra acquisto
Post a Comment