"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere."
--G.K. Chesterton
"The man's body is sacred and the woman's body is sacred.../Each belongs here or anywhere just as much as the well-off, just as much as you."
--Walt Whitman
Comments on this blog are moderated. Anonymous comments will not be accepted. Please include your full name and a valid email address. Comments that fail to engage respectfully with the arguments on this blog, or create a hostile environment for other participants, will be deleted, and their authors may be blocked from the site.
According to the Buddha, right speech is a statement that is timely, true, kind, helpful (connected to liberation), and spoken with a mind of good-will. Let us all try to observe this precept.
New England's GLBT community and allies felt the chill this morning as results were declared on Question 1 in Maine. By a vote of 52.6% to 47.4%, Maine's gay marriage law was repealed by popular vote.
Meanwhile, on the opposite coast, Washington State voters passed Referendum 71 by an equally narrow margin of 51% to 49%, meaning that same-sex couples get to keep the domestic partnership benefits previously granted by the legislature. (Stats courtesy of The Bilerico Project.)
Let the post-mortems begin...
These results, coupled with the unwelcome success of Proposition 8 last year by a nearly identical margin, suggest two things to me: First, that nearly half the population supports gay marriage, but perhaps we could pick up some crucial swing voters by not calling it marriage. Whether this is a sacrifice worth making is not for me to judge, since I'm straight and have never had to weigh the burden of second-class symbolism against the fear of losing financial security for my family.
Second, the poll numbers suggest that mainstream GLBT activist groups aren't reaching Christian voters. We've been treating this as a lobbying issue when it's a spiritual and cultural one. A hundred get-out-the-vote calls won't convince someone who answers to a higher authority. Our ads speak the secular liberal language of tolerance and diversity. "Yes on 1" voters probably feel frightened that mainstream culture doesn't value, and in fact actively assaults, marital fidelity and children's innocence. To them, more sexual freedom seems like a wrong turn. Of course, scapegoating gays isn't the answer, but we first need to show that we heard the question.
A conservative Christian friend of mine believes that the Bible calls gays to celibacy, but she's not interested in legislating away their rights. The Bible's rules only apply once you've made a commitment to Jesus, she says. For the general public, the state should legislate according to secular principles.
I think this is a potentially useful argument for swaying those voters who will never personally feel comfortable with gay marriage. If it's framed as a question of church-state separation, they might be persuaded to leave the issue up to personal conscience, like pro-lifers who believe abortion is immoral but aren't inclined to use state coercion to worsen a tragic situation.
At the same time, "open and affirming" Christians need to make specifically Christian arguments for a gay-friendly reading of the Bible, and publicize them through sermons, mailings, and videos, just as their Catholic and Mormon opponents did. I'm working on some ideas in this area. Contact me if you want to help.
11/4/2009 4:39 PM
Hank Rodgers wrote:
Excellent points Jendi! I am in agreement with the substance of this cause, but I come from a "third" viewpoint on this -- "separation of church and state", indeed!
You have a point, maybe we should stop calling "it" marriage. It seems to me that marriage is historically a matter of family custom and ritual, and "church-family" sacrament, and is not a proper business of government.
It is a legitimate business of government to enforce civil contracts (of all kinds, and preferably those in written form), as well as to, DIRECTLY, protect the rights of minor children who cannot protect their own interests. Government sanctioned and enforced "marriage" is necessary for neither of these worthy functions.
Issuing "marriage" licences (with the freedom to change the terms of the "contract" after the fact, with retroactivity and without the consent of the parties, as per the history of "legal" marriage), thus attempting to regulate the sexual relationships of free adults, is unecessary and inappropriate -- and obviously ineffective as well.
Let us leave to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to families, and to "God", that which is theirs. Reply to this
11/4/2009 5:50 PM
Jendi Reiter wrote:
Good suggestion. Maybe we are looking to the state for too much symbolic approval. It's become our God-substitute. The state could simply regulate the financial and legal aspects of family contracts and leave the cultural meanings up to us.
But this would be a hard sell for many anti-gay folks because they *want* that nod of superiority from the state. It's not enough for them to believe that God likes them better. They also want Caesar to rub our noses in it!
11/4/2009 9:07 PMBruce Robinson wrote:
My personal feeling is that the quest for marriage equality would be best done in two stages: to get civil unions with full state and federal benefits of marriage across the U.S., and later upgrade them to marriage.
I feel that the best system, although probably unobtainable, is to disengage the financial and security benefits from the religious aspects of marriage. Let the state handle the former by registering all loving committed couples of whatever gender. Let religions marry people, or refuse to marry them, just as many baptize and confirm them.
