No Nonsense in November
I have been monitoring my site traffic and have noticed that a huge segment of my readers live in Texas. Though I am not currently in Texas, I was born and raised there and am still registered to vote in that state. So, on November 8, I will be voting against Proposed Constitutional Amendment #2, which seeks to ban gay marriage. I ask those of you who are Texans to consider doing the same.
No Nonsense in November
I am not (at this moment) asking you to change your religious beliefs about homosexuality. I am not asking you to condone same-sex marriage. I am asking you to consider the possibility that your gay and lesbian friends, family, coworkers, and acquaintences should be treated the same as you; that they are your equals in the eyes of the law.
It is one thing to morally disapprove of someone's actions or "lifestyle." It is quite another to say that you are willing to use the law to prevent them from engaging in that behavior. I defend your ability to disapprove of me. But defend my right to marry.
Register to vote. Call your friends and tell them to do the same. Support me and those who, like me, want to be your equals.
No Nonsense in November
I am not (at this moment) asking you to change your religious beliefs about homosexuality. I am not asking you to condone same-sex marriage. I am asking you to consider the possibility that your gay and lesbian friends, family, coworkers, and acquaintences should be treated the same as you; that they are your equals in the eyes of the law.
It is one thing to morally disapprove of someone's actions or "lifestyle." It is quite another to say that you are willing to use the law to prevent them from engaging in that behavior. I defend your ability to disapprove of me. But defend my right to marry.
Register to vote. Call your friends and tell them to do the same. Support me and those who, like me, want to be your equals.
posted by GR at 10/07/2005 02:46:00 PM
17 Comments:
glad to see a new post. how do you check your site traffic? let me know if anything like this comes up for vote in NJ. (i am sure that J will tell me if it does...)
talk to you soon?
GR,
In a Christian nation, shouldn't we fashion our laws according to morality? If being gay is immoral, as many of us believe it is, then why should we let the law allow for its institutionalization? Further, civil unions and marriages allow gay couples to raise children; if homosexuality is immoral, then won't this allowance cause the immorality to be passed to future generations? Also, aren't democracies a form of government that allow the majority to decide? If the majority vote to ban gay marriage, then isn't this just indicative of the fact that gay marriage's time has simply not come in America? Finally, and relatedly, Paul tells us that government is ordained by God, and, in a democracy, as people of God, we are the ones ordained to carry out his will through government. While I think voting is an intensely private thing, I can say enough to say that, when I pull that curtain, that is not the moment to be voting in anyone's interest except mine and God's.
As a Christian, I will be voting against this Amendment. As an American, I will be voting against this amendment. I think it is ludicrous to claim that we are a Christian nation or a nation of Christians, and it is equally ludicrous to withhold state and federal benefits from people who pay taxes into those systems, simply because of their sexual orientation. That would be like banning black marriages or something.
Thank you for pointing this out for us.
GKB,
I don't think it's ludicrous to claim that we are a Christian nation. Considering that over 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, I'm not sure what else I would call it (we can't, after all, go around deciding who is and isn't an 'authentic' Christian). We are still 'one nation under God,' our money still says 'in God we trust,' and all of our founding fathers were Christian. We are nothing but a Christian nation, and that is how we are perceived by the rest of the world (ask bin Laden). And when they look to our 'light on the hill,' they must see Christian principles, popular or not, being legislated. You would have to tear pages out of the Bible to believe that homosexuality is not offensive to God, and I am not interested in being part of a vote that offends Him.
And since when should money affect the way we shape our morals? Paying taxes or donating to political parties should not be sufficient for Christians to accept sinful behavior. And skin color and sexual preference are not the same thing.
(Apologies for posting anonymously before--I didn't see the 'Other' option)
When I was doing vocational mission work in China, one Sunday a Chinese friend asked after church, "why is America so rich and blessed, and China so poor?" The answer this friend got back was, "God blesses America because America is a Christian nation." Obvious corollary: God doesn't bless China because China isn't a Christian nation. Inevitable theological conclusion: God plays favorites among his children, and his favorite children are white American types.
I tell this sad little anecdote here because I'm too tired after a long day to muster up the reasons why I think affirming America as a Christian nation is false and harmful. I hope this little story demonstrates at least one reason--one theological rather than political reason--why I think it is harmful. As to its veracity, I find Richard Hughes' Myths America Lives By quite illuminating.
As to why this is relevant to GR's plea to vote against this ban: GR's point that it is one thing to morally disapprove, and another to use the law to enforce that judgment, is exact and to the point. It elevates the conscience of one group of people to the status of law. In a way, this seems to me to be doing the exact opposite of what it intends; obviously the goal is to encourage "morality," but it accomplishes the opposite, by taking away the responsibility of moral choosing from the person, by making the matter already settled--by someone else. How can that promote morality?
Perhaps it is true that the majority of people overall would prefer this ban. But majorities can be wrong. So that is not a good enough argument for me to accept that the ban is therefore the moral vote.
Finally, if bin Laden or whomever hates us, it's because we're fat greedy overpolluting people who think that we deserve more than our share of the world's resources and don't care who we screw to get it. If that is "Christian principles being legislated," then I need a new religion and a move to Canada.
I should think that Christians would want to check their opposition to gay marriage or partnership in light of their values. Would they rather that gay and lesbian persons settle down in monogamous relationships, or would they rather that they engage in promiscuity and whatever bad things come with it?
Recalling Matthew 7:16... The Christian opposition to homosexuality in general seems to produce some of the most unChristian things. People are killed over their orientation. Parents, saying they believe in Christian love and family values, still throw their gay teenagers out on the streets. The same people who speak of Christian love regard gay people as trash. Hatred and contempt lace their attitudes. They lie to support their bigotry by making up false statistics and lurid rumors.
As for the Christian nation part, let me know when that becomes true. A look at the conduct of our Christian leaders on any given day should have put that rumor to rest long ago.
JTB,
Your story about your mission work makes me think. It is unfortunate that the misconception has arisen that 'God's blessings=money.' Perhaps putting the words 'in God we trust' on our coins isn't the best idea.
Still, this doesn't change the fact that America is a nation full of Christians, that the world perceives us as a Christian nation, and that it is therefore imperative for us to vote for Christian policies in our government and to show the world what Christianity is (including getting the message out that God's blessings aren't monetary and that, as Christians, we must stop being fat greedy overpolluters and instead refine the image that we show the world). In the case of sexual relationships, the Christian formula is male-female monogamy. Nothing else.
As for the idea of allowing citizens to morally choose. This seems like a good idea, but in the end we would simply be playing God if we were to do it. God has given us our freedom to choose; God has given us a 'law' to follow; God has put us in this country at this time to respond to him. To decide to vote against the word of God so that others can choose seems to me to be putting myself in the role of the Creator, which is a place I do not want to be.
It's possible that I missed your point there, but that's how I see it.
Also, it is possible for majorities to be wrong, and that was a fairly weak point that I made...I should stick to faith and leave the politics to experts. Majority or not, I will vote the way God wants me to, which, in this case, is in favor of the ban.
Sorry for the length, but I wanted to respond to AZF, also, since I seem to be the only one saying these things at this point.
AZF,
You are right that monogamy seems more stable than multiple partners. However, in answer to your question of which I would want, I would say neither. I am not interested in pushing the myth that individuals HAVE to be gay. This is a difficult argument to back up, and looking over his blog, GR does much to make me think on this topic. But, when I read the Bible's condemnation of such behavior, I cannot accept that we do not have a choice in the matter (back to JTB's point that we are able to choose our moral positions).
Obviously (I hope), I do not condone murder or hate or neglect or anything of the like for homosexuals. Rather, I support a warm message of love and a spirit of encouragement for them to seek God in their lives.
Finally, as for the Christian nation thing...again, I am not saying that as a Christian nation we are in some way 'perfect.' Rather, we call ourselves Christians, we always have called ourselves Christian, and the world perceives us as such. Therefore, it is our responsibility to reflect Christian values to the world, and homosexuality, along with 'insider trading,' 'money laundering,' and the likes are not His values. Your point is correct about the behavior of political leaders, but this does not make them non-Christians, just imperfect Christians, which, at the end of the day, all of us are.
Rick,
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My point about moral choice is better captured by the word "responsibility." One person cannot take on the moral responsibility of another. That really is "playing God" in some sense--although not even God plays God that way. Legislating something like this is to make it more difficult for a person to assume his/her own responsibility for deciding sexual conduct in life. It seeks to diminish responsibility by placing the moral decision in the hands of law rather than the person acting.
Perhaps there is such a thing as "moral law," although I dislike that language. But there must remain the moral freedom to responsibly decide how one responds to it. On these points you seem to agree; so, if it is God has made the "law" and then given us the freedom to respond to it, insisting that it is our moral duty to legislate as God's proxies here on earth seems to be "playing God" much more seriously than insisting on everyone's moral responsibility.
Finally, I would add to the list of things we must stop doing, if we are to show the world an image of true Christianity, discrimination against groups of people with regard to taken-for-granted rights of the majority.
I may be getting a little off topic here, though JTB hinted at this at the end of her last post. I'm pretty curious about something you say, Rick:
'Also, aren't democracies a form of government that allow the majority to decide? '
Technically, the majority does decide (at least, the majority out of the ones who are able to vote) in America (though democracy is less specific than representative republic). But, the checks and balances of government are in place so that the majority does not gain tyrranical rule. That's what filibusters, multiple government branches, and Texas grand juries are for. The majority may eventually get its way, but, if all things go as they should, not without much thought and consideration by all involved. In this way, the minority is always allowed a voice. The much-bemoaned slowness of government ensures that the minority voice cannot be drowned out. So, really, America is set up in the best interest of the minority, in order, I assume, to cut short the excesses that accompany absolute power (cf. the Dems in the early 90s and the GOPs right now).
So, what I'm really curious about, is why it's necessary to make a law that explicitly bans something that is currently not legally recognized anyway? Wouldn't this just be a step in the direction of drowning out the minority voice in Texas?
Finally, as to Christian principles, I'm curious why you seem to privilege a list of condemnations in a couple of Pauline letters over the inclusive, loving example of the gospel narratives. As you say, we are all 'imperfect Christians,' so doesn't it seem more likely that the appropriate response is to extend an open line of communication instead of resorting to legislative blocades? In the end, it seems like, if we are going to 'play God,' this would be the best way to do it.
JTB,
I am curious about the idea of moral law that you mentioned in your last post. It also makes me uncomfortable, though I'm not always sure that it should. After all, it seems moral to me to legislate in favor of balance, so that, at least in legal terms, all are on equal footing. Is it possible that the squeamishness that comes with the phrase 'moral law' is the result of an abuse of such a label? Is it that 'moral law' is often equated with legalistic 'righteous living?' It has often been suggested, especially in the wake of the 2004 election, that the Democratic party will get nowhere until it is willing to acknowledge that it does, indeed, allow morals to guide its platform. I'm curious if this really is necessary. I was constantly amazed at how easy it was for my family to tell me that Bush was the moral vote, and I kept looking for a bold statement of morality from Kerry or the DNC, but it never came. So I think I would like to see such a statement (and you know we could depend on Dean to get it out there in a way that no one could miss it) because it would open up the conversation of what morality is in a way that it hasn't been opened for quite some time. Perhaps there's hope for a positive reclamation of the term 'moral law?'
I find this perplexing: Gay people are already forbidden to marry by Texas law! Why in the world does this need to be written into the Constitution?
Regarding Rick's answer of "neither" to AZF's question-
It seems to me that many conservative Christians are letting the "perfect" get in the way of the "good."
By "perfect" I mean a situation in which all the gay people realize the error of their ways, turn to God, and become straight. (Now, I actually don't think that being gay is sinful. But let's say that this situation is the "perfect", for the sake of argument.)
By "good" I mean a situation in which most gay people are expected to settle down, form stable, monogamous relationships, and generally not be the promiscuous, unconnected partiers that we are stereotyped to be.
Rick (and many others) argue that we shouldn't work for (or allow) the "good" situation. Gay people are immoral. We should proceed from the assumption that the "perfect" is possible.
But the problem is: That "perfect" situation is simply never going to happen! We need to face reality. Gay people are not going away. Ever. We will always be here.
Many gay people are already Christians. And I, personally, hope that many many more gay people will become Christians. But even if that happens, they will still be gay. Many many gay Christians do not believe that their love for one another is sinful. Even some of the organizations that claim to be able to "heal" gay people only claim a "success" rate of around 30%. Moreover, "success" is very fluidly defined. It doesn't necessarily imply transformation into heterosexuality at all.
So, I think we need to rephrase AZF's question: Given the fact that millions of gay people are always going to be around, is it better for them to be in loving stable relationships where they can take care of one another, or is it better for them to be left with no social supports, and no expectations other than that they will be recklessly promiscuous?
Or again: Assume that the "perfect" situation is for every child to have a mother and father. But this simply is not going to happen. First, there aren't enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt all the children who need parents. Second, gay people are raising children right now. And they aren't going to stop; in fact, the situation is becoming more and more common.
So, given the fact that kids will be raised by gay people, is it better for the parents of those children to be legally joined to one another, or is it better for there to be no legal connection between the parents? Is it better for both parents to be legally responsible for the family, or is it better for one parent to be able to simply walk away with no consequence?
Please, don't let your conception of the "perfect" get in the way of the "good." The "perfect" is not an option.
J. Burton--
Thanks for the question. I had a response but the systen here went down before I posted it so it is gone wherever those things go when that happens. So here on my second try I will be a little briefer (since after all I am playing hooky from my comps studies at the moment).
Basically, I think the concept of "law" when connected with morality leads to an absolutist and inflexible concept of what is moral. The morality of an action is measured by its conformity to a rule, an external condition unconnected to the actual situation. This provides a certain moral clarity, but at the expense of not paying attention to the actual dilemma one is supposed to be dealing with.
Perhaps the idea of moral law can be rehabilitated; for me, that rehab would have to include some way to ameliorate the idea that morality is just the process of properly applying the rules.
I think this carries some parallels to the thoughts Brian expressed with regard to the "perfect" and the "good." But I have to get back to Augustine now.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I would like to add to this discussion a statement by John Locke (who greatly influenced the founders of our nation). From A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689):
The care of Souls cannot belong to the [government], because [its] Power consists only in outward force; but true and saving Religion consists in the inward perswasion of the Mind; without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the Understanding, that it cannot be compell’d to the belief of any thing by outward force. Confiscation of Estate, Imprisomnent, Torments, nothing of that nature can have any such Efficacy as to make Men change the inward Judgment that they have framed of things.
And also a bit of John Rawls:
Since there is no reasonable religious, philosophical, or moral doctrine affirmed by all citizens, the conception of justice affirmed in a well-ordered democratic society must be a conception limited to what I shall call “the domain of the political” and its values. The idea of a well-ordered democratic society must be framed accordingly. I assume, then, that citizens’ overall views have two parts: one part can be seen to be, or to coincide with, the publicly recognized political conception of justice; the other part is a (fully or partially) comprehensive doctrine to which the political conception is in some manner related. … the point to stress here is that, as I have said, citizens individually decide for themselves in what way the public political conception all affirm is related to their own more comprehensive views.
With this understood, I note briefly how a well-ordered democratic society meets a necessary (but certainly not sufficient) condition of realism and stability. Such a society can be well-ordered by a political conception of justice so long as, first, citizens who affirm reasonable but opposing comprehensive doctrines belong to an overlapping consensus: that is, they generally endorse that conception of justice as giving the content of their political judgments on basic institutions; and second, unreasonable comprehensive doctrines (these, we assume, always exist) do not gain enough currency to undermine society’s essential justice. These conditions do not impose the unrealistic – indeed, the utopian – requirement that all citizens affirm the same comprehensive doctrine, but only, as in political liberalism, the same public conception of justice.
So, Locke reminds us that we cannot force moral behavior on others. As much as I might try, I cannot coerce people into being generous to the poor. Salvation flows out of the heart, not out of the Law.
And Rawls reminds us that we must be realistic. We do no share ethical worldviews (which he calls “comprehensive doctrines”) with all of our fellow citizens. The citizens of this great nation worship many different gods. And Christians, though we may all worship the same God, worship in many different ways. So we must add something else to our argument beyond “God said it.” There must be a compelling extra-Biblical reason to constitutionally ban gay marriage. We all agree that our society should be just; we must make an argument that it is more just to ban gay marriage than to allow it.
1. Bear with me, this does come to a point... When we use the word "Christian" to describe our nation, and the values that are said to necessarily follow from it, I don't think we're being clear on where our conception comes from. Do we mean church of Christ, and if we do, which part? My own experience years ago showed me that there were congregations in my town that described themselves as "Church of Christ" that thought some of the others were hellbound over some arcane point of doctrine or practice. They can't agree with each other over whether to raise hands in prayer or not; I heard of congregations (elsewhere) that split over the question of white or wheat crackers for communion. Depending on whom you were speaking to, only a small (varying) percentage of people were saved, and the rest were hellbound because of some minor point. There was no truly united voice, no agreement, and a lot of acrimony. Now that I've stumbled across this blog and some of the others it links to, I see that there still isn't much agreement. There are even said to be congregations that (shocked gasp) are gay-friendly, which I had never thought possible for CofC; allow women to take leadership positions; maybe some are even mildly friendly to the thought of using instrumental music. Some now even seem to disassociate themselves from people who attended certain CofC colleges or universities because they seem too "liberal," something that did not yet exist when I was still involved.
Even among this small percentage of Christianity, there is no really united voice. None of the other branches can really speak with one, either. A look through the yellow pages for my city presents a staggering array of churches to pick from, and I would assume that many of them have their own internal dissents. I presume that some number of members of these churches think all the others are going to hell because they don't agree with them on every point. Some presumably think that the others aren't really Christian.
There are even two "gay" churches I have heard of.
We speak of Christianity in America as a united thing, but it is not. Ultimately one of the the only things they all agree on is that there was something about this guy named Jesus, but some even can't fully agree about what that was. Some Christians support, or at least tolerate, the idea of gay marriage or partnership, while others dislike or condemn it. Of the latter group, some may at least be open to allowing legally-recognized partnerships, while others aren't. I think that saying gay marriage/partnership should be banned because of a majority Christian viewpoint is meaningless.
2. Gay people are the latest group to be demonized by some percentage of Christianity. Anti-Semitism went (mostly) out of favor; so did witch-burning. Catholicism and Protestantism get along far better than they used to, if not perfectly. Even racism has started going out of fashion, albeit not as fast as it should. Now it's gay people. For each of the above-listed groups, there was presumed to be a biblical basis for the oppression. It was okay to hate them because the bible supposedly said so, even if you had to stretch the interpretation a bit. You may not call it hate, but I may as well call a carrot a steak. The manifestation of bias against a group becomes very hateful, very unloving, spiteful, even murderous. In the name of Christianity, the most unChristian things are practiced. These days it simply happens to be gays on the receiving end.
(If you are harvesting hatred and the things that go with it, what did you really sow? Was it something out of Christianity, or something else?)
3. We need to get something straight (no pun intended) about homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. Anyone calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice should try it out sometime. Go ahead. If it's a choice, go out and marry a man (or woman, depending). Go and pick up a man (woman) sometime and do whatever sexual things you both fancy. Is that so easy to contemplate as a choice, or does it fall on a spectrum from neutrally alien to completely disgusting? You're not choosing your reaction or your preference for one versus the other. A person who feels somehow different in early life, and finds oneself attracted to the same sex later on did not choose that. It's not a lifestyle to choose. You may as well speak of heterosexuality as a "lifestyle choice."
AZFoster,
I'd like to address point #3. Very often, equal rights for gays and lesbians are predicated on the notion that homosexuality is an unchosen personal characteristic, not unlike race or gender. I understand the impulse, but disagree that the law should protect gay relationships BECAUSE homosexuality is unchosen. Religion is not innate, but we consider its free exercise to be a fundamental right. In the same way, we should recognize the liberty interest that each citizen person has in exercising control over her own life. There must be a compelling reason to limit liberty; there is none here. From the perspective of the law and the government, it shouldn't matter whether I chose to be gay or not.
Whoops...
My point number 3 was addressing something that wasn't said by one of the other commenters. I thought I saw something referring to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, but seem to have read a few things into what was actually said.
Your point, addressing my point over a point nobody made in the comments, reminds me of a group of really frightening young women were really interested in us, and we didn't share the interest. After a while of fruitless pursuit, they started to suggest we were a gay couple. We weren't, but I shortly thought, "So what if we were? Who cares?" (I was gay but closeted; he was straight as a steel bar.) We all had other more compelling things to worry about than the partnership status of the male roommates in the apartment complex.
Post a Comment
<< Home