by Duane N. Burghard
©2015
If you haven't yet heard about the Supreme Court's decision last week which legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states, then I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you back to our solar system ... because you have clearly been in another part of the galaxy for the last several days.
I've been reticent to weigh in on this issue, not because I don't want you to know how I feel, but because I'm reasonably certain that just about every perspective possible has been blasted out across the Internet already. Nonetheless, I am adhering to my "Facebook Rule" this week. My Facebook Rule is as follows: if I post a comment on some topic on my personal Facebook page and I don't think it's any big deal but I get a bunch of likes and comments and shares, then clearly I am wrong about the importance and relevance of the topic and people do want to hear more.
Before I give you my reaction to the decision, let me explain the perspectives that I'm coming from. First, I was twice a candidate for national office. As a result, I had to articulate a position on the issue (a position that, incidentally, managed to please no one, so I'll be sure to cover that again for you in a moment because, apparently, I'm short on my quota of people I need to piss off today). Second, while I am currently more of a spiritual explorer who has taken an increasing interest in Buddhism recently, the fact is that I spent several years of my life as a lay minister in a Christian denomination (I personally delivered two sermons/week for over 5 years) ... this is why Jesus and I remain close friends (please see my blog essay from last Christmas for confirmation). Third, while less unique, I do have several friends and at least one relative (that I know of) who are gay, and one (the family member) lives in what is technically the south and was thus directly affected by this decision. The point here is that I have political, religious and personal feelings about this decision, which I admit puts me in a category that is roughly as exclusive as the white pages (for my younger readers, the white pages refers to ... you know what, it just means everyone).
So let's start with my political reaction. When I last ran for Congress (2006), I had what I thought was a very careful and well thought out position on marriage equality ... so it shouldn't be any real surprise to anyone that no one liked it and almost no one understood it ... but I'll try again. I've actually LONG been of the opinion that government shouldn't have ever been in the marriage business in the first place. My feeling is that marriage was and is, basically, a religious institution. As such, the state really shouldn't be involved. Ideally, I believe our Republic should have an "iron curtain" like "Wall of Separation" between church and state. In other words, we should have as secular a society as possible, and in such a society an institution like marriage would clearly be entirely separate from the state. But with that said, I would also quickly agree that the state does have a compelling interest in both the existence, health and maintenance of family units, and in having a legal framework which allows for quick, efficient, easy and humane estate and asset management ... aka an infrastructure for civil unions.
HOWEVER! The majority of the people in our Republic have LONG since decided NOT to go with my "ideal" plan above (i.e. we don't have a long standing, well developed and well defined "civil union" infrastructure, other than marriage). We have instead decided that the term marriage is to be used to represent both the religious institution and the civil union legal infrastructure. So my bottom line is this: I support marriage equality. Here's why: in addition to being a religious institution, marriage was, is and will continue to also be the de facto civil union infrastructure in our society (the important point being that the term marriage in our society has two components and it serves both purposes). And this is truly the heart of the disconnect I have with some of my conservative friends: the Supreme Court's decision last week had nothing to do with any religious part of marriage. Instead it had everything to do with establishing the equal rights of same sex couples with respect to the law, and I believe that, on that basis, the Court made the right decision.
It is at this point that a significant number of my conservative friends start taking their long walk off a short pier and end up in the biggest, most ridiculous and frankly most hyperbolic tizzy I've seen since the Court told them that they had to start sharing drinking fountains. They are upset because they apparently don't (or perhaps more accurately don't want to) see and accept the dual role that the term marriage plays in our society. As a result, they choose to see the Court's decision as an attack on the religious definition of marriage, when in fact the Court was merely establishing that the legal part of marriage should treat same sex couples in the same way as it treats opposite sex couples. I think this misinterpretation of the decision (intentional or otherwise) is kind of ridiculous, but I think lots of things are ridiculous, and it's still a (mostly) free country where people are absolutely free to think (and even say) ridiculous things.
Now, you might stop me right there and say, "Duane, you're accepting of the fact that certain people in certain religions may oppose same sex marriage." You're right, I am. "But," you continue, "they're discriminating and that's wrong." Absolutely, you're correct again. Look, I agree that people who run around decrying homosexuality as evil and a sin, and talk about how marriage equality is a sign of the apocalypse etc. etc. are all, well, they're at best ignorant and intolerant (and at worst bigoted and mean) and that they're just plain wrong, but this is America, and one of our freedoms is the freedom to be idiots (it's one I wish we exercised a lot less, but I swore to support and defend everyone's rights to think what they want, not just the people I agree with).
Unfortunately for me, in just these last few days since the decision, my basic philosophy about how marriage and civil unions would ideally be handled has been co-opted by America's neo-conservative far right. This obviously frustrated me because, until the hours immediately following the Supreme Court's decision last week, NO ONE was talking about having separate institutions for the religious and legal sides of marriage except for weirdos like me ... and the ones who are suddenly talking about it now are overwhelmingly people whose motives I distrust. These people, who are suddenly rushing to support what would otherwise be an acceptable idea to me, are clearly doing so exclusively because they're looking for any hustle or dodge which will allow them to get around doing something they don't want to do (which is to accept the equal status of same sex couples). Until last week, the overwhelming majority of people (including the overwhelming majority of conservatives) were completely fine with the dual roles that we had assigned marriage in our society. And that was OK with me. It's not what I think is ideal (again, I prefer a more secular society and clearer separation) but it's really NOT THAT BIG of a deal. I don't have a problem with society's decision to have essentially morphed the definition of the word marriage to include both religious and civil institutions .. and again, conservatives didn't either, until the SCOTUS decision ... and THAT, is why it's hard to take them seriously now (because it's obvious that they didn't mind the dual use of the term until one side of it included rules they don't like).
So politically, I support the Supreme Court's decision because it protects and expands the rights of people to participate in the legal institution that we've chosen to call marriage.
Now, as a religious person, I REALLY don't understand the "freak out" from those who are obviously using religion in general (and Christianity in particular) as the basis for their objection. For those who don't know me, I am often a critic of a group I call "CINOs" (Christians In Name Only). These are individuals who, in my opinion, basically bastardize the words and works of Jesus Christ. They pervert them into positions that have nothing to do with what Jesus came to say and do for humanity. They are not only not Christians, they are accomplishing the opposite of what Christ stood for. They sell, espouse and spew hatred, intolerance, bigotry and everything else that is the antithesis of what I believe it is to be a Christian. But what really scares me about these people is their insistence on attempting to legislate their (in my opinion) deeply skewed view of morality and to impose it on everyone else. To me that is antithetical to what Jesus wanted AND what the framers of the Constitution intended for our Republic.
And boy are the CINOs out in force now! But rather than focus on the negatives of what these people are talking about, let me instead point to what I feel is the Christian way to view the decision.
First, let me hit on the incredibly obvious: Christianity is in NO way "under attack" by virtue of the Court's decision. For the Supreme Court's decision to be an attack on Christianity, the Court would have to have intended or taken a direct action which prevented people from being Christians. Now again, I consider myself, at best, to have been a CIT or "Christian In Training" (because, I gotta be honest, Jesus and I talk all the time, and there are definitely times when he's telling me to do stuff that I have a hard time with) ... but to me, the single most important thing that Christians are supposed to do is to love one another. I'm pretty sure that Jesus was very specific on this point: loving each other was the number one thing that he felt would define people as Christians. So here's the thing: NOTHING in the Supreme Court's decision says or does anything which prevents anyone from loving anyone else.
Jesus was also big on kindness, understanding and forgiveness. In re-reading Justice Stevens' opinion, I find nothing in there that keeps me from doing any of that. Jesus also encouraged us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor and heal the sick. Checking the decision again ... nope, nothing in there that prevents me from doing any of that. Perhaps it's an attack on my ability to go to church. Well, if it is, then enforcement so far is really lax (of course, I do live in Arizona now so ....).
So nothing about this decision prevents me from being a Christian and it doesn't appear to be an attack on Christianity in any way. What it does do, however, is make me look more closely at how I view the religious institution of marriage, and when I do, I see only the opportunity to increase the number of people who are taking part in an institution that we hope is a benefit to families and society. To me the decision is inclusive and loving and ... well, kind of Christian really.
Personally, I'm an egalitarian by nature. In fact, egalitarianism, the idea that humans should have equality in social, political and economic affairs, is definitely one of the most fundamental of my core beliefs. Basically, it's a sense of fairness, and this decision seems fair and right to me. I also believe that our Court system, and in fact our Republic as a whole, does its best work when it is expansive and inclusive in its application of rights and benefits to all of its citizens. It also seems morally right to me. It establishes that it is wrong to stigmatize (and even criminalize) people based on who they want to share their lives with. Further it encourages us to be more loving and inclusive of all people. So I suppose you could argue that I personally support it because the political and religious parts of me support it, but I see it as the right thing from all three perspectives.
Finally, as I indicated, I have a number of gay friends. One of them is a member of a family that has been close to my family for generations. She and her partner have two children. Another is a high school classmate of mine. He and his partner have a daughter. And there are a number of others with no children. Additionally, I have a close family member who is gay (and engaged). As I have seen their reactions to this decision (and the reactions of other friends and members of their community), I see only good and normal people who want nothing more than what all families want, and I am grateful and happy to see them get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment