Proposition 8 has provoked extreme emotions on both sides of the issue. It is generally shaped as being about tolerance and equality on one side or about morality and tradition on the other. While they are polar opposites, it is important to realize that both sides have boasted faulty arguments. There are agents of intolerance within both camps, whether intolerant of free speech or hateful of a different lifestyle. The most important thing within a pluralistic society is the ability to construct sound arguments and not get caught up in overwhelming emotions. Please hear me out and let me explain why I endorse Proposition 8.
It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,
It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,
"American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."
Certainly my libertarian friends will object with the limited concept of imposing morality on other people. I want to be perfectly clear that it is really impossible to not impose your worldview on other people. Even the belief that all beliefs should be tolerated and debated is imposing one's belief on someone else. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity or universal acceptance. Some compassionate people might say that the rejection of this proposition would be a reinstatement of human rights. After all, Thomas Jefferson once penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Human rights are applicable to all people, and through the vigilance of the state, people should be protected. Although perfect equality will not happen due to the natural condition of humanity, it does not mean that we should not strive for legal equality. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should receive and continue to receive equal legal rights. The legal benefits between my wife and I should be granted for two partners through civil unions. There are rights that can be given but do not call it marriage. Prejudice should be fought against and tolerance of other lifestyles should be sought, but an abandonment of all societal ties for the sake of 'progress' must not be attempted.
One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.
Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.
Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.
Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.
-----------------------------
For more, please see:
The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things
One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.
Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.
Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.
Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.
-----------------------------
For more, please see:
The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things
Posts
4 comments:
I read your blog with a curious mind and also your recommended reading. I must say, I do not wish to be considered a bigot, or hateful, and nor do I wish to to expose my children to homosexuality so casually as through a jewlery commercial or a children's movie. I realize Prop 8 doesn't directly effect media, schools or much else; it does, however, indirectly effect EVERYTHING. If I have anything to say about, I will fight to keep the definition of marriage as a union between man and woman. If the move for gay marriage is purely to obtain legal rights, such as next of kin rights, then work to right a proposition that gives those rights to domestic partnerships. We cannot so blindly let these things become "casual".
BTW, good blog! Thanks!
An excellent, well thought out post. I totally agree that the focus needs to be on arguments, not assumptions. I made a comment on a friend's status in facebook saying how I needed to research Prop 8 more before I could decide my stance on it and someone else followed up on me telling me that "you don't have to research to know prop 8 is wrong. the declaration of independence guarantees everyone equal oppoortunities. That's all the reasearch you need."
There are so many things wrong with that statement on so many levels, it's very disconcerting. People on both sides of the issue are taking stands on assumptions, lies, and ignorance.
I think your comparison to interracial marriages is very enlightening, but I haven't really heard it compared to that before, so I'm not sure it convinces me. I disagree that just because I participate in government at all, its the same stretch to impose a libertarian's worldview as it is to impose a strict Republican (or Democratic) worldview. What the worldview says matters and makes imposing a libertarian worldview a much more acceptable moral choice to me than forcing redistribution of wealth, for example.
I've heard the argument for equal-rights civil unions instead of the title of "marriage" a couple times before and it's very appealing to me. I'm curious why you would defend the word "marriage" though, when I'm fairly confident it's not the actual word used by God in the bible when he unites Adam and Eve (he just talks about men being joined with women in a nameless union as far as I remember). The term is used in the Bible by people to describe things that are occurring, but never as a divine word for the union of a man and a woman.
If you believe that the government should allow homosexuals to live together and be recognized as having a commitment binding themselves legally to one another, why does that specific term bother you? Just because it's been used in the Christian tradition or is written by men in the Bible?
This is a bit of a stretch, but to me that almost seems like demanding that Christian donations be called a "tithe" by the government, and non-Christian donations be called "donations" just because "tithe" is the vocabulary used in the people writing the Bible and not actually spoken by God Himself.
Marriage has never been a guaranteed right anywhere, that's why I have a particular problem with people claiming this is stripping a right from people. The Cali Supreme Court declared the last proposition to define marriage as man and woman as "unconstitutional" which is left-wing bs, as far as I can tell from looking at the Constitution. Marriage is not guaranteed anywhere (like I pointed out to the guy on Facebook - also the Dec. of Independence isn't recognized as law in Supreme Court cases for guaranteed rights. Goodness knows the Civil War didn't recognize the South's right to secede that's discussed in the Dec. of Independence.
One more point, long comment I know! If Christians are sincere in pointing out that they want government to treat homosexuals fairly in the legal sense, and are only fighting to protect the word they hold so dear, they should have included a guarantee of all legal rights for homosexuals in Prop 8. The goodwill would go a long way to making it appear as a simple attack on homosexuals with no compassion or determination to befriend them despite their sin. But honestly, I think so many Christians honestly hate homosexuals and would refuse to vote for a piece of legislation that was balanced like that. It's sad, but it's what I see. and that's why Prop 8 bothers me. There is a large group of people on both sides that are morally troubling.
Josh, I do think that Christians have hatred towards homosexuals. We have not had a good record on loving in that regard. We need to learn to package things better, to dialogue in a careful manner. We through around words without thinking and cast judgment that should be more careful. The statement that "God hates fags" hurts me so much, because it is being disingenuous. It paints a horrible picture that damages our faith and leaves shame instead of hope. Christians have a lot of work to do in order to recover their witness...
I believe in the power of words and what they represent. Maybe it is 'pie-in-the-sky' but words have meaning and words represent significant ideas. Of course the word 'marriage' is not in the Bible, but the concept is. The word embodies that ideal, a man cleaving to his wife to form a family. It is important to note that the Bible was written in a Jewish context, so they understood the concept well. The same applies to abortion. Jews typically did not abort babies, thus there was no need to address it in the NT. When Christianity was spread to the Gentile world they addressed abortion in the late-First Century Church document known as the "Didache," since the Church was now in the Roman context.
Marriage has been a common denominator throughout the world. I don't think that you can ever fully separate your faith from policy, since Christ (should) provide the lenses to view the world. In this pluralistic society I argue for marriage upon the basis of Western philosophy and what makes up society. It is not about 'equality' as people say, instead it is about society. They should have legal rights, but it should not be called marriage. Same-sex couples had civil unions before the legal ruling in the early parts of 2008.
I have heard from several people about the interracial comparison, that is why I had to address that correlation.
In summary, words have meaning and words are powerful. They represent something and to devalue that importance is not something that I am willing to do. That is why I implore people to not use Nazi, Holocaust, fascism, slavery, etc. often, because that devalues the power of that word. It inures or dilutes the power of what that word represents. But you are right, there are people that, quite frankly, frightens me. The level of ignorance and bigotry is scary.
Post a Comment