Friday, February 18, 2005
Civil Unions II
First, I want to thank Andy, Adam and Strauss for carrying on this conversation with me. I also want to re-extend my invitation to everyone else: come and talk with us. I think this issue is desperately important and increasingly prominent in our social/political climate. I linked back to my original post with the intent of continuing the dialoge that has been taking place there. The original post also has a link to my column in the Amarillo Globe-News and log-in information for that site. I know that there are many, many issues that are related to the justice/legality of homosexual civil unions, so I don't want to place any narrow limitations on the topic that would cripple any genuine attempts at understanding. At the same time, I think that we can benefit from talking through the smaller issues one or two at a time rather than publishing manifesto-length position statements in a series of intesecting monologues. And, in as much as love is a greater than truth, I hope that we can all work towards genuinely understanding one another before we consider trying to change those positions. So...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
A Simple Plan for Preserving the Sanctity of Marriage (if that's what we're really concerned about): Raise taxes for married people 5% higher than taxes for cohabiting couples. To be extra sure, we could do away with all marriage-related rights. I'm convinced this would effectively sanctify the institution.
Unfortunately, it involves suffering--a form of civil action with which most evangelicals seem strangly unfamiliar.
Dave, due to the somewhat alienating nature of online communication, I am having trouble reading that last comment. The first paragraph sounds like it could have an ironic, sarcastic bent, but the second has a quite different tenor, as if it aspires to be taken seriously... which leads me to question my reading of the first paragraph. Is it a serious proposal, one to which I should respond? Or will I be laughed at for not getting the joke...
So, I will offer this qualified response, that also feeds into the ever-deferred discussion we have promised to have on the dual nature of marriage. At issue here seems to be to what extent is/should the government (be) involved in matters of "santity"? (I would argue, not at all.) It seems to me, in agreement with Dave and with what I posted a few days ago, that Evangelicals need to have a frank discussion about issues of marriage and sanctity; but this ought to be an intramural discussion, one that we should be having in our churches, not in the public sphere. If our goal is (and it should be, I think) to rehabilitate marriage as the powerful metaphor of Christ's relationship to the church that it once was, then voting for amendments to our state constitutions is not going to help matters. We need to change, in a very fundimental way, how we think about marriage. But, and this is where I have trouble reading Dave, the place to do this is on our knees and in Christian community, not in communion with our tax advisor or the IRS (or Turbotax, as is the case with me).
So, I offer this thought, even if I have mangled Dave's words, for what it is worth.
Andy, I knew my words would come off sounding ironic--even though it was not the signified's root--but I let it stand . Sorry for the confusion, though.
I agree with you that the substantival sanctification of marriage can only be done in the context of the church (though even within "church," Church is not a clearly defined entity!--I'd rather say: within the context of Christ). That said, I still think we should see our prophetic role as having some direction toward the public square, and I would suggest that this role is most truely communicated through thoughtful and christ-generated acts of suffering.
Anyway. I have more to say, but I have to go for the weekend.
I heard a lecture today given by Dr. Harvey Cox at UCSB's Capps Center for Religion, Ethics and Public Policy. It was really quite excellent, and he made quite a few statements that I wish people would make more often in public forums. (Things like, all evangelicals are not lumped into a single homogenous group led by Jerry Falwell.) Cox rightly pointed out that the language of morality has been in large part highjacked by a small group of people with a very narrow agenda. He spoke of getting a pre-election mailing from the Christian Coalition which listed "THE five issues" to keep in mind when voting. To no one's surprise, those 5 were gay marriage, homosexuality, stem cells, cloning and abortion. Cox wrote a letter back to the CC reminding them that none of those issues are named in the Gospels where things like poverty, social injustice and peace are constantly addressed as moral issues. I don't want to say that the "religious right's" agenda is completely unimportant, but its myopic morality often ignores things that are more explicitly named as moral issues in the Gospels. I bring this up here for one main reason: I don't want us to fall prey to an anemic definition of morality that would automatically elevate sexual politics over justice. Morality in this conversation is not the exclusive property of those who oppose homosexuality. The ways in which we treat our brothers and sisters (no matter how different or even "sinful" they are) is a matter of justice and morality that cannot be trumped by the rhetoric of "moral issues". Supporting homosexual civil unions just might be, rather than a concesion made by Christians in a secular state, a moral action prescribed by the heart of the Gospels. But that's what we're here to discuss...
And very huge props to Andy and Dave for pointing out that the "defence of marriage" has much less to do with homosexuals than it does with heterosexual marriage and divorce. (Although I share Andy's confusion about the ambiguity of tone in Dave's comment.)
I share Andy's reservations about declaring homosexuality a matter of choice. Even if homosexuality is related to personal choice, it is not a choice in the same way that whether I drive a Ford or a Honda is a choice. When someone says "homosexuality is a choice" it leads us to think about homosexuals as though they could simply wake up tommorow and decide to be heterosexual. I think this mentality is very dangerous, which is one reason I am uncomfortable using the language of "choice" in issues of sexual identity. (Note the difference between "sexual identity" and "sexual preference": one refers to the core of one's personality, the other is more akin to picking ice cream flavors.) This is one of those "side issues" that actually lives very near the heart of this question, so feel free to respond or ignore as you see fit.
I second this: "And very huge props to Andy and Dave for pointing out that the 'defence of marriage' has much less to do with homosexuals than it does with heterosexual marriage and divorce."
I would be interested in hearing more about what Dave is getting at about suffering. I might agree that many American Christians run from suffering, but what is the connection to defending marriage. Does he mean that people need to not give up when marriage gets tough? I agree, but is that suffering?
To add another seemingly sarcastic but serious comment. I think the marriage tax credit should apply to any adults sharing a dwelling if the credit is to continue.
yes, give me marriage benefits!
Dave, I think we are unanimous in seeking more information on your "suffering thesis." It sounds intriguing, but I don't quite know what it means.
I do think that it is about time that the marriage benefits went out the door. Do you think that if it became only a "church" thing that the idea of marriage might become more sacred and protected? I'm willing to bet that people would still have kids, families would still exist, etc, and I would also bet that you would see a big drop in the rate of divorces.
Dusty, I disagree that if marriage became just a church thing that the divorce rate would drop. After all, the divorce rate among Christian couples is almost exactly the same as it is for others.
Strauss, you say that you think "marriage" tax-credits should apply to any adults living together: how much further do you carry that logic? What other benefits/rights do you think that we should governmentally/societally grant to "any adults sharing a dwelling"? Do you think it should apply to any group, or do you think it should be limited to two people contractually tied to one another? I've been thinking that there would be serious advantages to a civil union system in which any adult can enter into a CU with any ONE other adult, whether they are married or not. It is a way of keeping the good aspects of state-recognition of marriage while strongly affirming that the state doesn't own marriage (and we could avoid what I see as injustice and discrimination in our current system).
Everyone, we seem to have some level of agreement that banning homosexual civil unions is not the way to save marriage (despite W's insistence on using the "defence of marriage" nomenclature). If prohibiting governmental recognition of same-sex unions will not preserve traditional marriages, what is the rational behind all the ammendments to state constitutions?
When I suggested marriage tax credits to anyone living with someone else, I mean anyone committed to living with someone else in a lease for at least a year. It encourages the sharing of resources and less wasted expenditure. But I'll get down off my economic horse. Many of us might qualify. As for the government retracting marriage benefits and leaving the matter to churches. I think there is a long way to go. Lots of people have been remarried in the church after divorces, and most people in the church have put up little fuss. At the risk of sounding judgemental, is there any way to justify such behavior by churches, especially the Christian church?
Strauss has hit on one of the really important points in the marriage debate--the idea that in the Evangelical church, a hierarchy of sins, whether spoken or unspoken, exists. This is hardly news; I think all of us recognize that the modern church focuses on and pathologizes sexual sin more than any other type, completely obscuring the fundamental tenet of grace under which we recognize all people, equally as sinners under the law. The church, to be consistent with the teaching of Scripture, should treat sexual sin just the same as all other sin--and by this I do not mean that it should just ignore the sin (which is typically the case in this era of individualism, where concepts like church discipline have dwindled to nothing). The church should have the capacity to edify its members, to encourage them to turn from sin and follow Christ, whether that sin happens to be homosexuality, lying, or perhaps even gluttony (think about what that would look like in American society!). This circles back to the point I wanted to make last week, which is that until the church does something about the divorce rate among Christians, then it has nothing whatsoever to say about gay marriage that is not pure hypocrisy. But it is always easier to rail against those “others” out there than it is to admit that you have a problem within (the Catholic church comes to mind) and deal with it.
So, by way of drawing some loose ends together, it seems that our discussion now has (at least) two dimensions: the philosophical/theological one on the nature of marriage and its relationship to the state, and the more pragmatic/economic one that deals with property rights and tax policy in America. Both are pretty important, and draw on our various areas of expertise. Strauss, you say in your last post that you are going to “get down off [your] economic horse,” but I think that’s the last thing that you ought to do. Without you to anchor us, our discussion of economics here will probably wander off into implausible and unhelpful regions. You have a unique and interesting perspective here, so don’t bottle it up. Adam and Dusty, too, have more political science knowledge than most of us (though I have been reading Hobbes, Adam Smith and a bunch of other political and economic theory in recent weeks), and their contributions are also really interesting. The rest of you… especially those who live in the land of Sushi and Anime, have been strangely silent. Did they turn off the internet in Japan? Let’s have some new perspectives here. And how about Rudy, who (the last time I checked) was more conservative than…well, let’s just say really, really conservative. What do you have to say about how the church should be handling the gay marriage question or the Defense of Marriage Act? Get involved! Have this conversation with us! Tell us we’re morons! Anything! I think I have made my point.
Post a Comment