Although my partner and I live in New York and have no plans to marry, I was sad but not necessarily surprised to see that California voters decided to write discrimination into their constitution.
Many will think it ironic that the same reliably blue state that voted overwhelming for Barack Obama also voted for Proposition 8. Indeed, the numbers indicate that nearly 70% of African-Americans voted in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage. I certainly don't mean to single out African-American voters. Asian voters also overwhelming voted in favor of the ban.
It doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to understand why. Religious devotion - or at least devotion to the teachings of particular churches - drives elections.
I have never been a complete fan of Keith Olbermann (MSNBC commentator on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann). I often disagree with his divisive tone and sometimes mean-spirited attacks on mostly conservative (or, let's admit, sometimes reactionary right wing) folks, but on this issue, the substance of his recent commentary reflected what so many of us are thinking: what on Earth does permitting same-sex couples to express their love and commitment through marriage do to damage the institution?
It is certainly not true that same-sex marriage devalues "traditional" marriages between men and women any more than divorce does. And, by the way, what is "traditional marriage"? If traditional marriage were all about procreation and promotion of "family", should we dissolve marriages between men and women who for whatever reason cannot or do not have children?
Let's also face the reality of the difference between marriages blessed by religious institutions and those given recognition via state law. A couple married in the Catholic Church is nevertheless entitled to divorce under the laws of their state. They are then free to remarry pursuant to those same laws. But without an annulment granted by the Catholic Church, the Church will refuse to recognize the new marriage and in some parishes will deny the newly married couple the right to participate fully in the sacraments. Of course, the Catholic Church has every right to refuse to sanctify any union it considers at odds with its teachings and even to punish or excommunicate those who stray from its teachings. But it does not have the right to nullify legally recognized marriages in a pluralistic society that has always separated church and state.
Marriages sanctified by religious institutions include a bundle of rights and obligations that are unique to a particular faith. Marriages sanctified by the state include a very different bundle of rights and obligations that are necessarily universal across all religions (or, dare I say it, no religion at all).
Barack Obama was, until very recently, a Constitutional law professor. He understands that depriving adults of the right to marry a person of their choice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. His personal beliefs, as he has stated publicly, come from his Christian faith. I am convinced that he understands the difference between the two and will announce one day that it is not only possible, but necessary, to reconcile personal belief with the promise of a civil society that respects religion but does not permit a religious majority from legislating away a minority's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
The text of Olbermann's remarks are available by accessing the link below. Spend a couple of minutes if you have some time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ah, religion, the opiate of the masses!
After the murder of a transvestite here in Syracuse recently, a reader of the local paper also suggested that religious leaders might consider tempering their teachings in order to catch up with modern times. And, oh the outcry! Seems a number of people are familiar with one convenient passage from Leviticus, namely that man shall not lie with man.
Yet, they do no appear to also be familiar with some of the other teachings of Leviticus - that crops shall not be grown together; cattle shall not graze together, and that clothing shall be made from one fabric only. Or that you shall be put to death for cursing your parents.
I look forward to a day when the bible takes it rightful place as fable, and an educated society can see beyond the simplistic teachings of a simple, more Darwinian time.
Perhaps we can start by allowing people to find happiness in the partner of their choice, regardless of appearance and genitalia.
Hey, you there! With the cotton/poly blend. Look out for the second coming of the Lord....
I'm not sure I believe that religion is an opiate but I understand the anger when religion is used to divide human beings into what seem like convenient "other" categories.
I wish we could go back to a time when at least some religious institutions used their resources and biblical teachings (let's face it, mostly New Testament) to help end slavery in the 19th century and to advocate for civil rights, and end to the Viet Nam War and economic justice in the 1950s and 60s.
From where I sit, all of that changed in January, 1973 in the wake of Roe v. Wade. The affirmation of reproductive freedom rights set in motion the modern Christian Right's Holy War on women's rights and gay rights, all of it in the name of the Bible. The leaders were clever and good students of history. They understood that the pulpit is powerful and that organized religion led to many socio-political changes that offended white conservatives. They found candidates for school boards who found their way to state legislatures, then Congress, then the Senate and then the White House. Their journey might have ended with the election of George W. Bush but I am not convinced it's over yet.
Black and liberal white churches seemed to run out of steam after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation and the end of the Viet Nam War and were lulled into a sense that they had already done what they could do politically. I think many woke up in the last 8 years, at least enough to turn out a vote to change the direction of the country on a wide range of issues.
The depressing part is that so many of these otherwise progressive institutions have not yet arrived at a complete vision of equality. Maybe that is understandable. Maybe the average 50 year old churchgoing African American lady isn't ready to see her struggle as the same struggle of a 25 year old churgoing African American who happens to be a lesbian. Maybe the white liberal 45 year old Unitarian guy - despite what his fellow congregants tell him - can't get past the fact that his 22 year old son is gay.
That's not about religion, though. That's about human beings trying to order their universe. I have faith - whether it comes from a fractured relationship with the Catholic Church, I don't know - that there is no conflict between being a spiritual person and an inclusive person. The only requirement is that you identify a friend, neighbor or relative who is gay or lesbian and, out of love and good will decide that no God could ever teach hatred of his own creation.
Post a Comment