Today the U.S. Supreme Court finds itself the focus of media attention as it deliberates on the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban (Proposition 8). In a show of solidarity, many of my friends who support gay marriage changed their Facebook profile pictures to a pink equal sign over a red background– a symbol promoted by gay activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) that stands for equality– the implication being that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples creates a system of inequality. As someone who doesn’t find either side’s arguments on this issue convincing, it’s difficult to know how to respond to the advocacy of friends who both support gay marriage as well as those who denounce it.
On one hand, it seems heartless to take a stance on an issue that results in emotional hardship for human beings that God loves. To not be able to visit a loved one in the hospital or be able to share your material goods with them because the law doesn’t think your relationship is valid carries with it an apparent implication that you’re a second class citizen. More than that, the cold characterizations of, and unloving attitudes shown toward, homosexuals by many conservative Christians puts Christ to an open shame. If Christians are to see homosexual behavior as a sin or an aberration, why is it also necessary to caricature homosexuals and elevate homosexual behavior to the status of a super-sin that calls down the wrath of God more than the sins they find themselves engaging in– whether private sins of dishonesty or infidelity, or political sins of militarism or nationalism? Going further, why is this sin the one that should almost single-handedly define the political platform of Christ’s followers in the West?
On the other hand, to speak of “marriage equality” consistently is to say that government should also provide benefits to polygamists, those in committed incestuous relationships, etc. If we are to redefine marriage as to exclude gender distinctions, why then must we hold onto old-fashioned concepts like monogamy? If a man is born desiring multiple women, why should our traditional morality keep him from satisfying his desires with the endorsement of our government? In other words, how many lifestyles must we force government to approve of before we can speak of true equality?
What I see in this debate is two groups vying for control. One group will not be satisfied if the other group gets their way. If the gay rights movement wins, it will win by forcing the government to view their relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships– a government which represents a people which is evenly divided on whether or not this is actually the case. In other words, it will win by forcing its values onto the people, using the political and legal force of government to back its view of morality.
If the conservative (mainly Christian-identifying) side wins, it will also win by forcing its own morality onto the people– a people which, once again, is evenly divided on this issue.
To get government on your side is to have the force of government behind you, with the ultimate goal of enforcing your position and keeping down those whom you disagree with. For Christians who are for a traditional, government-defined view of marriage, this truth is particularly disheartening. It is tantamount to saying that the faith of the suffering Jesus Christ– who loved all sinners and announced to His executioner that His servants would not fight because His kingdom is not of this world– has been reduced to a grab for political power. The gospel is no longer the good news of the saving, forgiving Messiah, but the conquering force of an earthly kingdom– a force which does not love sinners and show them compassion and respect, but subjugates them to a second class role.
What makes this debate all the more frustrating is that we could promote equality without the government forcing anyone’s values on anyone else. By simply not issuing marriage licenses and allowing for domestic partnerships (which need not even be romantic in nature, but merely legal contracts), the benefits of marriage could be given to both heterosexual and homosexual couples without either side using government as a tool for the subjugation of groups that they disagree with. Unfortunately, this true equality– one that doesn’t force private morality onto society but respects the rights of all citizens to live freely– isn’t good enough for either side.
That being said, I am not nearly as worried as some of my Christian conservative friends are about the way this ruling might come down. If government sides against Christian tradition, what then? We will simply have to acknowledge what has been true all along– the kingdom of God is not a kingdom of this world. Instead of trying to demonstrate God’s power through political force, Christians should follow the example of Christ who treated all humans equally– as sinners that God loves– regardless of what law or custom said about them.
Hopefully at that point, when we finally lose our grasp of the civil authority, our history of hatred and misrepresentation will not come back to bite us and force on us the second class citizenship we have tried to force on others.
Useful resources also coming from this perspective:
http://www.redletterchristians.org/a-possible-compromise-on-the-gay-marriage/?doing_wp_cron=1364594865.2462620735168457031250
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2011/08/04/government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/
6 thoughts on “Gay Marriage, Traditionalism, and the Fight for Political Power”
Your solution to the issue matches mine verbatim – Just have all civil unions recognized by the government equally. Let the social institutions (i.e. religions) determine if those unions are “marriages”, or whatever word they wish to apply to it.
I do disagree with you on the point that having the law allow same sex marriages would imply that the government is endorsing they are “morally equivalent”. The solution that you finally propose, and I agree with, would suggest that you also understand that government, in its ideal state, doesn’t make moral determinations. The government is here to protect rights, and that is all. The conservatives’ ongoing legal war against homosexual marriage isn’t about protecting rights (theirs have not been infringed, as they are free to think as they choose) Instead it is solely about taking rights away. (we could probably talk at length about what constitutes a “right” and how to protect it)
A great analogy is divorce, arguably a far greater affront to marriage than monogamous homosexual couples. To many Christians, divorce is a sin, but yet it is allowed by the government. Having the government allow divorce does not force anyone to believe that it is morally acceptable. The government simply isn’t concerned with these type of assessments, nor SHOULD it be. Why is nobody up in arms about “protecting marriage” by banning divorces? Ironically, I’ve known a lot of divorced people that would like to ban gay marriage, thusly revealing what I think is the true hidden motive behind the whole movement. Christians ultimately could not care less about what everyone in the world is doing behind closed doors….it’s not about that. It’s about their perceived looming threat of cultural obsolescence, what they call the rising tide of secularism. While I empathize, I cannot sympathize, for the actions many are taking to stem this tide are deplorable and against the very ideologies this great nation was founded on. That we are a nation of the people, FOR the people. ALL of the people. And you cannot punish others just because your ideas are falling out of favor within the community. That being said, whether or not secularism is actually on the rise would make an excellent conversation point for a subsequent discussion.
Thanks for the comment!
I’m not sure that government allowing divorce isn’t a moral judgement of sorts. I do know some Christians who would speak of rampant divorce in the same breath as gay marriage, but certainly they seem to focus far more attention on the latter.
I do think that opening the door for marriage licences for same sex couples would also be a moral judgement. This is apparent to me both from popular rhetoric in support of gay marriage as well as from the arguments that many gay activists use. For the latter in particular, the issue seems less about gaining a few tax breaks and the ability to see one’s loved on in the hospital, and more about using the force of government to set the tone for the culture’s outlook on homosexuality. As they are oppressed minorities, many whom grew up being taunted and harassed for desires they didn’t choose for themselves, it’s hard to blame them for wanting to change the culture’s attitude, and for wanting to use a tool that they see as providing legal and moral muscle to back them up. That being said, I still don’t believe that we should be using the force of government to make moral judgements on issue that aren’t purely about justice between human beings (as well as animals, of course), and legalizing gay marriage licences would not deal with this issue directly, but treat it as being under the umbrella of others having an opinion, whether respectfully held or not, about whether or not same sex behaviour should be acted upon, or whether or not families head by same sex couples are as good as families head by opposite sex couples (all other factors being equal).
I do have to disagree that it isn’t government’s job to make moral determinations. Every law is a moral determination– and I think every objective moral claim requires the existence of God. However, as a Christian I do not see that Scripture commands that government force Christian belief on others, but that it should be a force for justice between human beings– the value of human beings is predicated on the existence of God, but belief in His existence is not required for a human being to be valuable or to have rights. Because I do not see government’s making of laws related to gay marriage a justice issue, I view Christian attempts to enforce it as bordering on theocracy.
So, what does this image stand for? Just curious.
It stands for division, because we are being fiercely divided by an issue that is framed up (unhelpfully) in a way that demands division.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but…I can understand promoting tolerance and compassion toward gay couples who are in love, care about each other and want a monogamous relationship. But for the gov to promote their marriage…okay, so now city, county, state, and most likely federal levels too, in some sort of recording-keeping database, now know for certain that these two particular people are gay…and why?? Just saying.
smh more messed up kids