US Supreme Court Ruling - Gay Marriage, Part 1

Since the United States Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage I’ve found the reactions within the Christian community, particularly within the more conservative wing, to be an expected reaction. Yet on another I’ve been perplexed and disappointed by various arguments, statements and suggested plans. I’ve been most troubled how quickly false and misleading “news stories” have popped up and quickly making the rounds within religious communities, being told and retold, posted and reposted as being true.

 

A prime example is a “hate literature” lawsuit against Zondervans being recast on the net and making its way around the churches. One version of the story casts faults the Obama administration for creating the grounds of the lawsuit. The story is false yet is flies around the church community as if it is fact. First, the lawsuit was filed during the Bush administration in 2007.  Second, anyone can file a lawsuit put forth any argument they wish, but that doesn’t mean the suit has any merit, which this one didn’t. Shortly after the suit was filed the court summarily dismissed it as frivolous and having no basis in law on five different counts.

 

Another is the reported occurrences of “clergy” being sued for not conducting gay marriages when approached. A version of this story is that there will soon be hundreds of such lawsuits being filed across the country. Like the Zondervan story, the reports are not only false but they are disturbing examples of reactionaries telling falsehoods in the name of Christ, pushing a political agenda, and demonstrating how many in the church are easily misled, and retell falsehoods and rumors. Such activity does not lift up the name of Christ and the credibility of the Church.          

 

It is understandable that conservative Christians are angry. They see the court widening the definition of marriage. They feel this widening is an attack on their beliefs, and the historic Christian understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman. They greatly fear the gay marriage ruling by an “unelected activist court” will lead to their government forcing them to conduct gay marriages. It is unfortunate that this strong fear is creating talk about their churches not being involved in conducting any marriages. Suck folks need to take several deep breaths, engage their heads, and not allow their emotions to carry them away…in other words, practice the same principles that they encourage those visiting them in the pastoral counseling office.

 

Let’s not forget that marriage is a civil contract, one that is taken so seriously and is viewed above other types of contract that the dissolving of the contract cannot take place outside a court setting and judicial oversight. The same is said applies to each nation across the globe, with each nation determining the conditions and qualifications for marriage. No church or religious official can issue a license to marry. The license is the state’s permission to enter into a marriage contract and entering into the contract can only be done by licensed officials.  Clergy who have been duly authorized by their religious body and the state, may officiate at these ceremonies. The marriage contract is to be assented to verbally (exceptions granted for those who are mute) before witnesses. While marriage contracts can be entered into before an official and two or three others, most marriage contracts are encompassed around specially designed and elaborate ceremonies before a large gathering of family and friends.

 

For various reasons the majority of marriage ceremonies are done in a religious context. No doubt some have a religious service out of some type of family obligation. Others do so for deeply held spiritual reasons as a means to incorporate their beliefs in their marital vows. Some couples accept their church’s standard religious vows with little or no modification. For others, like Evie and I, they pour through various vows as part of a process of drafting their own vows that reflect their passion, spirituality and convictions. While the vows may differ greatly from couple to couple, at the end of day they all have one thing in common as required by law…that each party freely responds affirmatively to the “do you take” question. If one of the parties does not affirm their willingness, the marriage contract is nullified.

 

For Evie and I, no matter how elaborate or brief, no matter the context or setting in which the vows are uttered, one couple’s marital vows, neither adds to nor diminishes our marital relationship. While our 1979 marriage contract is based upon civil law, it was also for us a deeply spiritual moment of committing each to the other for our lifetime. Another person being married that day in a 5 minute ceremony before the justice of the peace with no religious statements had then, nor now,  no affect upon our marital vows or relationship.

 

Too often the church spends an inordinate amount of its energy fighting battles outside its walls, in the community and in other churches. Each individual church needs to give as much focused attention as possible to the lives and well-being of its congregates, including its marital relationships. We need churches who are preparing people for marriage, helping newly married couples to strengthen their relationships and move positively from the honeymoon stage to the settling down stage, helping the mid-life marriages remain dynamic and vibrant and helping the more senior marriages to weather the storms they encounter that if not successfully navigated leads to two people instead of growing in love and old together, just grow old in the presence of each other.

Part 2 to follow...cleric protections already exist

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 2

In yesterday’s post I noted that the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lower court ruling that Virginia’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, civil unions and gay partnerships was unconstitutional. I am troubled after reading several of the arguments put forth by the lawyers defending the amendment, some of which essentially devalue marriage, the very institution the defenders are arguing that they are defending as having high and sacred value.

 

Following are some of their primary arguments, the ones I found alarming. While I am far from being legally educated, I brief note why I found several of the key the arguments defending the amendment to be troubling.

 

Voters by a 57-43 margin approved the amendment to the VA Constitution and their vote should stand: This argument calls for majority rule as the primary rule of the land, that majority rule trumps all including fundamental rights belonging to each person, that a citizen has no preexisting human right to liberty, freedom and happiness. This argument means that any right, even the right to life, can be denied or removed from individuals or a class of people by the state if the majority so decide to do so. The argument means that the claim Americans have proudly proclaimed and boasted about being the nation of fundamental rights is a false assertion. The claim is that a person has a right only if the majority agree to grant the person or class of people a right. The flip side of the coin is that the right can also be taken away at some point in the future if the majority so wills it. The argument means that minorities, whether racial or religious or political or lifestyle, are tolerated only as far as they don’t offend too many outside their group. Hence the only defense against the tyranny of the majority is not the courts, but by either conforming or finding little niches in the nation where your neighbors are tolerant of your kind of minority.  

 

What I find most interesting is that not only does this mean majority rule as the ultimate principal of the land, and contrary to what I’ve understood as the heart of a founding principle of the United States, is that the argument is akin to the arguments King George and the British Parliament used to deny the Colonies representation in Parliament…that the majority of British Parliament, the British citizenry and the King deemed it appropriate to deny the Colonials basic rights that they enjoyed. The Colonies has no right of representation because the majority wished not for them to have such opportunities. Therefore in a way, if this argument holds, this nation has come full circle, that King George and Parliament were right, and the founding fathers wrong.

 

 

Marriage is primarily about procreation, and as gay marriages cannot procreate, such marriages cannot exist:  This argument is simple, that my marriage, and your marriage too, is defined by my wife and my ability to procreate. It means that if marriage is defined primarily by the ability to procreate, there is no reason for the marriage to exist. By extension it means that women who have gone through menopause and men with very low or nonexistent sperm levels should not marry as there is no grounds for such marriages to be allowed. It also means that those who do not have children have marriages of a lesser order than marriages that produce children.

 

Not only am I extremely uncomfortable with any marriage that is defined primarily around having children, I am firmly against any such argument that devalues, and in a sense even negates the companionship and love elements of marriage. When my wife and I stood before the alter of the Paxton United Methodist Church that June morning, not one word in our vows even hinted at procreation. We testified to our love for the other, our commitment to each other, to be mutual companions and comforters for each other, and to cherish and nurture the other through good times and bad times for the rest of our lives. Our marriage was not a contract about having offspring and raising children together. While alarmed by this argument, I am highly offended that Christians are embracing this argument as being solid and proper.

 

For anyone who agrees with the argument put forward in the Court I would point out that if you are a Protestant that this argument contradicts what most Protestant churches have taught about marriage since their founding. Protestant churches have traditionally claimed that their beauty and value in marriage and marital sex. The value of marriage is founded upon mutual companionship and love. For Protestants marital relations is wholesome in itself, a beautiful and enjoyable way to express one’s love for one’s spouse. Marriage they have taught is about the quality of the husband and wife relationship, about the loving couple, not about having children. Children are the by-product of the essence of a marriage, not the ground for the marriage’s existence.

 

If this argument prevails, it does more to undermine the value of my marriage than if the amendment’s defenders lost.  

 

 

The State has the right to determine who can procreate and marry: Wow, reading this one sent chills down my back. The lawyers are claiming that the State has the right to say who can and cannot have children.  Are we going to require people to pass a test or gain permission of some government official in order to have children? Are we going to deny people the right to have children if they lack a certain level of intelligence? Lack a certain amount of annual household income? If to have a child and support the children they are having, the mother would have to work outside the home (after all is it not best for children to have mom at home rather than working in the community?), or the father to work a second or third job?  This rationale sounds too much like a totalitarian state argument.

 

                                                                                                                                      

Marriage is a fundamental right that historically has focused on preserving stable families. As such every child deserves a mother and father: It is the later part that bothers me. If every child deserves to a mother and father, what does that actually mean? Are we saying that children should not be raised in a gay household because a parent of a particular gender is lacking from the home? I’ve heard friends and Christian preachers and talk shows argue this point in the affirmative. Pointing to various studies some conservative Christians argue that children raised without both genders present in the home are at much high risk of socially dysfunctional behavior as children and adults than do children in homes where both a mother and father are found. But is this a result of parental disengagement or the lack of two adults of opposite genders? Are not the at risk rates similar in two adult homes where both parents are disengaged from their children? I can readily agree that when parents disengaged, regardless whether there are one or two parents in the home, and are too busy to nurture and care for their children that children from such homes have a significantly higher at-risk rate than those from loving homes where both parents, or even one parent, is supportive and engaged with the children.

 

While there are studies that support both sides, let’s remember that the body of research into gay households is thin as it has been for the most part lacking. A number of studies are full of unanswered questions, and some are poorly designed, or lack longevity to be reliable. Also we much recognize that some authors of studies have biases, they design studies in a manner and cherry pick data that will help support their desired proof. Further, the general public and politically engaged people tend to pick and choose the studies and data that lend support to their positions while dismissing studies which contradict their position. For me the studies claiming children in gay homes are highly impacted have reliability issues, and at first glance appear to be less scientific than are the climate warming studies those out of my religious tradition so quickly tend to dismiss.

 

Regardless of the quality of the science behind the studies, for the sake of argument let’s say that there is some type correlation. Even if there was some type of harm, if we deny gay marriage based on this argument are we as a nation then going to remove children from all single parent households which have a similar or greater rate of risk? What about homes where one parent is convicted of a felony for children raised in such homes also are at high risk too? What about removing children from homes where wife abuse exists, whether that abuse be physical or emotional? Are we then going to remove children from two parent homes whose household income are near or below the poverty level since numerous studies over the decades have indicated that those homes too have a high risk rate? If we are to be consistent in our arguments our communities should start removing tens of children from their homes, and if we are not going to do so, why not? If the only reason is that I was not to do so because I am talking about a gay couple, then what does that say about me?

 

 

I find myself troubled by the above arguments. Why did the lawyers defending the amendment use such arguments? We did they not craft and put forth more solid and balanced arguments?

Message: Lets Not Dirty Ourselves

Last Monday, 2 March 2010, the Archdiocese of Washington DC announced that it will no longer be extending medical benefits to the spouses of employees. Those currently covered are grandfathered in but as of the 2nd of March, new enrollments can take place.

This move was taken in response to a new law that is going into effect in Washington that permits same sex couples to marry. The Church does not want to provide medical benefits to gay couples because they argue, it legitimized gay marriage, and the church does not want to recognize gay marriage in any form.

This situation goes to the heart of a fundamental flaw with the health system in the United States. Medical coverage is employer based. Employers at a whim can and make dramatic changes to what they will cover, the extent of the coverage, who they will cover, or even if they will provide coverage at all. Good performing employees who have given long service can suddenly find themselves forced out because the employer drops medical coverage or even worse, lays them off or finds a way to fire them to help reduce healthcare premiums the firm is paying.

Healthcare is the greatest social justice issue facing the majority of the nation. The Washington Archdiocese has demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is not that significant issue. It cries that it is not willing to fight for significant healthcare reform.

The Archdiocese in San Francisco took a different approach. It allows employees to pay for the medical premiums and add any adult in their home to their medical plan. Employees can add parents, adult children, grandparents, a friend as long as they reside in the home of the employee. They broadened who will be added at the employee’s cost.

As for legitimizing gay marriages by providing coverage, providing coverage does not legitimize gay marriage any more than providing treatment and care to alcoholics legitimizes alcoholism, or supporting and ministering to a sex offender legitimizes sexual abuse.

The Roman Catholic Church has the right to do what it has done but in my eyes it is contrary to the Jesus’ message of loving one’s neighbor. Like the self-righteous conservative Pharisees who criticized Jesus for visiting and sharing a meal with a publican, the Roman Catholic Church has left the banquet table rather than be “tarnished” by sharing a meal with the publican.

Conservative Church and Divorce Rates

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post this deals with a response to troubled marriages and divorce within the church, particularly within the evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Joanne in her commented noted several divorces whereas Barb was not aware of any. I know little about this division, but I am aware of eight divorces within the division, and there are not many large congregations.

We need to ask ourselves why the evangelical and fundamentalist churches have the highest divorce rates, rates that are about 50% higher than those who admit that they are agnostics and atheists. Part of the issue lies with why so many believe Dr. Tom Ellis’s laughable claim that only 1 out of 39,000 who receive premarital counseling, attend church regularly and pray together experience divorce.

Such a claim assumes that those who are saved and led by the Spirit are virtually immune from divorce. Such thinking leads to the belief that if the marriage is in trouble, then there is something spiritually wrong with one or both of the marital partners. Faith in Christ and divorce are viewed as mutually exclusive. Hence the prescription is prayer, confession of sin and all will be well. This is dangerous thinking.

Such dangerous thinking sows the seeds of marital problems. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists live in the real world. They are not immune from temptation. They are not immune from interpersonal conflicts and tensions created by thoughtless actions of the other. To claim that marital tensions, arguments and other issues should not happen in a godly marriage brings a strong social pressure to put on a false face and deny that there unresolved problems within the marriage. Such denial creates an environment for a problem to fester and grow, to become attached to another unresolved problem and become magnified.

If one is part of a church that holds such dangerous thinking, is such an environment conducive to approaching the pastor to receive counseling? Of course not. Further, if a pastor and church holds that the divorce rate is as small as Ellis’ claims, why would a pastor prepare himself/herself for such counseling moments which would rarely occur during his/her professional career? Even if one felt that the divorce rate was less than 2%, such a pastor would not likely give much attention to marital counseling skills and knowledge sets.

Feeling awkward and fearful in acknowledging a problem brings alienation. In such an environment, most couples whose marriages are at risk would likely drift to the fringes of the church, or even leave the church as separation approaches.

Though evidence is to the contrary such individuals such as Ellis dogmatically hold that the biblical models of the family provide a protective marital bond that the secular models cannot own. They cannot accept that atheists have such a low divorce rate.

Why would atheists have a lower divorce rate than those claiming to be Christians? The studies have not examined the issue to any significant degree. Is it possible that those who stand outside the church have more honest and realistic expectations of their marital partner and their marriage as a whole. Is it possible that atheists may well see marriage as a partnership that involves active work, honest communication, mutual respect and affirmation, and are not as deeply offended when their partner offends them? Is it possible that lacking the “religious denial" baggage they are more freely admitting and addressing issues earlier, working out their problems and creating the foundation to forgive one another more freely without dismissing or dealing with their conflicts through the use of empty platitudes we too often find being tossed around in the church?

Saying and believing, "Just take it to the Lord in prayer" or "Surrender the matter into the Lord's hands and He will work it out," or "You just confess you sins and you will find peace", etc. tends to allow a couple to avoid dealing with a problem. Marriage demands ongoing work, open honest communication, respect and facing issues in a forthright and upright manner.

It is overdue for the conservative branch to open its eyes, to look at the data, to admit the truth of what is happening within the marriages conservative Christians, to move beyond empty platitudes, roll-up its sleeves and help families deal in meaningful ways with everyday life issues.

Say It Is Not So Tiger!

Tiger Woods confession of an affair has stunned many. Jesper Parnevik who along with his wife introduced Woods to his wife Elin said, “I really feel sorry for Elin, since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him. We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably need to apologize to her.”

In preparation of this blog I read a quick sampling of about 140 comments posted by followers of the story. A good number of comments, about 25%, are saying that it is a private matter and it is none of our business what takes place within the Woods family and marriage. No doubt Tiger and his wife agree with those sentiments. Yet, he is a high profile celebrity who has not just made tens of millions of dollars by winning tournaments but from commercial endorsements and presenting a wholesome persona. He has sought to keep his family and personal life private, but when one enters a high profile position, an element of privacy disappears. The higher one’s profile becomes the less privacy one will have. And nothing like a tabloid scandal will bring attention of the press who make huge profits by covering, and even pumping up, a salacious celebrity scandal.

Few comments I have commented, far less than 10%, have argued for her staying with him. For every one who takes such a position there are eight or nine times that number who say that Elin should divorce Tiger. Many say that he cannot be ever trusted again. The assumption is that if he cheated once he will cheat on her again.

It is fair to say that a good number of people will criticize her for trying to redeem their marriage. Jenny Sanford, wife of disgraced South Carolina ex-governor Mark Sanford was commended by many in the church for asking her husband to move out of their home and for taking the first steps to divorce him. She is hailed as for taking a moral stand against wrong.

Those who commend Jenny Sanford tend to be the same voices who condemned Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards for remaining with the husbands. These women raised the ire within significant segments of the conservative branch of the church for forgiving their husbands publically (and privately?), seeking to work through the rough times and to redeem their marriages.

Commending Jenney while condemning Hilary, Elizabeth, Kobe Bryant’s wife, and others who have sought to salvage their marriage bothers me. Those who condemn Hilary et al. need to not only get a life but also take a look at their own beliefs. Is there not a disconnect between what is preached in the Gospels and the Letters about redemption, forgiveness and restoration? Or are we saying that infidelity, whether by the man or the woman, is such an unforgiveable sin that all hope is lost for the marriage and that like Humpty Dumpty it is destroyed beyond repair?

If the answer to the above second question is “yes”, then why are Christian bookstores filled with pastoral aids and marital counseling aids regarding rebuilding marital relationships after infidelity? Are these books, a significant number of which are published by conservative printing houses, for show? Again, if the answer is “yes”, then let’s stop the hypocrisy by no longer publishing such books, having seminaries and other pastoral training programs training pastors for such moments, and cease expecting the clergy of the church to even attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.

If the consequences of the “yes” option are unpalatable and we say “no” to the above question and affirm that there is hope, then why do members of the conservative church (evangelical and fundamentalist branches) condemn Hilary, Elizabeth, et al. at a higher rate than do other segments of our society. Hence my personal disappointment in the conservative church and in the church’s leadership for not speaking positive of Hilary and Elizabeth who in the heat of the public eye seek to redeem their marriages. They need to be commended, not condemned.

Just under one in five men are unfaithful to their wives. Before we speak negatively about men, most of the women with whom those men are unfaithful are women who are married to other men. Infidelity happens both within and outside the church. It happens to people who claim sincere faith. It happens to pastors, and even a giant of the faith like King David was not immune. It always has happened and always will happen.

Tiger Woods has not disappointed me. Whose who say "Say it is not so Tiger" need to get a life. Though he is a fantastic golfer, Tiger is not super-human. He is not divine. Jesper Parnevik’s comment is troubling. If Parnevik thinks that there is a special plain where one becomes immune he could well be headed for trouble. There is not level of spirituality or character to makes one immune. Since the beginning of time infidelity can happen to people of any character if they do not carefully guard their heart and mind.

Woods’ statement states that he is far short of perfect. He is true on that point, neither am I or any reader of this blog. I am content to allow them privacy and space, to allow them to work through their issues. They have enough tensions without me or others being voyeurs into their home. If Elin and Tiger work to salvage their marriage, I will celebrate and commend them.