Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 1

As noted in the prior post of yesterday, Virginia is gay marriage battleground, as well as gay rights in general. Conservative Christians (those who take issue with the use of “conservative Christians” in this context should read the prior post) are staunchly defending the 2006 Virginia Constitutional Amendment that enshrines marriage as being only between a man and woman. The amendment not only prohibits gay marriage but prohibits within Virginia the recognition in any manner of such marriages that occur in other states. If a gay couple is married in another state and move to Virginia, they are not married. Further, the amendment also prohibits “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships”. The message is clear, strong and unapologetic. If you are in a gay relationship, do not come to Virginia for you and your partner will have no recognition in any form.


This week the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a lower court ruling permitting gay marriage.  No matter the ruling of the 4^th Court, the case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court and force that Court to deal with the heart of the matter, whether it is unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage.


Conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, are livid that the current Virginia Attorney General, Mark Herring, is not defending the ban and Constitutional Amendment, leaving the legal team for the two clerks who denied the gay couples wedding licenses to argue the case before the 4^th Circuit rather than the Attorney General. It is argued regardless of his reading of the US Constitution and view of the legality of Virginia’s amendment that the AG is duty bound to defend it, and not to do so is commonly described as a betrayal of his oath, a betrayal the demands his immediate removal from office.


At first sight it would appear that not having the AG office arguing in defense of the amendment means a less skilled team has to take over and that the arguments will be less forceful than would be the AG’s arguments. The implication is that lawyers for the clerks are second string or minor leaguers. I not only disagree but argue for the contrary for the team headed by David Oakley is highly skilled, arguing by conviction and are driven as to the rightness of their cause and the amendment, and lastly, they are being well supported by the religious right with funds, research.


The second team headed by Austin Nimocks is equally strong and are part of highly conservative traditional marriage defense group, a strongly funded group that is well skilled in crafting its message, and have long had their key arguments well formed. As such neither Nimocks nor Oakley are well skilled and positioned for handling this type of case.


Further, who would you rather have argue your case, a lawyer who does not believe in the strength of the case and lacks an enthusiasm for it, or a lawyer who has deep passion, skill and the depth of resources to put forth your sound argument? I would take the latter any day, as would you.


Regardless of what the attackers of AG Herring may say, I doubt that the defenders of the amendment truly want the AG’s office arguing the case. Though he may not defend the amendment, it should be noted that the AG has not sent out instructions to county clerks to start issuing wedding license to gay couples. Rather, he is allowing existing cases to move through the courts being argued by some of its strongest advocates, and awaiting the results. That I can respect. Advocates defending the amendment and the leading voices attacking the AG know full well that if the AG defended the amendment, he could more readily bring about results in keeping with his views by not using the strongest arguments or poorly phrasing the strongest arguments for the amendment. That would be a travesty. Hence, the statements by the AG’s attackers are more about political posturing, stirring the base, raising funds and bullying than about the righteousness of their case against the AG not defending the amendment.

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Conservative Christians

For conservative Christians Virginia is the latest battleground over the acceptance of gay relationships and legalization of gay marriage. The issue is a heated one, and for many conservative Christians it is a battle to be strongly waged as if the future of the Christian faith and the church depended on the result. To say that for some it is a highly emotional issue would be an understatement.

This author recognizes many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians take issue with using of the phrase “conservative Christian” to describe them and their stance against gay marriage. They argue with fervent passion that there is nothing “conservative” about them, particularly on this matter. No descriptive term is necessary for they are Christians period, Christians defending their faith against an ungodly dangerous lifestyle and to prevent such relationships from being viewed by the American culture, laws and the church as a whole, as an acceptable relationship equal to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that has existed from the beginning of time across diverse cultures.

 

Given that evangelicalism is my faith heritage and education, I understand why many of my friends take issue with my use of “conservative Christians”. The term is used intentionally to distinguish my personal faith background against Christians from faith backgrounds in which there is are higher levels of openness to gay marriages.  I acknowledge that for some of my friends the use of the term “conservative Christian” as related to gay marriage would imply that it is possible for a true Christian, lead and sensitive to God's Spirit, and accept gay marriages at the same time. Such friends would dismiss such openness as being possible, that if these individuals Christians, then they are either deceived by Satan, or they are not being obedient to the Christ.

 

Some of those in this camp do go as far as to imply, or even state openly, that anyone who supports gay marriage that they are definitely not all Christian but individuals playing with religion. I take a different position. I will not question the depth and nature of another's faith who is not part of my congregation. On a host of issues, whether those issues be about smoking or alcohol consumption, church polity or worship structure, holding that Saturday or Sunday is the proper Sabbath day for Christians, how one dresses at church, going to restaurants or shopping on the Sabbath, views on how and who is saved or the nature of holiness, I will not, and cannot, judge those who are outside my faith tradition. I may not agree with one's beliefs but I have no standing to judge them. 

 

For decades I have held onto a significant and often overlooked teaching by Paul in I Corinthians 5. In that chapter Paul addresses the issue of a man in their church who is having an ongoing affair with his step-mother. The tense of the verb is clear, it is not a accidental lost control type of thing. Rather than a moment in time affair, it is an ongoing one that started well before and which appears will continue long into the future. After Paul condemns the church leadership for not dealing with the man, he then deals with the man. The passage is clear, the man is the member of that  congregation, the woman is not. Paul judges the man and instructs the church leadership to expel the man least his attitude infect and harm others in the congregation. At the same time Paul states this about the woman, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?...God will judge those outside.”

 

For Paul the congregational leadership has the right to judge their congregational members only, and not those outside their congregation. If I take that the entire Bible is God's divine Word then I cannot overlook this instruction and go forth to judge and condemn others who are not part of the congregation to which I belong. I have to resist the temptation to put myself in the roll of God. I cannot overlook or find some way to rationalize in my mind the dismissing of what these two short passages clearly state. I shall not and will not judge those who testify to being Christians but who are of a different tradition, who think, believe and live differently on a host of matters.

Freedom of Religion in Schools - Virginia SB 236

In recent days there has been consternation in some circles over Virginia’s recently elected Governor McAuliffe’s vetoing SB 236, a bill that passed the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate allowing for student driven prayer and religious meetings in public schools. At first glance it seems to be an innocuous bill. The bill’s proponents argued that it would allow for prayer, religious meetings and artwork/signs much like is allowed for other clubs, organizations and civic/athletic groups.

 

The Governor argued that though the bill allowed for religious activity by any faith tradition, functionally it would present local school administrators with an impossible mandate to give equal treatment to all without resulting in the giving of preferences to some groups over another. There is some validity to his view, particularly when conflicts for space occur or a range of activities and space are requested at a might higher rate than another. A school administration could find themselves in a difficult position when one faith seeks to put up a religious symbol in proximity to another symbol which may be viewed with anger by the other by its placement or timing.   

 

Does government not permitting the exercise of religious activity in our schools and public space turn the government into being anti-religion? McAuliffe argues that neutrality is not an anti-religion position, and for the smooth functioning of society within a civic space such as schools, that neutrality provides for least conflicts. On the other hand, the proponents of SB 236 loudly and forcefully exclaim yes to that question. They argue that the law is there to protect religion, ensuring that religious can be welcomed and take place in schools and that to bar such expression devalues the place of faith and its roll in society and the lives of a school’s students.

 

Yet is the proponent’s argument that simple? Or is their effort to position Christian expression as the most visible and dominant faith in the schools, and in at that, the more fundamentalist and evangelical understanding of Christianity? Is it that simple for schools to balance and give equal allowance for all religions?

 

When the forgers of the Constitution were shaping the founding documents they had the clear option of ingraining into the founding document an unapologetic declaration that the United States is a Christian nation. It was not a strange or uncommon notion for at the time Great Britain and several European nations were formally recognized as Christian nations in their governing documents.

 

Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the shapers of the Constitution were men of faith. While for a few going to church may have been more a cultural or family expectation, most were sincere in their piety and earnest about practicing their faith. Some were more conservative and evangelical whereas others more liberal or even deists. A small number of notables like Franklin and Jefferson, appear to not have been of faith by any of modern definitions of faith commonly utilized by modern evangelicals, or even by even the definitions of the mainstream church of the day.

 

Though the framers were living in a highly Christian culture, why did they not take the opportunity to declare the nation as a Christian nation? It could not have been something simply overlooked. Why did these men not define the United States as a Christian nation rather than speaking in broader terms to God or a Supreme Being in their documents without any further definition? Why did they instead state “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

 

In an ideal situation in a nation where true freedom of and from religion exists there would be no need for the proposed law SB 236. Prayer and religious meetings by groups of any religion background would not only be tolerated but accepted at school as having value for both the participants and, to a degree, the overall community. Each would conduct their private and personal activity, respecting others of different faiths, and not using the school and other civic meetings and celebrations as proselytizing opportunities, and not being offended by the teachings, preaching and symbols of another.

 

In that plethora of religious expressions and acceptance would be a host of Christian denominations, ranging from those who believe that their particular denomination are the only true followers of Jesus Christ to evangelical religious streams who openly engage in sharing to the more liberal traditions who are may not be as demonstrative as other Christians. There would also be openly practicing Muslims with their various traditions with some reading and preaching from the Koran more openly and demonstratively than others. The various Hebrew traditions would also observing and talking openly about their faith without conflicts between them and the Muslims, or them and some Christians seeking to persuade them to become Messianic Jews. There would also be Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists, etc, each having their religious symbols displayed as openly as Christian ones. Of course in the mix would be the meetings of professed atheists talking about why they hold that there is no God while people of their various faiths respectfully accepting and tolerating the atheists.

 

Is it possible that the nation’s founders recognized that such openness though ideal was an unrealistic expectation of their citizens to live out in every day practice? Is it possible that they readily recognized that differing religions can become that ground for civil discord, that even with the Christians traditions over the course of human existence heated feelings and disagreements existed over various points of the Christian faith they hold in common. And if Christians who then hold so much in common end up in armed conflict with one another with faith differences as part of the cause, did they then acknowledge to themselves that there was slim hope that peace across a diversity of different religions would occur if they all worked and practiced their faith in the public square at the same time?  Is it possible that in the framers accepted that the best position for government to take on religion was a neutral one, that it is better to rule and govern all its citizens equally, showing no preference to one religion over the other, promoting none of the other thereby allowing and encouraging its citizens to practice their faith privately in their homes and places of worship according to their own teachings and beliefs, and to work civilly alongside each other as the live and work together? If so, then it seems that they felt religious neutrality by government was from being anti-religion but instead became the guarantor of the freedom of all religions and the ground from which each could flourish and find expression in communities across their young land.

 

Over two centuries later has our society progressed and matured to the point where we can readily accept open expressions of divergent religions without conflict? Are the Virginia proponents of SB 236 arguing that those with whom they worship with on Sunday, that their children and grandchildren, their friends and associates are so highly tolerant of each other religions that they would not take issue with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists putting up signs in the local schools inviting others to their worship observances? Are they saying that the crowd on at the Friday night high school football game, or the college game on Saturday, would accept either Muslim or Hindu opening the game with a prayer from those religions?

 

Are they saying that there would be no controversy from amongst themselves or their constituents if a Muslim or Buddhist opened an upcoming meeting of the House of Delegates in prayer? Are they saying that the citizens in their districts would not be up in arms if the 10 Commandments were placed in front of the Legislature and within a few yards there be a statue of Buddha and a Satanist of some sort? If they have that confidence, the proponents of SB 236 are certainly a most optimistic lot with regard to their evaluation of the spirit, tolerance and nature of our citizenry.

Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

Using Religion as a Cover for Discrimination

This evening the nation is still watching to see if Governor J. Brewer of Arizona will sign or veto a bill that allows for “religious reasons” a business to deny services to anyone they so wish to do so. The rationale is that no business or person should be forced to provide services to a person for whom they view as living a lifestyle, or who has views that are against their religion. While the law is broadly written and makes no mention sexual orientation, gays are its primary target.

 

While Arizona does not have any laws protecting gays from discrimination with regard to housing, services, etc., three cities within the state have such laws. The law before the governor is an effort to override the laws of the three cities and allow businesses and individuals to discriminate with the State’s blessing.  I am disappointed that similar legislation is working through the Georgia legislature, and likewise under consideration in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Missouri.

 

The bill is driven by a cluster of "conservative" Christians who view gays as living an unhealthy and sinful lifestyle, and feel gays should be second class citizens. They are uncomfortable with interacting with gays. Their perspective is akin to John Calvin’s views and his rule of Geneva. The viewpoint holds that the Christian faith should govern the law of the land, and no Christians should be forced to work with or provide services to those who they consider to be offensive to them and their beliefs.

 

Under Calvin’s leadership, Christian values were imposed upon all citizens. Everyone was required to go to church, whether they were part of the elect or not. Swearing, playing cards, playing non-religious music, doing any work on Sunday, even quietly in private were outlawed and could land one in prison. Those whose faith was defined a little more broadly than Calvin, could find themselves in prison for what doing what they viewed as being okay by their understanding of faith, but which Calvin views as sinful.  After seven years, Calvin jettisoned imposing religious laws upon the whole population.

 

I am against the Arizona law on a number of levels and hope Brewer vetoes the bill. I am against imposing Christian views upon the country as a whole. Whose Christian understanding of faith should prevail, conservative Baptists? Conservative Methodists? Roman Catholics? Are we to outlaw the eating of meat on Friday? The religious beliefs of The Salvation Army which views smoking and alcohol as evil? What about those churches that view eating out on Sunday or filling up your car’s gas tank as sinful?    

 

I detest laws which set one group above another, giving one group the ability to use their majority to abuse and discriminate against a minority. The strength of American democracy and its Constitution is that it protects the minority and reminds the majority that they must be mindful of the minority and do not live in land where the tyranny of the majority is enshrined.

 

It infuriates me when people use the Christian faith as the cover for unjust discrimination and prejudice, to grant privileges of one group over another group, and to justify conduct that in other contexts would be criminal and ungodly. Such conduct contrary to the Christian values that I know and value. We have seen religious rationale as justifying the enslaving of other races, as segregating people of different faiths into designated “quarters” with inferior infrastructure, denying people with employment opportunities or advancement or equal pay for the same job, destruction of property, beating and killing, prohibiting people of different ethnicity from socializing and marrying, denying entrance to a college, and turning down bank loans. We are not talking about what has taken place in past centuries for many of these things have taken placed during my lifetime.

 

My belief system should not be imposed upon others, nor should the beliefs of another imposed upon me and my family. That said, if I am working in the world, I should be able to interact civilly those who have different beliefs and values, and I should not deny them services that I can reasonably offer and which they reasonably can expect. My interaction is part of life, and does not pollute my faith and life.