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?

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.

An Underlying Difference Between Portman and Salmon on Gay Marriage

While both Senator Rob Portman and Representative Matt Salmon have a gay son, each takes a different posture on the right of gays to marry. Understanding how each man’s view the issue and their sons differently helps one to understand why they differ.

In listening to his son and observing the son's life, Portman has concluded that his son is not emotionally ill and that the son is not socially dysfunctional or rebellious. He recognizes that as with many out of the closet gays, his son has and will endure ridicule and attacks, be shunned, looked down upon and ostracized, not something an emotionally balanced person one would seek to endure. Hence, he has concluded that his son is gay not by choice but by nature. One can well understand that right of gays to marry is a logical extension for Portman once he concluded that his son is gay by nature, that his son cannot help be attracted to and love with a person of the same gender.  

By contrast Salmon's position is simple and shaped by his religious beliefs. Though he loves his son, he cannot accept or approve of his son having sex with a man. For Solomon, being gay is a deliberate choice. Salmon holds that as God is just and that Scripture views gay sex as evil, a person cannot under any condition be viewed as gay by nature, for it would mean that God unjustly created a person with a nature for which he condemns them. While Salmon loves his son, for him the son’s sexual activity is a chosen yet unacceptable behavior, not part of the son’s nature. Tens of thousands of parents each year are faced with an adult child engaged in unacceptable non-criminal activities, such as, habitual lying, habitual and constant laziness, being irreligious, etc., but they like Salmon continue to love the child without accepting the sin. While not explicitly saying so, one can read between the lines, that for Salmon to embrace his son's lifestyle would be an act of denying what he professes as being his Christian faith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/01/rep-matt-salmon-gay-son-hasnt-changed-my-views-on-gay-marriage/?wprss=rss_homepage

Failure of Maryland's Same-sex Marriage Legislation

For the three weeks a same-sex marriage bill moved the Maryland legislative process. When it passed the more conservative Maryland Senate many observers expected it to pass by at least eight votes in the House of Delegates. A week ago the bill faltered and last Friday it was functionally killed when it was deferred back to a House of Delegate committee where it will die in a matter of weeks when the current session expires. It was a significant defeat for advocates who hoped Maryland would become the sixth state plus the District of Columbia to approve of same-sex marriage.

Generational replacement, the passing away of the older generation and being replaced by the younger, has brought about a shift in support of same-sex marriage. In the late 90s years ago over 62% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage, but with the passing away of the WWII and post WWII generation being replaced by the Gen Ys a shift is occurring. Only a small minority of Gen Ys are opposed to same-sex marriage and even fewer are against laws that protect sexual orientation as a discrimination class. Even baby-boomers have shifted their views in the last fifteen years, going from 70% against to 55% against. Hence, today, a slight majority of adult Americans, and an even greater majority of citizens of Maryland, support same-sex marriage legislation. Generation replacement will rapidly broaden that gap over the next two presidential election cycles.

The failure of the same-sex legislation is a sign that a highly visible and powerful unconvinced minority retain the upper hand in Maryland. Evidence indicates that claims by evangelical Christians that Christians have little political power is a false claim. Though the number of those who regularly attend church services is in the minority, it is easily argued that the church wields far greater political power today than ever. And most of that political power rests in the hands of the overwhelmingly fundamentalist and evangelic church who were joined in this fight by the overwhelmingly African American Church and the Catholic Church, all of whom hold that any marriage not between a man and woman is an anathema.

This well organized religious coalition targeted a dozen or so Delegates saying that if they voted for this legislation, that regardless of their record on other issues, their churches would work to defeat their reelection bids. The coalition was so persuasive that one of the sponsors of the legislation who has long argued that same-sex marriage is about civil rights, and that gay couples do not devalue hers or any other heterosexual marriage announced that she would be voting against her own bill.


We should not fool ourselves in thinking that legislators are highly principled people who take noble stands on issues, stick to them, even if it puts their reelection at risk. Before we fault them for being willing to posture themselves for the next election, it has always been and will remain thus in a democracy because that is what we ask the electorate expect.

Partly due to generation replacement and partly due to the younger baby-boomers rethinking their views and becoming increasingly turned off by the evangelical church, the trend is for a growing number of voters supporting same-sex marriage. While the majority of the electorate will support such legislation, the power of the church as evidenced in these last weeks in Maryland will make it problematic for such legislation to be successful in other states.

While such power may provide comfort for evangelicals, it may be a false comfort in the longer term. Religious surveys by the Pew Research Center and Faith Matters indicate that demographic change, changes in religious activity as well as generational disenfranchisement from the church and the reason why they are disenfranchised, indicate that the evangelical church is on the verge of a significant decline.