Nothing Is More Powerful
New York state has legalized same-sex marriage. While I would guess this country still has a slight majority against it, gay marriage seems to be the future. Older people by and large can't accept the idea, but younger people don't see what the fuss is about.
Not so long ago, homosexuality itself was illegal. Even among many gay rights pioneers same-sex marriage was considered pretty far out. Perhaps, though, it was inevitable once homosexuality was normalized that gay people would claim all the rights that heterosexuals enjoy.
Opponents have been predicting apocalyptic results. The argument (though I'm not sure if I get it, so perhaps I'm not explaining it well) generally has to do with marriage being the bedrock of our society and thus changing the rules will have disastrous results. But what happens if gay marriage spreads, and it's hard to notice any difference? What will they say? Will they still believe society's ills are due to giving in to the gay agenda?
There are still plenty of legal questions to be worked out, but that's true whenever there's a change. Most of the specifics shouldn't be that hard to deal with, since we'll merely be transferring rights and protections already afforded to heterosexuals to another sexual orientation. Some claim there'll be a slippery slope effect, as we spread rights even further to protect presently less popular groups and activities. Perhaps, perhaps not. Guess we'll have to deal with it as it occurs.
The trickiest questions are probably related to religion. Presumably, many major religions will not support same-sex marriage. Under the First Amendment, they may be free to practice their religions as they see fit, including not recognizing gay marriage. But what if gay marriage is considered a right? Who'll win in that clash? And even if we're just talking about a law for lay people that religions don't have to acknowledge, what happens when more and more people support the concept. Will the religions give in to its popularity? Will there be schisms?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:22 AM
5 Comments:
We'll know the tide has really turned when presidential candidates favor gay marriage.
Anonymous wrote:
We'll know the tide has really turned when presidential candidates favor gay marriage.
Actually, in 2008 one of the two major party nominees seems to have taken a wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude favoring it. His rhetoric opposed it, but his specific endorsements opposed every imaginible political device that would have slowed down or stopped gay marriage ("I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act", he stated during his 2008 campaign). And beginning about one year ago, he has repeatedly said his views on gay marriage are "evolving". Can anyone doubt what that means? Taken literally, it's absurd -- if someone actually believed that his own views were slowly changing from A to B, where B was the morally superior view, wouldn't that prove you hold view B already? I will wager money at any odds you choose that when Obama's views finish "evolving", he will not stand up and say "I used to support civil unions and oppose gay marriage. But now that I am fully evolved, I oppose both of them."
LAGuy wrote:
But what if gay marriage is considered a right? Who'll win in that clash?
There are rights and then there are rights. A century ago, mixed-race marriages and mixed-race schooling were, in much of the USA, legally banned and socially frowned upon. Now they are totally legal and almost universally accepted.
On the other hand, a century ago, adultery and divorce and pornography were illegal and socially condemned in most places. Today they are totally legal, and even the religious right that wants to "defend" marriage has not proposed (indeed, not once that I can recall!) criminalizing adultery or divorce. However, there is still a very widespread disapproval of adultery, of divorce for trivial reasons, and (to a lesser degree) of pornography.
Can any of us be sure which of these two tracks gay marriage and gay rights are on? As long as any of these things are illegal, there is a well-defined group (adulterers, blacks who want a good education, gays who want to marry) who can plausibly argue that their rights are being violated. But once legal equality appears, that argument becomes moot, and then people's underlying opinion of the behavior will determine the social status of these things.
Will the religions give in to its popularity? Will there be schisms?
I guess you don't follow religious news very closely. These schisms have been occurring for the past two decades, although some of them may be too small to properly be called "schisms". The largest is within the Anglican communion, where the more conservative Anglican churches (including almost all the African churches) no longer consider themselves in communion with the Episcopal Church in the USA -- although the Church of England is still claiming to be in communion with both wings. And in the USA and other liberal countries, the Traditional Anglican Communion has pretty much broken off from the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Many Christian churches have a clear majority that supports homosexual behavior and marriage, and others a clear majority that opposes it. The churches in the middle -- the Presbyterians and Methodists -- are divided, and every time they have a convention the votes on this issue are highly divisive. But because there are so many splinter churches, a new schism may not be necessary because there are existing ones. Thus when the Presbyterian Church USA votes to support gay marriage, unhappy members need not form a new church -- they can just leave the PCUSA and join the more conservative Presbyterian Church America.
When the committee that interprets Jewish law for Conservative Judaism moved significantly towards support of homosexual activities in 2006, four members of the committee resigned. But as Judaism is a decentralized religion, it seems a stretch to call this a "schism". A formal schism in Judaism seems possible only with regard to the "Who is a Jew" question. Suppose that Esther has two mommies, and one of them is Jewish, and she considers herself Jewish: can she claim the Right of Return under Israeli law? Someone is going to have to decide that question, probably very soon.
I can tell you that what is happening in the Presbyterian USA denomination is further decentralization. Presbyterians were always somewhere between hierarchical churches (like Catholics and Lutherans) and congregational churches (like UCC). Presbyterians have a central governing body, but it only meets every other year, so the individual congregations and Presbyteries have a lot of autonomy.
Because the issue of allowing ordination of non-repentant homosexuals has been a divisive force for some 2 decades now, this year the Presbyterian Church USA approved, though very democratic voting, to allow the presbyteries (and individual Churches) to do what they want in accord with their own consciences. I'm hopeful that this will be a good move, but as LK notes, Presbyterians who are unhappy can always move to another, smaller Presbyterian denomination more to their liking.
As for NY - I am glad the decision was made legislatively. It has always been my only argument that decisions about gay marriage should not be foisted on the people by judicial decree.
The question I have is whether some of the restrictions on hetero marriages will be dropped for gay marriages. For example, is there any reason not to grant a marriage certificate to gay first cousins (let alone brother or sisters)? For that matter, will it be necessary to "prove" you are gay? What if two good friends want to share the economic benefits of state licensed marriage - I assume there is no way the State can determine if they really love each other. I believe homosexuals have been doing this for many years (a gay man and a gay woman marrying to share benefits while they aren't really married in the romantic sense). I would vote for dropping all pretense that marriage has anything to do with romance or the combining of two souls, and simply recognize it as the combination of any two people's economic interests.
I liked this logic.
Post a Comment
<< Home