My previous post, The Last Civil Right? Same Sex Marriage:, has generated a bit of heat on Facebook with comments suggesting that in 1967, when the bulk of churches stood against interracial marriage, they were simply reflecting a society with similar attitudes. The argument follows that the churches are doing the same now.
In my previous post I did mention that some churches, including the United Church of Christ support marriage equality. The Anglican’s progressive American Episcopalian branch is another wonderful exception. With same-sex marriage now legal in Washington DC, Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington DC, recently announced that The Washington National Cathedral (an Episcopalian church), where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and presidents, will soon begin performing same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, the main body of that church, the Anglican church in England continues to stand alongside the Roman Catholics, as one of the main churches vocally opposed to marriage equality. Jeffrey John, the Anglican dean of St Albans in the UK, recently accused the church of pursuing a “morally contemptible” policy on same-sex marriage. He writes that, by setting themselves against same-sex marriage, the bishops of the Church have prioritised the union of the Anglican Communion over the rights of gay Christians. “Worst of all, by appeasing their persecutors it betrays the truly heroic gay Christians of Africa who stand up for justice and truth at risk of their lives. For the mission of the Church of England the present policy is a disaster.” See the whole Guardian Newspaper report here:
• Anglican stance on same-sex marriage ‘morally contemptible’
There’s a reason why the churches have emptied in the most religious country in Europe, Roman Catholic Ireland. I know the Anglican Church is experiencing the same sort of ‘West vs. the Rest’ crisis that’s decimating the Catholic Church in Europe but they both need to decide whether they prioritise expedience over principle.
If the churches were purely political organisations, then it might be reasonable for them to simply reflect or lag behind community consensus or act expediently. But the churches set themselves as moral and social arbiters and as such they should bravely and with principle, lead the community by advocating for tolerance, social inclusion and progressive social policy. Alternatively, they can continue to choose, as they did in 1967, to identify themselves with intolerance, prejudice and exclusion. If the churches continue in that direction, they’ll accelerate their irrelevance to the West and soon exist only in the third world.
I’m almost afraid to ask for comments on this hotly debated issue.
For those old enough to remember, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), was a challenging and controversial film. At that time (only 46 years ago) interracial marriage was unthinkable and strongly opposed by the church as well as being illegal in 16 states in the USA and opposed by 72% of the American public. Running against the tide in 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled against interracial marriage prohibition in Loving v. Virginia. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who penned the unanimous decision, wrote in words that echo strongly for same-sex marriage: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Today, such relationships are barely noticed let alone condemned (except by a small minority in the deep south).
Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two landmark cases related to same-sex marriage. The Court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996), which defined marriage as between a male and female and also required the US federal government to deny benefits to same-sex couples, married in states that allow same-sex unions.
It seems that the last great Civil Rights issue is in the balance and once again, just like they did with interracial marriage in 1967, the churches stand on the side of prejudice (with a very few exceptions like the 1 million strong, United Church of Christ).
So while great strides have been made in recent decades to recognize the civil rights of the LGBT communities, there still exists one glaring inequality that defines them and their life partnerships as inferior and somehow frivolous: Marriage inequality.
Marriage today, particularly in the West, has moved away from being an exclusively religious institution and is now celebrated in many ways: in churches; synagogues; court houses; city halls; parks; and sometimes, in less solemn, perhaps even frivolous settings.
Some are religious ceremonies while many are very secular. Generally though, they have one thing in common: they celebrate the love, joy and commitment of two people to each other in the company of friends and family. For most, this is one of life’s highlights but it is one that is wholly denied to gay people and relegates gay relationships to being somehow less worthy and legitimate than those of straight people.
I have no problem with religious people defining for themselves the nature of their creation, their relation to a deity and dogmatically ordained relationships between people within their faith. I similarly have no objection to religious celebrants, declining to marry same-sex partners. I do however, object strongly when those same people seek to impose their definitions on the rest of society. The religious might believe that their deity created marriage to foster procreation but the reality is that marriage was a device developed thousands of years ago, long before Christianity, Islam or Judaism, to ensure property ownership and inheritance. Whatever the view, the decline in formalised religiosity in the West has paralleled an increasing view that marriage is not a necessary precursor to procreation. At the same time, I believe there is a growing identification with the notion of marriage as a desirable way of publicly demonstrating and celebrating the commitment of two people, including mothers and fathers already in a family, to each other. As well, I think many people now see the legal responsibilities inherent in marriage as somehow affirming their willingness to more permanently commit to each other.
Many countries have approved or are in the process of legislating marriage equality, including: Andora, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay, although I’m ashamed to say, not my own (Australia). In the traditionally conservative United States, same-sex marriage has been legalised in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, D.C., the state of Washington and the largest state, California (barring the success of Prop 8, currently before the Supreme Court). Even in the UK which is currently ruled by a right-wing coalition government, the Conservative Party are pushing ahead with marriage equality. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, In a speech to his Conservative Party in 2011 said: “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”
The conservative fall-back position for those opposed to same-sex marriage, seems to be: that some form of civil union might be possible. While civil unions do legally cement a gay partnership contract in much the same way as a marriage, they do so without the equality of status and celebration conferred by a straight marriage. And worse, such a confirmed legal status further entrenches the inferiority of gay relationships by only recognising their legal but not societal status. Allowing civil unions but not marriage, is akin to legally granting an African American the right to travel at the front of the bus but with a big sign fixed to his seat patronisingly proclaiming “We whites have to let you ride but you’re still BLACK!!!”, thus perpetuating the myth that being white (or in this case, straight) is still somehow superior.
At a time when family and society’s bonds are being increasingly challenged, why would we not take the opportunity to help place family and relationship commitment more firmly at the core of our communities by affirming the role of marriage as a desirable and cherished family institution not just as something religious people do before they procreate.
It’s time to remove one of the last signposts of gay inferiority, reach out the hand of inclusiveness to all people and support the affirmation of family and committed relationships intrinsic to marriage equality for all.
Has this issue reached a tipping point or are the forces of prejudice like the leader of the conservative Liberal Party in Australia, going to be able to hold back what seems like the inevitable tide of history?
In my previous post I did mention that some churches, including the United Church of Christ support marriage equality. The Anglican’s progressive American Episcopalian branch is another wonderful exception. With same-sex marriage now legal in Washington DC, Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington DC, recently announced that The Washington National Cathedral (an Episcopalian church), where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and presidents, will soon begin performing same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, the main body of that church, the Anglican church in England continues to stand alongside the Roman Catholics, as one of the main churches vocally opposed to marriage equality. Jeffrey John, the Anglican dean of St Albans in the UK, recently accused the church of pursuing a “morally contemptible” policy on same-sex marriage. He writes that, by setting themselves against same-sex marriage, the bishops of the Church have prioritised the union of the Anglican Communion over the rights of gay Christians. “Worst of all, by appeasing their persecutors it betrays the truly heroic gay Christians of Africa who stand up for justice and truth at risk of their lives. For the mission of the Church of England the present policy is a disaster.”
Zak From Downunder 