As My Own Soul. Chris Glaser
Читать онлайн книгу.
Elrod of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, had quoted John Calvin to the effect that no one person can discern the truth—that's why we need to keep speaking to one another.
The Social Context
“Marriage gives you more authenticity, more equality,” declared Cody Rogahn after marrying his partner, Jonathan Yarborough, in Provincetown, Massachusetts. “It gives you the same things heterosexuals have, and everybody should have, if they want to be in a committed relationship with another person.” The couple, already together eight years, were among the first to apply for a marriage license the day it became legal in the state, May 17, 2004—the fiftieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the concept of “separate but equal” in Brown v. Board of Education. On the same day, then President George W. Bush called once again for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and six states prepared to vote later that year on similar amendments to state constitutions: Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah.4
On that day, Massachusetts joined Belgium, the Netherlands, and three Canadian provinces in legally marrying gay couples. Canada since has recognized same-gender marriage nationwide, as have Norway, Spain, and Sweden. Connecticut's Supreme Court legalized same-gender marriage in November 2008. Vermont earlier had led the way in recognizing civil unions, and in April 2009 passed legislation allowing same gender marriage; the governor vetoed the legislation; and the legislature overrode the governor's veto on April 7, 2009. That same day, the Washington, DC, council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, joining New York State. The Iowa Supreme Court declared that state's anti-same-gender marriage amendment unconstitutional on April 3, 2009. Maine's legislation passed and its governor signed a same-gender marriage bill on May 7, 2009.
Many municipalities have registries for domestic partners, and an increasing number of businesses provide domestic partner benefits—all of which cultural observer Jonathan Rauch refers to as “marriage lite.” He has noted that it is these less-than-equal unions that actually weaken the institution of marriage, not same-gender marriage, because many heterosexual couples have opted for these lesser alternatives rather than embrace marriage itself.5 He believes if marriage were valued as a universal good for gays and straights alike, the institution of marriage would benefit, much as extending the vote to blacks and women strengthened that franchise and American democracy.
Back in 2004, in other areas of the United States, such as San Francisco, upstate New York, and counties in Oregon and Colorado, marriage certificates were granted to same-gender couples until higher authorities intervened. The pleasant spectacle of gay and lesbian couples standing in line for hours and sometimes days to marry indicates, at least to some, that marriage is alive and well in the United States. Witnessing these news events on television stirred support from people previously indifferent to same-gender marriage, ranging from the late Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, who declared his country should have it, to a self-described “regular guy” who wrote of his changed mind in a letter to the editor in a Southern newspaper.
Of course, it also stirred negative reactions, especially from the religious right, led by the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, and others who viewed the advancement of gay people in society as a sign of cultural decadence and the nation's imminent moral downfall. Marriage and family are believed by some Americans to be under attack, and often their objections are based in religion. But there is no neat conservative–liberal political dichotomy on the issue: some conservative voices have also been raised in support of same-gender marriage, or at least equitable rights. Journalist Anna Quindlen observed the conservative and progressive nature of same-gender marriage: “Same-gender marriage is a radical notion for straight people and a conservative notion for gay ones.”6
What has fueled the furor over gay rights and marriage was the essential legalization of sex between consenting adults of the same gender in private by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down state sodomy laws in 2003, and the subsequent Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts rulings requiring those states to give marital rights to same-gender couples, finding no prevailing governmental or societal interest in excluding homosexual citizens from those rights. These rulings could both be interpreted as conservative decisions, saving citizens from undue governmental intrusion in private matters in the first case, and preventing legislative or popular vote trampling on individual rights in the second. But those who oppose both decisions think marriage must be saved from “activist” judges, though most federal judges presently on the bench have been appointed by Republican administrations, and the same U.S. Supreme Court that struck down antigay laws also found in favor of a Republican president in a disputed election.
John Witte, Jr., director of the Law and Religion Program at Atlanta's Emory University, introduces his exhaustive academic tome on marriage in this way:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once said that all the great questions of theology and philosophy must ultimately come to the law for their resolution. Holmes's claim, while overstated, has merit for this book. While theologians and philosophers have debated questions of the origin, nature, and purpose of marriage, jurists and judges have had to resolve them—in general statutes as well as in concrete cases. Such legal formulations have invariably reflected, and sometimes reified, prevailing theological ideas and ideals respecting marriage.7
The Religious Context
Forty years ago, religious bodies and the broader society began grappling with homosexuality and homosexual persons, whose emergence as a much more visible community in the United States began after World War II and as a political influence after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Roman Catholics began to question Vatican pronouncements on human sexuality, including what the Vatican called the “intrinsic disorder” of homosexuality. Protestants began wrestling with the issue of homosexuality by addressing the question of the ordination of self-acknowledged gays and lesbians who expressed their sexuality in responsible ways, including covenant relationships. Some Christians noted that the church needed first to address the issue of same-gender marriage if the church was to hold all of its leadership accountable to the same standards of fidelity and chastity. They felt we were putting the cart before the horse discussing ordination of gay and lesbian individuals prior to the ordering of gay and lesbian relationships. So, as precipitous as the same-gender marriage debate has been portrayed, our current dialogue on the subject is, in truth, long overdue.
In the public square, it may be that the wrangling on same-gender marriage has proven a blessing for the institution of marriage itself, just as the debate on homosexuality has served as a blessing for the understanding of human sexuality. In the religious sector, though we may not like conflict within our ranks and fear loss of members and even schism, it could be said—some would say too optimistically—that our wrestling with these issues has benefited religious bodies as well. For Christians, such wrestling serves as an occasion to discern and disclose not only our own views on marriage and human sexuality, but also our own ways of reading the Bible, encountering God, and following Jesus, guided by the Spirit, within the context of our faith and faith tradition. The dialogue isn't the problem—it's the contentious way we often do the dialogue or resist the dialogue that may diminish our spirits and reject the Holy Spirit.
“All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to God's purpose,” the apostle Paul affirmed.8 This doesn't mean those who love God and are called to serve don't suffer, experience discomfort, and endure conflict, as the apostle indicates earlier in Romans. Rather, it means that faithful people will find God and the good in every circumstance.
The Old Testament figure Jacob is said to have wrestled with God.9 It was a hands-on, intimate struggle in the night. And Jacob demanded a blessing. To our ears,