|
|
|
|
An ancient Chinese curse says: “May you live in interesting times.” We are certainly doing that these days. Our society continues to evolve year by year, but I don’t think there has been as much passion around changes to our way of life since the civil rights and anti-war protests of the sixties. I'm partial to the idea that broad movements occur when the culture is ready for them, and not before. I hope we’re ready. Among the other contentious issues in the escalating American culture war between fundamentalism and individualism, one in particular has emerged to define the distance between the two sides. I don't know whether the gay marriage storm which recently burst upon the scene in San Francisco is a harbinger of imminent momentous change or simply another volley in the low-grade conflict that has been simmering for many years. But it has a feeling of destiny about it, like a pivotal moment that defines a movement. One could feel the joy of those couples exchanging vows on the evening news, even if watching them kiss made some folks uneasy. The politicians in Massachusetts are still trying to figure out what to do about their court directive to issue licenses beginning in May. After listening to and reading a lot of opinions on this issue, I’ve filtered out all arguments but one: does the union of gay people harm other people? There have been many general comments about tradition, sanctity, biological destiny, etc. All of that is good and fine, but my guide on civil rights has long been John Stuart Mill’s definition of freedom: “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it”. I am compelled to ask, how is it that Jane and Jill committing to one another for life, complete with legal rights and responsibilities, harms anyone else? Perhaps the underlying problem with this issue is that marriage has long been a common responsibility for both church and state. It is clearly a necessary function of the state to define and enforce laws governing property ownership, inheritance, and responsibilities of spouses, parents, and children. And all of the major religious faiths in this country define a traditional model of the family as a basic part of their mission. For most of our history, it has been convenient for the state to fashion laws around this model, since it handled almost all circumstances. Unusual circumstances were handled in civil law through add-on policies for adoption, divorce, remarriage, etc. as needed. But things have become very complicated as large numbers of real families have deviated from the model of working father, housewife mother, and their natural born children. What were once exceptions have now become commonplace. The passion of traditionalists over the issue is driven by the belief that legally sanctioning any deviation from the classic family model will further accelerate the growth of nontraditional families. They fear that non-traditional families will harm children and society in unknown ways, and they are willing to use any tool they can find to stop this cultural evolution. History suggests that free cultures cannot be easily constrained by either legislation or demagoguery. Think Prohibition. I listened to one fellow from a conservative traditional-family organization on a news program making an argument about how same-sex unions would cloud the vision of what a marriage is and set a bad example for children. He didn’t offer any examples, or cite any scientific studies. He just knew it would be bad. Ironically, he mentioned that he was raised by a single mother (like many other children today) and in spite of his success, considered it a poor model for a family. I wanted to ask him if he considered two same-sex parents who love one another and their children worse than a single parent. I probably didn’t need to ask though. The real root of angst for many people seems to be less about rights than it is about morality. For most people, this draws religion firmly into the issue. The trouble is, when I read my Bible, there were all sorts of social institutions that were accepted as ordinary and natural thousands of years ago that aren't currently legal, things like polygamy, slavery, punishing accused adulterers with death, and even selling one's own daughter into slavery! That last one (Exodus 21:7) was enough for me to decide that the Bible as a literal and ultimate arbiter of morality has serious limitations. For many more examples of outdated rules for living that are universally ignored, even by fundamentalists, read particularly the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Those who pick and choose which portions of Mosaic Law they want to enforce, while ignoring the rest, cannot rationally claim to support a literal interpretation of the Bible without exposing their hypocrisy. Fortunately, we have a Constitution that wisely forbids imposition of religious dogma as law (thanks founding fathers). Speaking of the Constitution, it has been quite a spectacle watching the politicians dance around this one. The clamor for a Constitutional amendment from conservative groups defining marriage has put them all in a quandary. After testing the political wind for awhile our president has finally decided he will publicly support such an amendment based on the advice of his political brain trust, a.k.a. Karl Rove. The last attempt to amend the constitution on a major civil rights issue, the ERA, failed to be ratified. It isn’t easy. Ten years ago, things may have been different, but today, most people know a gay person, either socially, or at work, who isn't ashamed to say so. Most folks are also aware that gay people are just as likely to be good, honest, hard-working people, as themselves. Many raise successful children, even if they haven’t had the privileges of marriage in order to do so. Perhaps fair-minded people will ask themselves, "Why don't those people deserve to live a life filled with love and commitment with the same benefits as anyone else?" Organizations with political missions often claim to represent millions of voters, but whether they are conservative or liberal, many voters consider a whole range of issues when deciding their position. Belonging to a labor union doesn't necessarily mean someone will vote a straight Democrat ticket, nor does belonging to a religious group mean they will vote straight Republican. The voters who decide things are probably not the straight-ticket extremists on either side; they are the people who give some thought to issues they care about, then vote their conscience. Big social change issues always cause a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. But so far, the history of our country is one of giving more rights to oppressed people rather than restricting them further. Think of prior issues like slavery, segregation with its separate but "equal" for black people, interracial marriage, women's prohibition from voting, higher education, higher-paying vocations, etc. In each case, we the people have ignored the predictions of certain doom by the conservative groups of the day and done what was right instead. We have corrected errors of the past by giving more and more people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. May it ever be so.
2/26/04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Update 4/3/04 |