In an October 26th article in the New York Times, Laurie Goodstein details the fight in California over Proposition Eight. Proposition Eight would define marriage as between two heterosexual individuals and would ban Gay Marriage. The campaigns both for and against the measure have been hard fought and very expensive. An alliance of conservative evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and black and Latino voters have raised millions of dollars in support of Proposition Eight, and Civil Rights groups, unions and Businesses and Hollywood have rallied to protect gay marriage and have raised nearly as much money. What is interesting about this article, and the campaign in general is the similarity to campaigns for family values in the seventies and eighties.
It is very easy to hear the echoes of Jerry Falwell when confronted with the logic of Proposition eight supporter and prominent evangelical, Charles W. Colson: “This vote on whether we stop gay marriage in California is Armageddon.” Tony Perkins, the president of the family research council, felt the same way saying, “We have elected bad presidents before and survived as a nation, but we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”
As I am writing this America has just elected a black president, in a landslide no less, but before we get to caught up patting ourselves on the back we need to look at the fight over proposition eight, and similar measures on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. It is unbelievable that the right wing evangelical argument that public sin will destroy the nation still holds water. How do people not see that conservative leaders have been claiming this for decades and that America is still going strong. These fear mongerers are trying to force their religious values on others in a way that simply shouldn’t be possible in the 21st century. I am not arguing for or against gay marriage, but against for equal rights for everyone, and against religious scare tactics that pervert both democracy and religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
As much as you insist that you are not fighting for or against gay marriage your rhetoric in regards to the "fear mongers" reveals something about your sentiments toward Proposition Eight. There are reasons, both religion and civil, to ban gay marriage, but there are also reasons to allow it to continue. It seems that your post could have put forward a better question than it did. Your question regards whether or not religious conservatives have he right to "force their religious values" on others. A better question, perhaps, could have been what right government has, if any, to regulate marriage of any kind, heterosexual or homosexual. Your concern is equal rights for all but the target of your attack has been mislaced. The government is responsible for the fallout of gay marriage, and those right wing evangelicals you seem to take issue with have only been spurred to action because of the inadequacies of our government.
I would agree with Jonny that the issue lies with the government and its regulation of marriage. However, I disagree that those right-wing evangelicals that have been "spurred to action because of the inadequacies of our government" exist outside of the government. It appears to be a which came first question. Were religious leaders outraged at gay marriage and thus it entered the political realm or were governments advocating for (or against) gay marriage and it thus entered the religious sphere? Regardless, religion and politics are colliding and the result thus far has been discriminatory. We take pride in our Superpower status and claim to be one of the most advanced countries in the world and yet we are squabbling over an issue that is so insignificant in other countries. Look at Europe- the issue of hetero vs. homo is in fact non-issue. We are all equal. I am saddened by CA's decision to support Proposition Eight, but in reality, marriage is an institution that in itself needs to be reevaluated and deconstructed as part of the oppressive structure in which we as human beings try to live. I am not suggesting free love or polygamy- so spare me your disgust- I am simply reiterating that many heterosexuals as well as GLBT individuals reject marriage because of what it has done in terms of socialization for patriarchy, hierarchy and class struggles. The government has no right to demean one sect of people for another, but on the larger scale, we as the people need to stand up and look at our traditions- fix internally before regulating externally.
I have to agree that this post comes off not as a well thought out argument, but as an opinionated rant. The idea that we must not get "caught up in patting ourselves on the back over electing (Obama)" implies that his only opposition were a group of racist rednecks, and is incredibly offensive to people who opposed President-elect Obama based on his (inadequate and ill-thought out) stances on the economy, foreign policy, etc. While the election of an African-American president is historic, this has nothing to do with Prop 8. I suggest you do some research into the two former candidates stances on gay marriage; McCain opposed it on cultural grounds, while Obama, who has waffled, has expressed his opposition on religious grounds; is he not one of your "fear mongers"? Further, I cannot see how you can claim you are not making an argument in favor of gay marriage when you use buzzwords like "equality" and "tolerance" when describing one side and "fear mongers", and "scare tactics" on the other- I completely agree with Jonny that there is a serious discussion to be had here, especially what right government has, where we come up with the defintion of marriage, etc. Indeed, some of the religious right can be engaged in nothing but divisive rhetoric, but as Jonny stated, many draw on civil norms. I agree that many may be weary of the extreme religious right,but simply saying the other side are a bunch of name callers and then calling them names does not do much to advance a cause.
While the original post was poorly structured, I commend the commentors above me for their thought out responses. I think each brings up good points on a very polarizing issues.
I like how jonny has pointed out that there are 'reasons, both religion and civil, to ban gay marriage' this is true and I think if the secular reasons were being used to gain support for the ban, the conversation would be very different. Instead, Amendment 8 supporters (many of who would fall under the 'religious right' label) use the religious arguments much more frequently to support their position.
This is unfortunate because many people are uncomfotable with the government dictating morality. Making gay marriage illegal because it is 'immoral' means that the government has chosen a version of morality with roots in a specific religion. Taking all the religions of the world, there is no universal morals, so any government edict invoking morals is preferencing someone's religious views.
That said, there is no reason why an ammendment banning gay marriage can't pass on secular grounds. If the people of an area don't want it and the government is allowing a vote because of secular reasons, then the citizens have a right to vote on such a measure and determine if the secular reasoning is legitimate or not.
One correction on Drew's post: Obama said he is personnally against gay marriage because of religious reasons BUT politically he feels that it is not the state's place to deny people marriage. There is nothing wrong with a politician keeping his personal religious feelings separate from what he thinks should happen politically. It would be nice if more politicians did that.
I'd like to expand on the last thought that KB had. The opinion on how to convey religious beliefs into public policy action is directly examined in "One Electoral Under God." The first opinion is that of a Catholic Congressmen who would side with Obama's argument here. I myself am a Catholic Democrat and find my views falling under this column as well. Although religiously I do not believe in abortion, I am very pro-choice because who am I to decide on a moral issue for my fellow citizens? Congressmen Souder, on the other hand, articulates how religious influnece in policy deciison is absolutely necessary: To ask me to check my Christian beliefs at the public door is to ask me to expel the Holy Spirit from my life when I serve as a Congressmen, and that I will not do. Either I am a Christian or I am not. Either I reflect his Glory, or I do not." While this would not necessarily be my policy if I were an elected official, and KB would think this stance as less than ideal or fair, his perspective does have a lot of validity. Religion shapes individual's moral compasses and their world viewpoints. Religion can be deeply imbedded in the personalities of man, and are therefore can be a large part of an individual. We as a society elect these men into office, and if religion is a big part of them, we elect that influence as well.
Although I agree that the post could have been written differently, it important to look at the underlying argument. On a night when the country elected a black President it also took away the right of marriage from Americans in three states. Years ago, interracial marriage was considered by some to be immoral in the same way some people now consider gay marriage to be immoral. The law and the majority of Americans now believe that opposition to interracial marriage was a mistake. Many of us are horrified that previous generations of Americans were so intolerant. It is disheartening to realize that future generations of Americans may very well feel the same way about the opposition to gay marriage. America had a chance for a truly historic night, and yet the night now seems somewhat bittersweet.
Post a Comment