If Proposition 8 on the California General Election ballot passes, the California Constitution will be amended to its former state, eliminating the right to same-sex marriages. Barack Obama has taken a stance against Prop 8, encouraging his supporters to vote "no" on November 4.
While this Democratic support appears promising, Patrick Healey demonstrates how Obama supporters could in fact cause the proposition to pass. His argument lies in the "socially conservative blacks and Hispanics [who support Obama...] but oppose same-sex marriage." Simply, greater Obama-voter turnout is unlikely to translate favorably for the opponents of Prop 8, who had been otherwise eager for Obama’s endorsement.
The Obama-voters of California are likely confused by his position, they may even feel like he is contradicting himself. After all, Obama IS opposed to same-sex marriage, but he stands against an amendment that would ban such marriages? It is easy to miss, but Healey clarifies “Mr. Obama opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory.” Drawing on his own parents’ biracial marriage, which was illegal in many southern states, he speaks to the same-sex marriage debate in legal terms.
What can be said for Obama’s legal defense, when he has cited religion as the root of his opposition? Unlike McCain, who draws on cultural norms to explain his own opposition, Obama wavers in conviction, is it church or state? He expresses his distress in The Audacity of Hope when he says “no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”
Truth behold, his judgment is loaded; it may in fact be more offensive to use God as his witness.
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A New "Religious" strategy?
Last year, the Connecticut legislature debated whether to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for opponents of the bill, the Connecticut Supreme Court made the decision first: same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
According to a NYT article, dissenters of the Court decision have conveyed their concern by invoking biology as the rationale behind the threat that same-sex marriage poses on society. Justice Peter T. Zarella explains in his dissenting opinion:
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
Christians like Patricia and Wesley Galloway also hold this perspective. According to them, using religion to defend their view of marriage complicates matters. Instead, they invoke biology to advocate their views that “it takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”
Although Christians like the Galloways and Justice Zarella cite nature, not religion or morality, as the source of authority to “protect the foundation of society” from same-sex marriage, the strategy of the Religious Right seems to be at the center of their campaign. In order to discuss this further, a brief history of the Religious Right is necessary.
The 1970s saw the rise of the Moral Majority in politics and with it the growth of the Religious Right. The formation of advantageous political alliances with Catholics and the framing of controversial issues in terms that would appeal to a broad cross-section of potential voters made the Religious Right influential and effective. Religious conservatives like Jerry Falwell were quick to “transform biblical issues into ‘pro-moral’ or ‘pro-family’ issues” (Dowland, 34). By extension, threats were conceptualized as anti-moral and anti-family issues. For instance, homosexuality was seen as a “threat to families” and a “sign of America’s downfall”(Dowland, 32). By de-emphasizing Christian rationale and by focusing on the family, the Religious Right was politically successful because they appealed to a broader audience beyond religious conservatives.
In the above-mentioned New York Times article, a subset of conservatives and the religious is using “family values” rhetoric but this time under the banner of nature. These conservatives still argue that they are trying to “protect the foundation of society,” but now they are vocalizing a secular source of authority. Previously, when confronting a diverse audience, religious conservatives were relatively silent about the Bible’s authority on controversial issues. Now, they seem to flaunt the undeniable scientific principles of human reproduction to advocate their views. Moreover, these conservatives are more than happy to explain their reasoning by pointing out sociological studies that support their perspective. This is in direct contrast to the religious conservatives of the 1970s who used misleading logic to promote the idea that homosexuals had a propensity for pedophilia and for child abuse.
By using nature as their source of authority and “family values” as their rhetoric, are these conservatives “piggy-backing” on Religious Right strategy? And if so, would this new strategy renew and broaden their base to include individuals who may not be religious? Or would this strategy “backfire” because of the growing evidence that the quality of parenting is far more important than the gender of the parents?
According to Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, only a “renewed energy” in the fight against gay marriage can help push for constitutional amendments. Could this new strategy be it?
According to a NYT article, dissenters of the Court decision have conveyed their concern by invoking biology as the rationale behind the threat that same-sex marriage poses on society. Justice Peter T. Zarella explains in his dissenting opinion:
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
Christians like Patricia and Wesley Galloway also hold this perspective. According to them, using religion to defend their view of marriage complicates matters. Instead, they invoke biology to advocate their views that “it takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”
Although Christians like the Galloways and Justice Zarella cite nature, not religion or morality, as the source of authority to “protect the foundation of society” from same-sex marriage, the strategy of the Religious Right seems to be at the center of their campaign. In order to discuss this further, a brief history of the Religious Right is necessary.
The 1970s saw the rise of the Moral Majority in politics and with it the growth of the Religious Right. The formation of advantageous political alliances with Catholics and the framing of controversial issues in terms that would appeal to a broad cross-section of potential voters made the Religious Right influential and effective. Religious conservatives like Jerry Falwell were quick to “transform biblical issues into ‘pro-moral’ or ‘pro-family’ issues” (Dowland, 34). By extension, threats were conceptualized as anti-moral and anti-family issues. For instance, homosexuality was seen as a “threat to families” and a “sign of America’s downfall”(Dowland, 32). By de-emphasizing Christian rationale and by focusing on the family, the Religious Right was politically successful because they appealed to a broader audience beyond religious conservatives.
In the above-mentioned New York Times article, a subset of conservatives and the religious is using “family values” rhetoric but this time under the banner of nature. These conservatives still argue that they are trying to “protect the foundation of society,” but now they are vocalizing a secular source of authority. Previously, when confronting a diverse audience, religious conservatives were relatively silent about the Bible’s authority on controversial issues. Now, they seem to flaunt the undeniable scientific principles of human reproduction to advocate their views. Moreover, these conservatives are more than happy to explain their reasoning by pointing out sociological studies that support their perspective. This is in direct contrast to the religious conservatives of the 1970s who used misleading logic to promote the idea that homosexuals had a propensity for pedophilia and for child abuse.
By using nature as their source of authority and “family values” as their rhetoric, are these conservatives “piggy-backing” on Religious Right strategy? And if so, would this new strategy renew and broaden their base to include individuals who may not be religious? Or would this strategy “backfire” because of the growing evidence that the quality of parenting is far more important than the gender of the parents?
According to Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, only a “renewed energy” in the fight against gay marriage can help push for constitutional amendments. Could this new strategy be it?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Labeling the Other Side
Proposition 8 is a ballot proposition in California to ban gay marriage in response to a California Supreme Court ruling legalizing it. Not surprisingly the vote is a hot topic in the newspaper opinion section. In Al Martinez’s LA Times editorial, God, Gay Marriage and One Unhappy Man, he argues for gay marriage and against the proposition. In order to prove that he is right he comically uses an example of a man whom he depicts as behind the times. According to Martinez, Harvey is not happy about anything. He hates gay people, believes in Creationism, and is only useful to Martinez as a way of keeping in touch with “the blurry thinking of the religious right.” By taking this approach Martinez loses any chance he had of appealing to those who disagree with him and he is not impressive to those who agree with him either.
In some sense, Martinez is taking the viewpoint opposite of Jerry Falwell’s. Falwell argued that homosexuality, feminism, and abortion were ruining America. According to him, we needed to deal with these problems or we faced certain failure as a nation. All Martinez is basically saying is that the people who agree with Falwell, even only to some extent, are the ones really ruining America. Martinez ends the article by saying he want to “see how [Harvey] feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.” As someone who is pro-gay marriage I have always laughed when someone claims that gay marriage will lead to bestiality or something of the sort. But, by implying that all Creationists and anti-gay marriage people are too stupid to procreate Martinez is making an argument that is just as offensive and unproductive to a logical discussion about the issue.
When we look back through American history it quickly becomes apparent that our greatest heroes are those who could articulate their opinions in a way that did not create and us against them argument. Martin Luther King is a great example. Obviously, in many ways he was fighting an us against them battle, but he did so without making dishonest and unwarranted claims about his opposition. Instead, he appealed to a sense of justice that he saw at the heart of American ideals.
In the debate on gay marriage we have a long way to go in understanding where people on both sides of the argument come from. Columnists like Martinez only hurt the chances of this happening by mocking and labeling the opposition. And, in an increasingly polarized America it seems unlikely that these types of columns will stop anytime soon. The political world seems to do nothing to ease this polarization. Is this another issue that religion will have to somehow come to terms with if America is to move past the current us against them debate?
In some sense, Martinez is taking the viewpoint opposite of Jerry Falwell’s. Falwell argued that homosexuality, feminism, and abortion were ruining America. According to him, we needed to deal with these problems or we faced certain failure as a nation. All Martinez is basically saying is that the people who agree with Falwell, even only to some extent, are the ones really ruining America. Martinez ends the article by saying he want to “see how [Harvey] feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.” As someone who is pro-gay marriage I have always laughed when someone claims that gay marriage will lead to bestiality or something of the sort. But, by implying that all Creationists and anti-gay marriage people are too stupid to procreate Martinez is making an argument that is just as offensive and unproductive to a logical discussion about the issue.
When we look back through American history it quickly becomes apparent that our greatest heroes are those who could articulate their opinions in a way that did not create and us against them argument. Martin Luther King is a great example. Obviously, in many ways he was fighting an us against them battle, but he did so without making dishonest and unwarranted claims about his opposition. Instead, he appealed to a sense of justice that he saw at the heart of American ideals.
In the debate on gay marriage we have a long way to go in understanding where people on both sides of the argument come from. Columnists like Martinez only hurt the chances of this happening by mocking and labeling the opposition. And, in an increasingly polarized America it seems unlikely that these types of columns will stop anytime soon. The political world seems to do nothing to ease this polarization. Is this another issue that religion will have to somehow come to terms with if America is to move past the current us against them debate?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Marriage for Logistical Purposes
The controversy over the legalization of gay marriage is not new in this country, but has been receiving a lot of press lately because of California’s Proposition 8, which will ban gay marriage in the state if passed on November 4th. Gay marriage is currently legal based on a California Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. The religious right and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority have been fighting against gay marriage for decades and primarily use the Bible to support their campaign. Some Christians view homosexuality and homosexual relationships as sins, and these people believe that if gay marriage is legalized, this country will fall into a state of moral decline. The desire to maintain the sanctity of marriage and promote “family values” also motivates the fight against gay marriage. These ideas cropped up in the 1970s and continue to influence the culture today. While these views can be extreme, many Americans hold beliefs similar to these, which is why gay marriage is currently legal in only a few states.
Rick Jacobs highlights a couple of very important but often-neglected areas of the debate in his article “Do Mormons deserve equal protection under the law?” He describes his lifelong struggles with his sexual orientation in the context of the Jewish religion and the final acceptance that “some people’s religions tell me I am not welcome. It’s okay. That’s their choice.”
Jacobs desire to keep gay marriage legal in California comes not from a religious standpoint, but a legal one. He explicitly states, “If I do (get married), it’ll be for business reasons.” He does not want to get married in any of the churches that oppose gay marriage; he just wants his partnership to have the same protection under the law as a heterosexual couple. Because of complications like property ownership and health care, marriage is not simply a religious institution; the state has to get involved as well. I doubt this debate would exist if marriage was contained to just one entity – church or state. Unfortunately, that is not currently an option.
This leaves us with huge unresolved questions. What happens when religious rights also have legal implications? How can we more fully separate church and state, specifically in terms of gay marriage, while keeping all parties involved relatively satisfied? Jacobs is arguing that his rights be protected under the law just like the rights of religious groups are protected under the first amendment. Throughout history, the government has tended to side with the most vocal majority. November 4th will be an important day to let Californians decide and to see where a least a section of America stands on this issue.
Rick Jacobs highlights a couple of very important but often-neglected areas of the debate in his article “Do Mormons deserve equal protection under the law?” He describes his lifelong struggles with his sexual orientation in the context of the Jewish religion and the final acceptance that “some people’s religions tell me I am not welcome. It’s okay. That’s their choice.”
Jacobs desire to keep gay marriage legal in California comes not from a religious standpoint, but a legal one. He explicitly states, “If I do (get married), it’ll be for business reasons.” He does not want to get married in any of the churches that oppose gay marriage; he just wants his partnership to have the same protection under the law as a heterosexual couple. Because of complications like property ownership and health care, marriage is not simply a religious institution; the state has to get involved as well. I doubt this debate would exist if marriage was contained to just one entity – church or state. Unfortunately, that is not currently an option.
This leaves us with huge unresolved questions. What happens when religious rights also have legal implications? How can we more fully separate church and state, specifically in terms of gay marriage, while keeping all parties involved relatively satisfied? Jacobs is arguing that his rights be protected under the law just like the rights of religious groups are protected under the first amendment. Throughout history, the government has tended to side with the most vocal majority. November 4th will be an important day to let Californians decide and to see where a least a section of America stands on this issue.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Same Sex Marriage and the Establishment Clause
On the 2008 California General Election ballot voters will be deciding yes or no on Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure that will take away the right for same sex couples to be married legally in the state of California, one of only three states to recognize same sex marriage. The initiative will appear on the general election ballot even though the California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. But my question is this: Does not recognizing same sex marriage under the law show a preference for religions that also reject the concept of same sex marriage? If it is preferencing some religions over others, then isn’t the government violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
The institution of marriage is a religion one that has been accepted by the federal government for legal purposes such as filing taxes and insurance benefits. Marriage as a legal institution has long been tradition in the United States but is now out of date and out of touch. Marriage needs to be taken out of legal context and left up to religions to decide whether or not they want to recognize same sex marriage. In the eyes of the federal government we should all be entering into civil unions, same sex couples and heterosexual couples alike. Then if respective religions want to further recognize the unions as marriage that’s up to them, not the government.
Many employers and insurance companies already recognize same sex couples as partners and therefore cover them under their benefits packages. But there is no legal binding for the insurers; these couples are at the mercy of the companies. Employers and insurance companies alike can arbitrarily decide to stop covering same sex couples when it is no longer convenient for them.
There needs to be a fundamental alteration of the division between marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense. The government entanglement with religion preferences those religions that believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman. An alteration of marriage in the legal world would include the provision of marriage defined as one between two consenting adults. The need for a bride and groom is best saved for the alter, rather than the legal world.
So by removing marriage from civil union law and instituting a policy of civil unions where the government is concerned would allow for equal protection and application of the laws for everyone. This change would also ensure the unnecessary entanglement of church and state a final end. The interest of the protection of all is an enough compelling federal interest than a single religious or state conviction.
The article can be found here: http://media.www.thepinelog.com/media/storage/paper954/news/2008/10/13/Opinion/SameSex.Couples.Face.Civil.Rights.Struggles-3483011.shtml
The institution of marriage is a religion one that has been accepted by the federal government for legal purposes such as filing taxes and insurance benefits. Marriage as a legal institution has long been tradition in the United States but is now out of date and out of touch. Marriage needs to be taken out of legal context and left up to religions to decide whether or not they want to recognize same sex marriage. In the eyes of the federal government we should all be entering into civil unions, same sex couples and heterosexual couples alike. Then if respective religions want to further recognize the unions as marriage that’s up to them, not the government.
Many employers and insurance companies already recognize same sex couples as partners and therefore cover them under their benefits packages. But there is no legal binding for the insurers; these couples are at the mercy of the companies. Employers and insurance companies alike can arbitrarily decide to stop covering same sex couples when it is no longer convenient for them.
There needs to be a fundamental alteration of the division between marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense. The government entanglement with religion preferences those religions that believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman. An alteration of marriage in the legal world would include the provision of marriage defined as one between two consenting adults. The need for a bride and groom is best saved for the alter, rather than the legal world.
So by removing marriage from civil union law and instituting a policy of civil unions where the government is concerned would allow for equal protection and application of the laws for everyone. This change would also ensure the unnecessary entanglement of church and state a final end. The interest of the protection of all is an enough compelling federal interest than a single religious or state conviction.
The article can be found here: http://media.www.thepinelog.com/media/storage/paper954/news/2008/10/13/Opinion/SameSex.Couples.Face.Civil.Rights.Struggles-3483011.shtml
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Welcome!
Welcome to our blog, and to what three collaborating professors hope will be a stimulating expansion of our campuses this fall.
There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.
This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.
There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.
This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
