A Little Dialogue About Obama, Rick Warren, and Gay Marriage
Dear Bart,
I know you’re busy doing the good work that you do, and i know you must constantly strike the balance between challenging the de facto beliefs of moderate/conservative Christians that make up your sphere of influence while also not alienating them, but I think you need to re-inject gay marriage into the mix.
I might be acting like a reactionary liberal right now, but Obama inviting Rick Warren to do the invocation at his inauguration worries me a good bit. With Warren’s role in helping to pass Prop 8 in California, he continues to seem as a wolf in sheep’s clothing to me (distancing himself in tone from the Dobsons of the world, but not critically engaging these hot button issues in any kind of different way). You probably know more about him than I do, so you can tell me if I’m wrong. I know its tricky to inject these highly charged issues back into your blog and circle of influence, but I think you must. You exert a substantial influence on a wide range of seeking, coming-of-age Christians (in both the spiritual and actual sense)..
I really feel like those of us who are straight Christians have a responsibility to advocate hard (but compassionately) for our gay brothers and sisters–particularly our gay Christian brothers, who are marginalized in a very difficult and distinct way by their own group. This is all off-the-cuff. I just thought of you, and wanted to convey my immediate thoughts, as I continue to figure out how best to fight the good fight. You are one of the only straight allies I know in the Christian community.
Ryan
Ryan,
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
I agree, the Warren invitation is really disappointing…but then again, as Obama chooses his administration, I see him positioning himself to be effective, rather than ideologically pure. I think he may be confident that he can drive his own agenda, and drag his competent cabinet along, rather than needing to surround himself with yes-men. With Warren, I think Obama is going the other way from Clinton’s out-of-the-gate gays in the military debacle, whereby Clinton immediately alienated a bunch of people he needed to bring into the fold by slapping them in the face with his power to overrule them. In this case, he is offering an olive branch to the conservative Christians…though I don’t think for a minute that Warren is really the pastor he is going to listen to on policy matters.
By the way, I think the government shouldn’t sanction gay marriages at all…or straight marriages either. We sure don’t have government sanctioned baptisms, and rightly so. Baptism and marriage are religious ideas. All couples should be able to get the same legal rights under government recognized civil unions, and then religious folks (gay or straight) should be married in their places of worship.
What to do about the Warren invitation? I don’t know. Mainly, what I’m doing is hoping it doesn’t mean very much.
Gotta zoom,
Bart
That’s so bizarre. You’re aware that your position is the same as Rick Warren’s, right? What exactly is is that you’re criticizing him for?
Prop 8 didn’t damage (in any way) civil unions, which same-sex couples in California could already have. So why, exactly, does his invocation disappoint you?
Comment by Micah — December 19, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Bart, to your point about government not sanctioning marriage, I agree with you in theory–marriage is a sacrament and should be viewed only in that light; if only it were so. Unfortunately, there are subtle but serious distinctions between even civil unions and marriage as applied by our federal and state governments, most notably tax-break benefits and access to care and making medical decisions on behalf of your spouse (right now monogamous gay couples do not have the same hospital visitation rights or power of attorney priveledges outside of civil union states; if you have a life threatening accident out of state, your civil union rights can be denied). If you are serious about downgrading the government’s marriage laws to civil unions for everyone, I’d be all for it. Except that its not politically feasable, given the tax breaks and legal benefits married heterosexual couples already enjoy and take for granted as rights. I’m sure certain people would be willing to make that sacrifice, but the vast majority would not. It is always easier to take our own rights for granted at the expense of someone else’s.
As for Rick Warren, I’m softening to the idea, b/c I see it as less of an endorsement and more of a unifying action. But let’s keep in mind that Warren equated gay relationships to child molestation and polygamy. Those are not the statements of a man who has sat with his gay friends as they recount painful thoughts of having wanted to kill themselves for shame of who they are.
Comment by Ryan — December 19, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
There are two separate and distinct issues at play in this dialogue. I would like to address both independently and invite dialogue on my thoughts.
The first issue here is gay marriage. As an attorney who practices (in part) in the arena of family law and has previously worked in estate planning, allow me to offer a mere legal perspective on the issue of gay marriage. Unlike the other Christian sacraments, marriage is the only sacrament that has a parallel legal institution, as noted above by Bart. We do not legalize baptisms, reconciliations, etc. So why marriage? Civil marriage, as technically defined, is a series of legal rights and responsibilities accorded to two people who wish to solemnize their relationship. The tradition of civil marriage, historically, is a by-product of religious marriages. In more traditional cultures and times past, marriage under a religious set of rites afforded certain common understandings upon the relationship that was created by the rites. These rights were very different than what we know today. Men were given exclusive rights to women and their property. In some cultures, by marrying a woman, a man was permitted to sleep with her sisters, were they not also married. The evolution of these “civil” rights came as a product of common sense and common need. When a woman, who usually tended to the home and children, died, the man often needed another female to assist in the care of his home. Sometimes he needed access to property to provide for himself where his wife once had. When a man died, women were routinely returned to their parents or, in some cases, married off to the brothers of their deceased spouse.
Today, the civil institution of marriage reflects centuries of evolving principles. Civil marriage has even stepped into the realm of the religious: most states have a “solemnization” requirement for a marriage to be legal. One way to fulfill this requirement is to undertake the religious rites offered by the appropriate leader of a religious community.
The State has an interest in supporting the institution of marriage - stronger marriages mean stronger families, stronger economies and often streamline government services. Everything from joint tax returns to family health care plans enables the government (and some private entities) to operate at lower cost and more efficiently.
The issue of gay marriage, I believe, is largely a misunderstanding of the history and present differences between religious and civil marriages. A religious marriage involves the rites of a church, the rules of a religion and the obligations, beliefs and structure that comes with pursuing a matrimony founded in faith.
Comment by John — December 19, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
A civil marriage is one that seeks to have the legal protections the State provides afforded to a couple committed to living their life together.
Consider two people seeking a civil marriage without considering their genders for one moment: If they are choosing a life of commitment, they will (most likely) choose cohabitation, they may choose to raise children together (whether they are naturally born, scientifically born or adopted), they will rely on one another financially, they will take care of each other and they will (in many cases) form bonds with the same family and friends, merging their lives.
Imagine the hassle these people would face if they were unable to visit one another when one was sick in the hospital, if they could not reap the tax benefits that are statutorily provided to people who are married, if only one parent had the right to call a teacher at school or check on a child who is rushed to a hospital, if they died suddenly or without a will (which is roughly 60% of the population, fyi) and everything they owned was returned to their parents, siblings or kin but not the one they love the most or they can not share health care benefits.
These are the civil benefits that flow from civil marriage. Many people who oppose gay marriage get to this point and then respond with: “Okay, we get it, so settle on civil unions.”
People who propose civil unions in lieu of marriage do not understand the important and legally significant distinction between the two. Allow me to explain:
In law, words have very specific meaning. In Massachusetts, where I am licensed, for example, the difference between the word “disabled” and “handicapped” proved to be the difference between providing rights to severely disabled people earlier this decade. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the protected class of persons who have rights under that law are referred to as “disabled” persons. A Massachusetts State law similar to the ADA but older than it protected “handicapped” people. The Massachusetts version provided additional rights that the Federal ADA did not provide to disabled people.
Comment by John — December 19, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
The ADA struck down any law “inconsistent with the provisions of the ADA as enumerated herein” (not a direct quote actually). A disabled person sued for violation of his housing rights under the Massachusetts Law. The Defendant argued that the Massachusetts law was revoked by the ADA. The Court disagreed and found that terms “handicapped” and “disabled” were different and had different definitions under the law. Thus, to date, Massachusetts is one of the only, if not the only, state that has additional protections for handicapped people beyond the ADA. All because two words that mean the same thing to common people were found to be wholly different.
The same is true for the terms “Marriage” and “Civil Union”. Let’s say we create a wholly equal system of civil unions. The systems at the time of signing into law are so perfectly matched that they are word for word the exact reflection of one another.
The problem begins the next minute. Anytime a legislature amends a law or a term, they are not affecting both groups of law. Anytime a court hears a matter of law pertaining to one or the other their decision will only impact one but not the other. Suppose someone with a civil union finds a legal basis for declaring some form of taxation illegal as it relates to people with these types of civil marriage rights. If the court agrees, they cannot extend, by law, their ruling to marriages because marriages were not at issue before the court. Thus, people with civil unions would get the benefit of the ruling and people with marriages would have to file their own lawsuit. In an effort to keep them equal going forward there would be twice as much litigation and twice as much work in the legislature.
Not only that, but nothing keeps people with bias or prejudice from later making restrictions on “civil unions”. If both are called marriage, any type of discriminatory action would be kept in check because adverse results would affects gays and straights alike.
People need to understand that civil marriage is two things: (a) only a civil right and not an extension beyond civil law or an impediment or obligation for the religious community; and (b) it must be called marriage to ensure that we do not create disparate systems that are prone to prejudice going forward.
Comment by John — December 19, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
The second issue that I want to address is Rick Warren. I do not share the beliefs of Mr. Warren, much like Ryan and Bart, on certain issues of morality like gay marriage.
However, as a moderate-left leaning individual, I believe the left has a lesson to learn that we already know the right has failed to learn.
Divisive politics solve nothing. For 8 years we suffered under a party that dusted off wedge issues every 2 years for elections and scared people by making them think people were going to come in the middle of the night, kidnap their children and turn them gay or force their children to have abortions.
The truth is, no such boogie men exist and America has finally woken up and shown that they realize that. They have also realized that while we allowed ourselves to be blinded by these red herrings, our economy and global security crumbled all around us.
Americans need to come back to Jesus, literally and figuratively. We are consumed with individualism and the “us/them” mentality. When was the last time we were all just “Americans”? Was it 9/11/01? Its a good guess.
The point is, liberal-leaning America should not attempt to change America back to its former self overnight. We are not going to convince over half the country that gay civil marriage is the right MORAL thing to do by tomorrow (which I believe it is).
We need to do what the religious right has not done - invite them to dialogue. For those who want gay marriage to take place, they need to realize that they have to do some work. They need to educate people on the important differences that exist. They need to show people that by allowing gays to marry, they actually make the system better for all (less individual claims, less people needing public benefits, more people with access to legal rights and protections meaning less litigation and lower insurance costs overall).
Rick Warren is not a model of the preacher I would listen to on a weekly basis but he offers something important: different perspective. If we listen to him maybe we’ll finally understand what needs to be discussed. And at a time when they can’t just shut us up and do what they want, maybe we’ll get a few people to listen. I’m sure some conservatives will look at Obama’s choice as a political stunt but I’m sure there are some people who raised a curious eyebrow at the news.
Don’t use this time to shove our agendas down people’s throats. Use it to show people that we are warm, welcoming, diverse and accepting. People cannot resist the allure of love and kindness. If what you offer comes from a place of love and compassion, people will listen. They might not agree today or tomorrow, but they will understand you better.
And that, I believe, is half the battle.
I think I’ve said enough.
Comment by John — December 19, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Max Blumenthal on “Rick Warren’s Double Life” - you can find this interview transcript or listen on today’s posting for December 23, 2008 at www.democracynow.org
A rounded source which raises questions and provides additional outlets for more background on Mr. Warren. May we visibly witness for Christ and not for the wolves in shepard’s clothing.
Peace,
Comment by Sandy — December 23, 2008 @ 11:27 am
This blog was very informative and supportive to us. Related to the IT field this article amazing.
Comment by hospice california — February 8, 2010 @ 2:16 am