Blockbuster Democracy - logo
 

Making Same-Sex Marriage Not About Same-Sex Marriage

Joe Mathews - 
October 21, 2008 - 5:27pm

This story from today's Sacramento Bee shows the success that Prop 8 and its campaign consultant, Frank Schubert have had in reframing the question posed by the initiative to ban same-sex marriage. One would think the central question of a campaign to ban such marriages would be the simple one of whether such couples deserve the legal recognition of marriage. But in California, that question seems to be a political loser for those who support the ban. So, faced with a political problem, opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to expand the question by asking what legal same-sex marriage might mean for other parts of society.

So far, they've focused on children, and have created a debate over whether legal same-sex marriage would require young children to be taught about gay couples. This seems like something of a false debate. There's nothing in the state-approved curriculum that would require this, but the Prop 8 campaign is pointing to examples of books friendly to same-sex marriage making their way into classrooms in Massachusetts. The Yes on 8 campaign also has raised the issue of the impact of legal same-sex marriage on institutions affiliated with religions that teach that such marriages are either not valid or sinful. Here, the same-sex marriage opponents are on firmer ground. There are religious objections to same-sex marriage that will have to be litigated. And there is a strong moral question here that supporters of same-sex marriage, like myself, need to find a serious and honest answer to. Is there any way to accomodate those with religious objections to same-sex marriage?

For many same-sex marriage supporters, the answer is simply no. The human rights of the couples trump any religious objections. But I would suggest that my fellow same-sex marriage supporters think again, and think in particular about the similarity of the argument for same-sex marriage and the argument for religious freedom. The argument for same-sex marriage is a strong one: that adults should be able to choose the life they want and that the pursuit of happiness requires people to be able to marry the person they choose (and to receive respect for that choice). Such choices are so deep and personal that the state shouldn't interfere. All true, but it is an irony of the same-sex marriage debate that the argument for religious freedom is a close cousin of that same argument. The pursuit of happiness also requires people to worship and receive respect for that choice. Beliefs about marriage are central to almost all faiths. The arguments for same-sex marriage -- and for religious freedom -- revolve around freedom of belief, privacy, and the freedom to pursue happiness as one sees fit.

Some Important institutions in our society -- hospitals, schools, camps, etc. -- are affiliated with religions that, as a matter of faith, do not accept same-sex marriage. Assuming that same-sex marriage remains legal in California (as I expect it to be in the long-term, even if Prop 8 wins and same-sex marriage suffers a setback), I think there's a need for discussion, respect for the views of both side, and some new thinking on how to accomodate both same-sex couples and religious institutions. There must be ways for the law to permit religious freedom and to respect same-sex married couples. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
Tags:

Comments

People of Faith for same-sex marriage

Submitted by Rev. Terri Echelbarger (not verified) on October 22, 2008 - 4:00pm.

There are people and institutions of faith that have recognized gay and lesbian marriages (with no legal rights, of course) for quite some time. To make these unions 'illegal' again removes our religious freedom to have our rites of marriage equally recognized by the state.

In any event, it wasn't that long ago that the courts ruled that the Boy Scouts, as a private institution,could discriminate. Mormans do not need to marry Catholics in the temple, Catholics do not need to 'marry' anyone from another denomination or do mixed faith cermemonies (they do not). In short, Churches can refuse service to anyone and not lose their tax-exempt status.

The real issue is that some religious institutions receive state and federal funds to conduct programs or inititives on behalf of the state, should they be allowed to discriminate? I would answer no. It is improper to use Federal or state tax money to discriminate against anyone.

Speaking only for myself and not for the whole of my denomination.

Same sex marriage

Submitted by fern (not verified) on October 23, 2008 - 4:33pm.

Being Belgian I don't really care whether the Ayes or Nays have it, I also know that SSM will be accepted in the future as it already is in many countries in Europe, in Belgium the only ones against it were the churches, no one else seems to be bothered. Where I'm really shocked is with the vasts amounts of money being wasted by the pro 8 people especially churches when you have so many homeless people I can't help but make a comparison with another great American program which I call "billions for the banks pennies for the schools". Once I thought America was an example to the world but I'm not so sure now.

In Hopes of Getting the Discussion Going...

Submitted by Joe Mathews on October 24, 2008 - 12:09pm.

I appreciate the support of people of faith for same-sex marriage. The United Church of Christ, my family's denomination, believes very strongly in same-sex marriage. However, many faiths do not, and I respect their right to hold those views. The question I'm posing is a practical one. How, in a state with same-sex marriage, do we enforce the rights of all married couples while respecting the freedom of churches and, perhaps most important at all, religious institutions? (Yes, I wish all religious leaders would be persuaded that same-sex marriage is right, but we're not there, and it may be quite some time before we get there).

This is a tricky area. In this decade, we've seen debate about whether religious institutions that accept government funds can discriminate on the basis of religion. The consensus has been that they can't--at least in their programs that benefit from the government funds. I think that's a line that should apply to same-sex marriage.

But what if a Catholic school refuses to accept the child of a same-sex married couple? Is that out of bounds? To me, it would be, if the child meets admissions requirements and is a member of his parish church. But how should the school list in the parents in school programs? The parents' legal rights must be respected and honored by the school, but does the school have to recognize their marriage in its community life? The school might be wise to do so, but I believe the school would be within its rights to refuse. I'm not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer. I'd love to hear from lawyers and others on this  subject. Gay marriage supporters may balk, but there's a huge advantage to them in making accomodations for religious institutions.

Done right, such accomodations would rob opponents of same-sex marriage of their best argument: that such marriages could infringe on their religious freedom. And I'm willing to bet that showing great respect for the diverse religious traditions on same-sex marriage will persuade more people to support legal recognition of such unions. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/