Today my mailbox had for me on the front page of the California Bar Journal the headliner "Same-sex mariage takes center stage again in California Supreme Court term." It was big news in Washington also recently when the gay paper "The Blade" featured a picture of the Washington, DC Archbishop and an article on how he is chiming in with Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Church in suburban DC while they try to get a referendum to demonstrate that the popular will in DC is against the current gay permissive law (a few DC City counselfolk are openly gay and DC is very gay-friendly as any stroll around Dupont Circle any day of the week will demonstrate.) There is no doubt where the Catholic doctrine stands on the issue. (somewhere between the salt column called the Wife of Lot and Soddom that you don't even want to gaze upon) The issue has split the Episcopalians and Presbyterians down the middle with schisms and heated finger pointing and a bit of land dividing litigation over churches splitting to form new congregations after some dare to ordain openly gay people. Whose church is it anyway? Who pays the mortgage and the light bills? These issues raise a lot of interesting questions regarding who owns the church? "God" doesn't seem to appear on the deed or title insurance.
Gayness is, it appears, a la mode cool these days with fun likeable attractive personalities like Rachel Maddow, Ellen and the Fab Four (or whatever those designing designers were called). TV shows now feature openly gay couples or stars- starting with the hip Will and Grace. The coolest celebs seem to "love their gays" like the pretend D lister (really an A lister) Kathy Griffith, Christine Aguilera and long before that Patty LaBelle. Madonna kisses Britney and it's instant fettish fascination and a media frenzy sensation, and the movie about a couple of gay cowboys almost took the Oscar. The poor girl Miss California voices an opinion and it becomes a You-Tube media sensation over her "traditional marriage" defense and breach of contract litigation when they cut her loose.
What is it now with the gayness cool craze?
Culturally there has been a "shift" of titonic proportion from the "Father Knows Best" "Leave it to Beaver" days. I actually remember when these shows were on TV.
The very idea of gayness in action used to evoke in the cultural consciousness a more or less universal "yeeiiick yuuck" factor unless you were gay. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I don't want to know and don't make me find out. This was the common visceral hide your eyes response. Now gay people actually marrying other gay people has become strangely the defining culture war line in the sand right next to abortion. To some, the coming out of the closet and into the wedding tuxedo (female size 8) is a sign that we as a country have finally come into the constitutional promise of full equality of citizenship for every citizen. Not long ago I got a blog comment from someone declaring that he as a gay person felt so deprived of the rights of citizenship by not being allowed to marry whomever he wanted of the same gender that he wasn't going to pay taxes until they changed the law so he could marry his manfriend.
The conservative blogs (self annointed or paid morality police) are all aflutter about the moral depravity of it all in the same usual off-putting harsh judgmental language condemning anyone with differing perspective as pure evil (do not judge; the judgment you mete will be the judgment you get --so don't let anyone, especially God, catch you doing anything remotely deviant, unchaste or even thinking it.) Spiritual pride can be just as evil which is why these sorts of rants are obnoxious.
When I got the California Bar Journal I asked a Christian lawyer I know what he thought of it to which he replied, "Not my issue, don't care." That's one approach-but should we care enough to feel compelled to chime in even if we are not paid judicial staff or wearing the robes?
Do we have to care? It seems that the issue is in our face so we are obliged to educate ourselves about it.
There is profound lack of love and civility on both sides. The contention here is only getting uglier. Some of the lack of civility and love does come from clergy on this point. God hates sin but does not wish that anyone should perish and Jesus came to save anyone who believes on his name and saving Grace who demonstrates and manifests their faith through following his commandments -one big one of which is Love your Neighbor (idiot). That is how you demonstrate you love God. We have a lot of Gay neighbors in DC and California.
The issues legally are complicated, not cut and dry, and not so easily decided. They have to do with the democratic principles underlying referrenda, to what extent referranda are legally permitted to override popular will as expressed by elected representatives in legislatures and constitutional principles (well-established) concerning equal protection under the laws and non-discrimination statutes and principles. The morality of the question for some is so obvious that some legal professionals try to craft the legal principles to meet the morality rather than use the legal and constitutional principles to build the solution. These are methodological differences with different normative outcomes in some cases.
I raise three points for chewing on, without the solution (unless someone wants to pay me to write an opinion)-
1. Behavioral attributes and mutables that one has control over may be viewed differently constitutionally from immutables that one has no control over such as "race" "gender" or "national origin" for a discrimination equal protection sort of analysis.
2. Permenantly committed co-habiting same-gender people are what are found in the Rectory so you are one to judge.
3. An institution-and an entire country- that forbids its entire ecclesiastical authority structure from marriage on threat of employment termination and permenant ban and with a stigma of mental instability may not be the best authority on "Traditional Marriage."
Just sayin.
And a last point- Not sure what gay people gain by wanting a "traditional" marriage or even why they want one if all the same civil rights and privileges attach to their "union" - I am sure they could think of a cooler word than "marriage" that would satisfy them that they were full citizens together, without any church's definition of what they are doing signalling ecclesiastical approval. Civil equality and ecclesiastical approval are not the same thing; one is free to Sin in this country in a variety of ways that would be ecclesiastically disapproved in some circles.
Old line methodists used to think that it was sin to drink liquor, smoke, dance or wear your skirt knee level or above. Sinning in some cases is constitutional.
I don't say this to minimize what I actually believe the Immorality of gayness to be.
I subscribe to the Scripture is inerrant Truth view of life so when I read the passages about the end times when people will trade natural for depraved unnatural relations involving same gender sexually immoral relations, I see affirmation and confirmation of what my visceral instincts tell me. This is not moral behavior. But that does not tell me whether it should be constitutionally protected or not. Drinking to excess until one passes out is immoral behavior, but there is no constitutional ban on it (unless you are driving.) Freedom means Free to choose Right from Wrong. We let mutually consenting people do both in America.
All things may be lawful for me but not all things are beneficial. And I love my gays.
Love Love Love Them!
No comments:
Post a Comment