So, federal Judge Vaughn Walker in California overturned Proposition 8 yesterday, calling it irrational. In a written opinion, Walker was in favor of rights activists who argued that a November 2008 referendum which barred gays and lesbians from tying the knot was discriminatory and therefore violated the US Constitution. In an unrelated story, 79% of voters in Missouri voted to opt-out of Obamacare and were informed that they just don’t understand how really awesomely great it will be, so their votes will end up not counting toward anything.
Wait, did I say unrelated? Because this is a scary trend sweeping formerly ruled “By the People” nation. It really gets me frustrated when the “political class” are so removed and uncaring about the opinions and needs of the people – the judge in the Prop. 8 case actually tried to subpeona the staff of a defense of marriage organization, and wanted the trial itself broadcast live so as to make a larger statement with his ruling. Seems kind of activist-like to me, and seeing that in a judge bothers me.
So I have an angry little bee in my bonnet about that. I’m kindof tired of being ignored despite faithfully voting and writing my representative and being proud of my civic duty… only to find that people whom thought I could trust with said civic duty don’t seem to give a rip about me or my neighbors and friends.
But back to gay marriage. I’m not so sure that government needs to be involved in the marriage business in the first place. I personally think that everything should be “civil unions” (which legally have the same rights as marriages but not the social and religious overtones) and the government should back off the marriage question altogether and leave that to churches. Oddly enough, it appears that Judge Walker actually agrees with me that civil unions would be sufficient, but was unwilling to allow that to stand, despite the voters’ opinion. Walker found that: “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage…The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”
So, the debate is not actually about the benefits and whom is allowed to love whom. Anybody can love anyone they choose to and two consenting adults may enter into a domestic partnership at any time, getting all of the benefits of marriage – minus the “cultural meaning”. Judge Walker knows that he is treading on people’s personal religious beliefs with this decision, but it’s OK because we (us stubborn Christian types) need to bend our cultural meanings to fit a different cultural meaning that our beliefs were never intended to embrace.
Understandably, Prop 8 has gotten a lot of attention is because good-hearted people are saddened by the thought of a partners not being allowed to see one another in the hospital after a tragic accident or some other heart-wrenching scenario. Unfortunately such scenarios are wildly tossed about to make everybody who is pro-marriage feel bad, and thus win traction because we’re more concerned with love than the truth, which is that civil unions are equal in rights and privileges in every way to marriage. (A friend asked me why I would be OK with civil unions but not same-sex marriages. She raised a good point – “Isn’t that just a rose by any other name?” My answer is that yes, but in this case, the name is all that this fight is about, so it’s worth making a fuss over. Also, I’m not comfortable with the State interfering with how and with whom consenting adults choose to live their lives and really don’t want to get into legislating people’s private affairs. Because of these two caveats, and because I do believe that we have to show grace, I’m OK with gay civil unions but not gay marriage.)
Walker also interestingly stated that the current definition of marriage “irrationally” makes opposite-sex couples of more value than same-sex couples. First off, his claim is irrational that a cultural standing makes some people more valuable than others. Are fertile women more valuable than infertile? Are those individuals who are very religious, well-educated or have gym memberships more valuable than those who are not? Whatever happened to all men are created equal?
Today I was driving home thinking about all of this and listening to Dr Laura, as I often do on the afternoon commute. She told a caller something very profound. “Why can’t the nice people ever make a stink? All nice people do is put their heads down and conform. Nice people are too afraid to boldly state their cases and so are run over by all the meanies.”
Before you get your cackles up, I’m not suggesting that gays, lesbians, or even Judge Walker are meanies. But I am bothered by our (Christians, I’m looking at you) inability to speak the truth in love. Marriage is defined as a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman, for the good of society, for the creation of children, for the passing on of faith and tradition. Call me old-fashioned, but that’s still what I believe.
It is not hateful to state what we believe, to vote based on it, and to boldly tell our world that we love them but we will not back down. An easy majority of Californians still believe in the traditional definition of marriage, and were just silenced by one man. As Christians, we need to be willing to have the conversation, prove through our strong, deliberate marriages that this is something worth fighting for and always, always love without losing our guts or our convictions.
Ashley
August 6, 2010
Very interesting article! I’ve heard snippets of Prop 8 stuff in the news but didn’t really pay much attention…I didn’t realize that it was a judge who simply overturned what voters decided…crazy. I agree with the civil unions idea and that government should not rule over the concept of “marriage” specifically. The video with the two gay teapartiers was very interesting too! Good stuff from you as always
Diane Linthicum
August 13, 2010
This apparently has nothing to do with Rule of Law. The judge, has determined that it is his “duty” to re-establish or correct the “cultural meaning for marriage” in our society. This is not his job!
Actually, his “duty” is to apply the law, not change the “cultural meaning” that our society uses with any tradition.
An individual’s responsibilty to “Stop” at a stop sign applies uniformly. It doesn’t matter whether you are brown, black, or white; homo- or hetero-sexual. The law applies to everyone, in the same way.
The requirement for a CA Marriage License is exactly the same. It does not matter if one is brown, black, or white; homo- or hetero-sexual. The requirements are the same and applied uniformly regardless of any personal preferences. The simple requirement is: to “marry” the two applicants must be of the opposite sex.
The law does not discriminate. There is no regard for race, creed, sexual preference, religious affiliation, or favorite flavor of ice cream. The law is not “unconstitutional”!
Michelle
August 14, 2010
Dani,
I do not understand why Christians who believe that marriage is or has always been defined as one man and one woman (which, historically, has not truly been the case: consider King Solomon and all his wives as one example), must insist that the rest of the country should adhere to that definition.
This country has opened itself to diversity of people, thought, ideas, and even lifestyles. Our laws should reflect that diversity.
Furthermore, you mention that the majority of Californians are against same-sex marriage, and some “activist” judge has overruled the majority. This was also true for many parts of our nation during the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, the government had to send troops in many parts of the South to enforce the expansion of rights for African Americans. In that time, “the majority” in the South were not too keen on giving the same civil rights afforded to whites to African Americans. The majority do not always have the best interests in their collective minds. I would also add that many Christians were not on the side of the proponents of the Civil Rights Act and used their Bible to defend the idea of separate but equal (if such a scenario is even possible).
Many Christians cling to the notion that “the majority” should be heeded only when it comes to an issue close to the hearts of sincere conservative Christians. What would you say if “the majority” completely accepted same-sex marriage?
At what point are the majority of Christian–or religious persons generally–going to be on the side of advocating for human rights and loving others WITHOUT strings attached? Can you not both believe that “Marriage is defined as a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman, for the good of society, for the creation of children, for the passing on of faith and tradition” AND still allow others to have their beliefs reflected in society and law? Same-sex marriage does not negate marriage as you define it.
When I read or listen to Christians, such as yourself, who talk about “speaking the truth in love,” I feel anything but love. I sense frustration and defensiveness among Christians who feel their views are devalued, mocked, and ignored by many. I do NOT feel a sense of charity or Christ-like love when I listen to and read about opinions in favor of Prop 8 or similar initiative, particularly the frightening DOMA.
wranglerdani
August 14, 2010
Hey Michelle –
I really respect what you have to say – for the record, I’m not frustrated by this Prop. 8 decision – quite frankly, I think that we spend way too much time discussing social issues when we ought to be more concerned about bigger things – which is why I favor civil unions and equality for everybody. I only wrote this piece because I was repeatedly being asked to give my two cents – not because this is a political issue on the forefront of my mind.
I’m sorry that you heard defensiveness in my tone. I hope that you won’t take my response as frustration or defensiveness, but merely a sincere attempt to express why I believe what I do.
The reason I brought up the majority ruling was because of my previous point about the will of the people being overruled. We are still a “By the People, for the People” nation, are we not? I think it should take more than one judge to overrule a majority, whether we like that majority’s stance or not.
Also, I don’t think that your comparison between Prop 8 and the Civil Rights act is totally fair. While there may have been some Christians fighting equality, the majority of faithful believers were working hard to help make Dr King’s dream a reality. In fact, most white people who assisted escaping slaves before Emancipation were Christians, and believed that “all men are created equal” as I (and many Christians) still do. The difference is in that the gay lifestyle is a lifestyle choice – not the color of your skin which you have no control over.
While I love my gay friends and want them to see Jesus in my words and actions, I cannot sacrifice my beliefs in order to love “with no strings attached”. (As a side-note – I’m not sure that my love is compromised or has strings attached just because I am unwilling to step back from my position. I am still willing to love and honor every person as a unique creation of an incredible God, but that does not require me to change the rules for those individuals.) If I am not willing to stand up for what I believe, than my convictions are not worth much, and I shouldn’t bother even bringing religion outside my church doors.
It saddens me greatly that you don’t see charity in those who are trying to stand up for traditional Judeo-Christian values. I know that there are many who do not live out the command to speak the truth in love, and I so wish that was not the case. However, as Christians we also know that we are fallen and in serious need of grace. Just because I try to do what is right doesn’t mean I always will, as Paul said, and perhaps some Christians land more on the “tough” side instead of the “love” and that is regrettable. However, I do not think that God should be held responsible for people’s actions, nor should we fail to follow our hearts and convictions because others have done so poorly.
Ideas have consequences. Marriage is a divine idea, set clearly in the New Testament as one man and one woman. I wish that all people would have freedom to live their lives as they see fit without government intrusion, which is why I support civil unions for all, and marriage only as a religious or cultural ceremony, in which individual churches and communities may search their own hearts about who can marry. Until such equality is allowed, however, I cannot support the intrusion of government into my religious beliefs, and I do not think that such a quiet but firm stand is anything but loving – toward my fellow man, my church and my Lord.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments… I hope that you understand why I feel this way – I certainly got a great glimpse into your heart and I thank you for sharing.