Many progressives don't exactly understand the gay marriage issue as it applies to Christian conservatives. I'm not going to make a lot of friends on my side of the isle by writing this article, but I think it's something particularly liberals need to wrap their minds around.
Social and religious conservatives are in a tricky place when it comes to gay marriage. Now I'm not talking about the paranoid homophobic component of the anti-gay movement that borders on paranoia, I'm talking about the average conservative – particularly Christian – who gets caught between their religious morality and their sense of social conscience.
Now to progressives, this issues seems incredibly obvious. Marriage is a bundle of benefits from the government and a means by which couples can form lasting relationships. However it started, homosexual relationships are happening and many are lasting. Therefore denying them the legitimacy provided to other lifetime bonds is pure discrimination. There is no way to spin depriving homosexual marriage as anything other than an arbitrary denial of equal rights to fellow Americans.
But wait.
Christian conservatives have another issue to contend with layered on top. Whether or not you agree on the interpretation, the general consensus in conservative Christian theology is that homosexuality is a sin. It's practice and existence an abomination before God. This premise is, for the most part, non-negotiable.
So many religious conservatives are trying to reconcile these two realities. Thoughtful conservatives are keenly aware of both and might even agree with the progressive points. But when it comes to political participation, it is unethical to vote against your conscience and core beliefs. Religion is ultimately the core of a believer's world view. It's not just what they believe, it's who they are. This means even if a conservative Christian sees the progressive argument, they are being asked to take action in support of a group of people living a lifestyle they consider immoral and wrong and literally act against their own core nature.
Now most conservative Christians don't think about it this much or make the distinction between the legal and religious component. They use their gut feeling fueled by their religious conviction to try to justify their opposition that doesn't really entirely make sense to them in logical terms. They know homosexuality is wrong, but they don't know how to communicate that to someone who doesn't share their religious views. The result is that they often form weak, bizzare and often unconvincing legal and societal arguments against the progressive standpoint which usually fall flat against statistics and basic constitutional analysis if not common sense. This, then, baffles progressives who start to wonder if the people they're arguing against aren't stupid.
They're not. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. If you begin the discussion with the premise that homosexuality is morally wrong, then ethically you, me, or anyone must oppose it, or at least do nothing to further it's progress. This is an ethical maxim founded in secular philosophy that most progressives would agree with. But because progressives generally do not start with the premise of homosexuality having any moral component – good or bad – they get the easier question concerning basic legal rights and what should be done regarding marriage. The conservative, meanwhile, must choose between not acting against Homosexuality and by so doing being unethical or the opposite and being caught in a legally untenable position.
People need to understand that it's not just homophobia. It's not just cruelly denying someone equal rights. It's a legitimate moral quandary for religious Conservatives and gives no good answers to believers of that faith. While we as progressives can disagree with these believers, we need to temper our disagreement with an understanding of where they're coming from – a real moral question that cannot be trivialized or ignored.
Social and religious conservatives are in a tricky place when it comes to gay marriage. Now I'm not talking about the paranoid homophobic component of the anti-gay movement that borders on paranoia, I'm talking about the average conservative – particularly Christian – who gets caught between their religious morality and their sense of social conscience.
Now to progressives, this issues seems incredibly obvious. Marriage is a bundle of benefits from the government and a means by which couples can form lasting relationships. However it started, homosexual relationships are happening and many are lasting. Therefore denying them the legitimacy provided to other lifetime bonds is pure discrimination. There is no way to spin depriving homosexual marriage as anything other than an arbitrary denial of equal rights to fellow Americans.
But wait.
Christian conservatives have another issue to contend with layered on top. Whether or not you agree on the interpretation, the general consensus in conservative Christian theology is that homosexuality is a sin. It's practice and existence an abomination before God. This premise is, for the most part, non-negotiable.
So many religious conservatives are trying to reconcile these two realities. Thoughtful conservatives are keenly aware of both and might even agree with the progressive points. But when it comes to political participation, it is unethical to vote against your conscience and core beliefs. Religion is ultimately the core of a believer's world view. It's not just what they believe, it's who they are. This means even if a conservative Christian sees the progressive argument, they are being asked to take action in support of a group of people living a lifestyle they consider immoral and wrong and literally act against their own core nature.
Now most conservative Christians don't think about it this much or make the distinction between the legal and religious component. They use their gut feeling fueled by their religious conviction to try to justify their opposition that doesn't really entirely make sense to them in logical terms. They know homosexuality is wrong, but they don't know how to communicate that to someone who doesn't share their religious views. The result is that they often form weak, bizzare and often unconvincing legal and societal arguments against the progressive standpoint which usually fall flat against statistics and basic constitutional analysis if not common sense. This, then, baffles progressives who start to wonder if the people they're arguing against aren't stupid.
They're not. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. If you begin the discussion with the premise that homosexuality is morally wrong, then ethically you, me, or anyone must oppose it, or at least do nothing to further it's progress. This is an ethical maxim founded in secular philosophy that most progressives would agree with. But because progressives generally do not start with the premise of homosexuality having any moral component – good or bad – they get the easier question concerning basic legal rights and what should be done regarding marriage. The conservative, meanwhile, must choose between not acting against Homosexuality and by so doing being unethical or the opposite and being caught in a legally untenable position.
People need to understand that it's not just homophobia. It's not just cruelly denying someone equal rights. It's a legitimate moral quandary for religious Conservatives and gives no good answers to believers of that faith. While we as progressives can disagree with these believers, we need to temper our disagreement with an understanding of where they're coming from – a real moral question that cannot be trivialized or ignored.
As a conservative and a Christian (not necessarily a particularly good Christian, but a Christian none the less) I've not had a problem with Gay couples who want some sort of legal status for their partners. I have no problem with Civil Unions or some other purely secular instituion which,as far as I'm concearned can have all the benefits of marriage it wants. My problem with calling it "marriage" is that marriage does have a religous aspect (for the most part), so if you call it marriage then you almost have to say to the various religioius groups you must perform these ceremonies for gay couples which of course forces them to go against their core beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your statment that there is no way to spin the denial of Homesexual marriage as anything other than denial of equal rights, you should know better when you're a lawyer ANYTHING is arguable :)
An interesting point here that I didn't cover is that countries like France don't HAVE this conflict. One reason they don't is because religious marriage and state marriage are completely separate. You have to do both when you get married. Every French couple goes through a religious (if appropriate) and civil ceremony. If this were our model, would religious conservatives care? No?
ReplyDeleteAs for the denial of rights, legally it's difficult to create a counter argument to the denial of rights. VERY difficult. Liberals like to paint the Prop 8 defense team as incompetent, but when stripped of their moral and religious arguments - the ones that gathered the votes from the population at large - they really had nothing left. The legal basis for this kind of change is extremely weak.
CAN it be argued? Yes, you can argue the sky is red too. Can it be argued convincingly? Not outside of popular opinion.