|
Marriage Amendments Threaten Religious
Freedom
There’s another argument to be made when we
fight state and federal marriage amendments. It has
the potential to take back the debate because
it’s about the Constitution and the First
Amendment’s guarantee of religious
freedom.
There’s no doubt that the need for marriage
equality is first and foremost about the civil and
legal benefits that currently come with government
recognition and approval of two people’s legal
commitment to each other.
It might be that the ultimate solution to the
issue is to recognize marriage as only a civil
issue with its legal benefits for everyone. Couples
could then add the blessings to their union of a
religious institution of their choice if they
desired.
Yet the history of marriage in US culture and
consciousness is one enmeshed with religious
images, sanctions, and overtones. That means that
we must take those connections in American
consciousness seriously.
There is an established legal history in this
country that state governments license religious
leaders. In fact, the only civil benefit of such
government licensure is that ministers, rabbis,
priests, and other state-approved leaders can
perform marriages for the government.
Most marriage ceremonies are performed in
churches and by clergy, and many pro-marriage
equality clergy would love to be able to perform
them for the many LGBT people who’d prefer to
get married in a religious setting.
The language of marriage as “sacred”
invokes religious images. Fighting those images is
difficult. We need a new way to use them.
Berkley linguist George Lakoff in Don’t
Think of an Elephant (2004) recommends we use the
idea of sanctity, even if it’s not religious,
when we speak of marriage equality. “Sanctity
is a higher value than economic fairness,” he
advises. “Talking about benefits is beside the
point when the sanctity of marriage is in dispute.
Talk sanctity first.”
The arguments behind the federal and state
marriage amendments are essentially religious.
Right-wing think-tanks play on cultural religious
sentiments but know that they must act as if their
crusade is not the imposition of a sectarian
religious understanding. So, they couch their
arguments in terms of inaccurate history, poor
science, rejected psychological theories, and
statistics unsupported by the social sciences.
Based on right-wing understandings of the Bible,
tradition, and God, amendment proponents argue that
same-sex marriages don’t suit a traditional
model of one man and one woman. One need not look
deeply into the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament to
see that even among the Patriarchs, Ten
Commandments-giver Moses, and hero-kings such as
David and Solomon polygamy was common and
traditional.
Even early members of the Church could be
polygamists. Otherwise, why would the writer of the
first letter to Timothy say that he should pick
from the diverse membership, men for church leaders
who were “the husband of but one
wife?”
These clear Biblical practices must be explained
away by the right-wing to make an argument that
supports their sectarian understanding. Even
“traditional” has to be defined quite
selectively to eliminate all the cases of polygamy
in world history.
It surely is the height of irony that the Mormon
Church has been a major funder of amendments
claiming that traditional marriage has been between
one man and only one woman. Even its second prophet
and president, Brigham Young, married some 50
women.
People looking instead for real histories of
traditional families will be interested in reading
historian Stephanie Coontz’s two exhaustive
studies: (1) The Way We Never Were: American
Families and the Nostalgia Trap (2nd ed, 2000) and
(2) Marriage, a History: From Obedience to
Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage
(2005).
But, it’s time also to recognize that there
are many religious people who believe that the
Bible, tradition, and God actually require them to
confirm same-sex commitments. Their religious
beliefs about morality, love, commitment, and
marriage demand that they recognize and celebrate
loving commitment wherever it is found.
They believe that government has no business
telling God, the Church, and any two consenting
adults whom they can and cannot love.
Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of
Christ, and the Central Conference of American
Rabbis have spoken out of their faith to testify
that affirming same-sex marriages is a response of
true belief. It arises out of the very central
tenets of their faith.
It’s time to change this debate and expose
it for the imposition of the sectarian religious
position that it is. It’s time for liberal
religious people to state so clearly. And it’s
time for all of us to invoke the First Amendment in
this matter.
Amending the Constitution to forbid these
religions from performing same-sex marriages
violates both clauses of the First Amendment of the
Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It’s both
the “establishment” by the government of
one religious position as well as “prohibiting
the free exercise” of the religion of others.
It’s religious discrimination and nothing
more.
The Federal Marriage Amendment recently defeated
again by the Senate must be put to rest permanently
because it is anti-American. Yet, it’s
anti-American not only because it would be the
first amendment to write discrimination of a group
of people into the Constitution.
It’s also anti-American because it destroys
religious freedom. It forbids the religious
practice of clergy, denominations, and religious
communities that believe they are divinely called
to affirm the love of two adults who happen to be
of the same gender.
To stand up against the sectarian religious
abuse of the Constitution, it only takes the
courage to say and repeat: “If you’re for
the Federal Marriage Amendment, you’re for
destroying religious freedom?”
©2009 by Joe Kort
Related: Issues,
Books
Psychotherapist
Joe Kort, MA, MSW, has been in practice since 1985.
He specializes in Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy as
well as IMAGO Relationship Therapy, which is a
specific program involving communication exercises
designed for couples to enhance their relationship
and for singles to learn relationship skills. He
also specializes in sexual addiction, childhood
sexual, physical and emotional abuse, depression
and anxiety. He offers workshops for couples and
singles. He runs a gay men's group therapy and a
men's sexuality group therapy for straight, bi and
gay men who are struggling with specific sexual
issues. His therapy services are for gays and
lesbians as well as heterosexuals. His articles and
columns have appeared in The Detroit Free
Press, Between the Lines Newspaper for
Gays and Lesbians, The Detroit News, The
Oakland Press, The Royal Oak Mirror, and
other publications. Besides providing therapy for
individuals and couples, he conducts a number of
groups and workshops for gay men. Now an adjunct
professor teaching Gay and Lesbian Studies at Wayne
State University's School of Social Work, he is
doing more writing and workshops on a national
level. He is the author of 10
Smart Things Gay Men can do to Improve Their
Lives and
10
Smart Things Gay Men Can Do to Find Real
Love.
www.joekort.com
or E-Mail
*
Gaydar
(gay'.dahr, n.): (1) The
ability that lets gays and lesbians identify one
other. (2) This column--where non-gay readers can
improve their gaydar, learning more about gay men's
psychology and social lives. Also, (3) a regular
feature where gay readers can discover the many
questions and hassles their straight
counterparts--and themselves--must face!
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
