The Christian Argument for Marriage Equality

There is a way to engage to Christians on the subject of marriage equality from the perspective of Christianity, even from the perspective of Christian fundamentalists (Christianists), though I never hear anyone discuss this.

So much intellectual energy is spent by marriage equality proponents arguing the justice of civil marriage in a secular democratic polity (which is as it should be); but those lines of argument are never going to resonate with a fundamentalist Christian mentality in which secular civil rights arguments regarding marriage equality simply don’t matter and are always trumped by theological arguments.

So, in a way, I think constantly making secular arguments for marriage equality, as persuasive as they are to a mind oriented towards the virtues of secular civil democracy, to a mind that understands the virtue of the foundational church-state separation idea, is barking up the wrong tree if the goal is to persuade Christianists to rethink their position.

To persuade Christianists of the justice of marriage equality requires making an argument for marriage equality within the theological framework that Christianists value and embrace. I think there is a way to do this.

I am a Catholic, and in my faith tradition, marriage is a sacrament, imbued with a particular and special grace. Catholics (and all Christians, I believe) would hold to the idea that the sacramental grace of marriage is a gift from God available to all of God's human creation. It strikes me that the theological dimensions of Christianist opposition to marriage equality requires an active embrace of the idea of permanently denying gay individuals access to this grace, access to the fullness of God. I believe having to face this idea would make even the most ardent Christianist with an honest conscience a bit squeamish. In essence, if forces Christianists to believe that the theological implication of their stance against marriage equality is not only to drive a wedge between God and his gay son or daughter, but also even to accept their advocacy of keeping the fullness of God away from his children. Fallible and sinful Christianists have to accept the presumption of themselves as the policers of God’s grace. And what God-fearing Christianist would ever presume to be the policer of God’s grace? In fact, presuming as much flies in the face of the entire Christian ethos of forgiveness, redemption, and salvation.

One could develop this line of thinking even more fully and eloquently than I’ve done; but I’ve always thought that this line of argument from within the Christian theological tradition of marriage-as-sacrament would go a long, long way towards changing how Christianists think of the marriage equality debate. In the end, Christianists don’t pay attention to secular, civil rights arguments for marriage equality because marriage, for them, is wrapped up exclusively in theology.  So to persuade them, one has to speak to them in the language of the theological milieu through which they understand the issue.

The debate regarding the secular civil justice of marriage equality is over.  Marriage equality advocates have won that debate. Now it's time to win the Christian theological argument for marriage equality.

Dreher on Sullivan's "Christianist" Concept

Crunchy Con Rod Dreher has put up a posting today in which he grumps about Andrew Sullivan's use of the term "Christianist" to describe a particular comment from a Christian pastor on the subject of homosexuality. Reading the comments on Dreher's blog posting is also a treat in and of itself. I disagree with Dreher's reaction, which I think is mostly rooted in a deep-seated hostility to any harsh criticism of theocratic proclamations on "God's law" as it relates to secular law as it relates to homosexuality. I don't think Andrew Sullivan at all uses the term Christianist as freely and as indiscriminately as Dreher claims. I just think Dreher gets all wobbly and cranky when that term is used in reference to the subject of homosexuality. Anyway, read the posting and the comments and make up your mind for yourself. But most importantly, treat yourself to Dreher's blog. Make it a regular read.

Thoughts on the Overturning of Prop 8 in California

Well, my first thought is not really a thought but a reaction: Yeah you right!

[NOTE: As you might expect, Andrew Sullivan is all over this story with wonderful round-up coverage of the various reactions and musings about this decision and its impacts.]

Now that I've got that out of the way, let me proceed ...

I should start by saying that I have never understood the visceral antipathy to gay civil marriage in terms of social policy. From my point of view, I see allowing gay Americans to get married as a move towards enhancing freedom, ensuring equality, and even strengthening the institutions of marriage and family. I have never felt that my heterosexual marriage and my family unity was in any way undermined or threatened by any loving gay couple's marriage anywhere in the world (or, for that matter, by any unloving heterosexual couple's broken marriage). In fact, I have always contended that if someone's heterosexual marriage and family life was so fragile as to be shattered and destroyed by the abstract legalization of gay marriage, then that particular marriage and family was on shaky grounds to begin with. Furthermore, aren't we ultimately the responsible parties for our own affairs? If we let some other peoples' lives dictate the quality of our own lives, then we've got some serious problems of our own that probably require some professional psychological help. In fact, to the extent that there is some karmic connection between Bob and Joe's homosexual marriage in California with my and my wife's heterosexual marriage in Louisiana, it can only be a good connection. More people making a commitment to the institution in a bond of love means more power to that institution. There is nothing but good that can come out of gay marriage. And if someone just can't get beyond the "yuck" factor, that's just too bad. Go on living your heterosexual lifestyle. No one's gonna stop you.

I do want to address what will be the inevitable criticisms of the ruling. First, for those who decry the rulings of an "activist" judge who betrayed majority will, I want to point out that our system of checks and balances requires judicial review even of majority popular decisions. We do this in order to protect and defend the rights of the minority to full and equal constitutional protections. As A. McEwen writes so bluntly and clearly:

But there is a reason why this country has checks and balances. And there is a reason why people can’t arbitrarily vote on the rights of others without having to defend this vote in the logical arena of courts, where you can’t invoke panic by proverbially yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

In the courts, you must defend your position. And in the long run, you couldn’t.

This is our democratic process. And if those who oppose gay marriage can't mount a convincing argument in support of their opinions in front of the courts that passes constitutional muster, then it just proves that victory at the ballot boxes is not grounded in a logical defense of constitutional rights, but merely an outcome of successful demagoguery grounded in nothing but fear and hot air. So, please, if you don't want to come across as an embittered and sore loser, don't go whining about "judicial activism" or "activist judges." It's just not going to cut it. If we liberal gun control advocates have to suck up a judicial decision that overturns locally-legislated gun control initiatives popularly ratified in free and fair elections (i.e. Chicago or D.C.), then you can suck up this court decision without having to whine about activist judges.

At a personal level, and as someone who believes that there is a particular grace that comes to committed couples through the institution of marriage, I think it is a moral travesty to acknowledge marriage as a grace-filled institution and then seek to deny the benefits of this grace to anyone just because of their sexual orientation. In fact, that would seem to me to be an unconscienable and malicious evil. If you are a religious person who believes in God (and believes that marriage is something sacred), it would be like a stingy faith miser withholding God from someone who is actively thirsting for God. How terrible is that?

I think the tide has irrevocably turned in the United States in favor of gay marriage. It is a foregone conclusion. The question now is simply timing. The big remaining disappointment to me is the Obama administration's reluctance to take a principled stand on gay marriage, which is something that seems so clearly to me as a question of basic civil rights. Supporting gay marriage is simply the right thing to do, and the Obama administration's wishy-washiness about it is very unbecoming, especially when the administration proclaims to be an ally of the GLBT community out of one side of its mouth and yet refuses to embrace the GLBT community's unanimous embracing of gay marriage as the single most important issue facing this community. Obama should come out and directly state that he both respects the court's decision and agrees with it.

But this disappointment aside (and in spite of it), today is a great day for civil rights and constitutional equality for all Americans.

The End of the Gay Rights Movement

Andrew Sullivan concludes a lecture at Princeton with a powerful appeal for the conservative case for gay marriage and civil rights. This is Part 7 of his speech, but you really should listen to all 7 of the clips.