Things seem pretty solid here at home after the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act cases. So it seems that our straight marriage has survived the unspecified threats gay marriage poses to it. I still don't get what these threats are, exactly, nor do I understand how it is that an institution said to be the bedrock of everything civilization holds dear can at the same time be so utterly fragile as to stand in need of a vigorous defense. Now it seems that the whole thing may be on its way to the footnotes of American constitutional history without my ever having figured it out. Not even the Republicans, for whom this issue seemed so central not that long ago, seem to want to fight about about it any more, except for Mike Huckabee. Of course, he's a pastor, so what do you expect?
But wait a minute -- I'm a pastor. This reminds me of what has irked me about DOMA -- and about the whole moral conversation in general -- ever since it appeared: People think there's only one kind of Christian. People think there's only one kind of religious moral vision. People outside faith communities imagine a conservative social consensus within them that isn't there, and people within them often think there should be one, even though there isn't. The old inside joke about Jews -- two Jews, three opinions -- is true of all faith communities. We share a certain moral and cultural inheritance, and our spiritual assignment is to puzzle over it. Often we agree among ourselves about its meaning and application in the world and sometimes we don't. That's the way assemblies of human beings and faith communities are nothing if not human.
Still, many faith communities -- most of them -- do claim a monopoly on truth. They want to proclaim it and then they don't want anybody messing with it. The last sentences of the Christian scriptures contain this warning to anyone who might be toying with the idea of adding something to Holy Writ: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (Revelation 22:18).
Our reverence for our ancient texts trips us up. We imagine the truth of scripture to be of the journalistic sort, the who-what-when-where-how kind of truth, the it-either-happened-or-it-didn't kind of truth, which many among us have come to believe is the only kind of truth there is. But it is not so. There are many truths -- the truth of story, the truth of archetype, the truth of poetry, the truth of group aspiration. None of those fit easily into who-what-when-where-how. And the world's holy scriptures contain them all.
Because we have so beggared our notion of what truth is, we can easily find ourselves imagining religious truth to reside only in our past, as the words on the page record it. There it is, in black and white, we say. Just do what it says. And so we reach back across several linguistic groups and several cultural groups, through the filters of redactors and translators too numerous to count, and struggle to don first-century clothing we can no longer wear. Or we project ourselves backwards through time. "Well, they must have been just like us," we think. Our own local version of The Family, as we know it today, must be and always have been the timeless rock of humanity.
In order to believe this, we must not only ignore the varieties of contemporary family
arrangements but also significant portions of the very scriptures we tell ourselves we are protecting -- our polygamous patriarchs, their concubines and the children they begot upon them. We must ignore the custom of the Levirate, by which you had to take your sister-in-law as your wife if your brother died. We must read the story of David and his beloved Jonathan selectively, resolutely ignoring the sexual aspect of their deep friendship. And we must ignore some very interesting women of the Hebrew scriptures -- Tamar the wronged daughter-in-law who turned the tables on those who wronged her. Rahab the brave and crafty prostitute, who used her profession to save her people. Ruth, who secured her future by seducing a wealthy farmer. Old Testament women who thought outside the box, remembered fondly in the New -- each of them listed by Matthew the evangelist as part of Jesus' family tree.
The nuclear family, so often imagined to be the norm in America, is not the only family of the scriptures. It is not even the majority family of the scriptures. In fact, it is not even the only American family: American families have had many configurations in the short history of our Republic. The family has always changed. Yes, it has always been a basic building block of society, but it has changed shape throughout history. Human history is shaped by living people, as well as by the testament of dead ones. It is a conversation between the living and the dead. And the history of any community is shaped by forces outside it, as well as by those within.
So, not with a bang but a whimper, the Defense of Marriage Act fades from the headlines. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has ended, too, with hardly any truculence to mark its departure. Maybe we are turning a page. Maybe we are beginning to save our energy for something more worthy of it than the culture wars about sex and marriage we have fought so long and with such zest.
Maybe. Because there are, indeed, threats to the health of families everywhere, but they are not other kinds of families. Shocked by an economic downturn, sickened by the sacrifice of young lives in ill-considered wars, sobered by a new consciousness of societal and environmental limits, perhaps we can begin to see an urgency in finding ways through all of these, instead. Perhaps we already do see it.
Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama Shifts Course on Defense of Marriage Act - NYTimes.com
HRC | What the Defense of Marriage Act Does
Obama Administration decision to not defend Defense of Marriage ...
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
Recalculating the Odds: Obama and DOMA, Christian News, The ...
1st principles: Christian principles are not the sole source of ethical thought. People, why do you thinking that the Bible must be authored by some divine influence, if you reject the divinity of an number of other holy books authored both before and after that make conflicting assertions? What makes people think that Christianity has it right? Other religions are more numerous, older, and rely less on a sometimes conflicting set of beliefs from Judiasm.
It doesn't support the case to point out that civic societies change over time if you're claiming that religion should be part of the discussion, since religious priorities change and can argue both sides of an issue (see slavery). Humanist principles are the ones that are most consistent.
To argue that morality cannot exist in a godless world, I would ask people to recognize that "the Golden Rule" exists in nearly all moral systems - and even if it has elements of relativism, its no less problematic with the difference between eye for an eye and casting the first stone. Humans are social animals, yet sometimes lack the emotional maturity to act correctly and thus behave
You can decide on one religion vs another the same way you can decide on one theory vs another; based on the evidence. Are you saying all religions are the same? Some religions created gods on seemingly a daily basis, others were revealed to only one "lucky" individual, very few, as a matter of fact only one is written into history the way Christianity is.
Morality can exist in a godless society, but without some foundation it is merely moral relativism. Its no surprise the golden rule exists in most moral systems. The Christian view is that man was created in God's image, and whether we acknowledge it or not, inherently possesses godly qualities
If humans are animals why is it difficult to accept animal-like behavior from humans? Lack emotional maturity...compared to what. If we're constantly evolving, what more emotionally advanced being are we comparing maturity to, and what basis do we have to say how people should act?
I dispute that there is any evidence for religion, so when you are deciding on one religion or another its based purely on aesthetics or trauma. As a matter of fact, the precepts of the metaphysical Christian tradition are lifted piecemeal from those of the religions that preceded it. And no religion that I am aware of began as monotheist and then added...unless you count Catholicism with the trinity, and some traditions in the Americas combing their native faiths with Catholicism. Oh, but of course those are counterfeits of the Truth, right? Everyone else has it wrong but you?
To your final argument: if you don't acknowledge that humans are animals, it's difficult to contest anything since we are on completely different playing fields. Humans are animals - do you claim that no other animal acts at odds with it's own self-interest? Please elaborate. Lack emotional maturity compared to Stone Age tribal societies that claim God told them to murder and pillage, that demonize the other and etc etc Leviticus/Exodus.
Trust me on this, Babara, theyare non-existent. "They" never will "specify" them because there aren't any. At least, no reasoned, logical, non-'religious' threats, anyway.
Try telling that to the Council of Nicaea, the vatican and every single preacher, pastor, minister, cleric or church "official" ever to call themselves such. Religion just needs to go away already so our species can heal and grow intellectually.
You overlook the fact that the Bible has three main characters: God, the Jews, the Gentiles. It is a narrative of how those three main characters interacted with one another. Jews and Gentiles did plenty of things that were not in God's plan but being a gracious God they were sometimes tolerated. Polygamy was one of those deviations.
Love God
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Pretty simple and, neighbor, as defined by Jesus, is everyone..
...and also defined by Jesus, it is God's job to judge...Not courts, not politicians...not any human or 'neighbors' at all.
Unconditional Love covers all, and needs to be law, not unconditional hate and unconditional divisiveness.
SSM creates socially licensed gender segregated homes (male/male or female/femÂale). By their very nature such homes will exclude either the child's mother or father. Very straight forward set of facts. Anyone believe those aren't the facts?
Despite a small number of "Studies" that have serious flaws; lack of representaÂtive samples, small sample size, complicateÂd comparisonÂs, lack of heterogeneÂity of subject groups, measuremenÂt concerns, lack of statisticaÂl controls, & very limited data on children raised by gay fathers, the mainstream view in child developmenÂt & psychology is that the mother/chiÂld father/chiÂld relationshÂip is important in child developmenÂt. Anyone not believe that the mother/chiÂld father/chiÂld relationshÂip is important in child developmenÂt?
Let me point out that the same reasoning behind the, SSM doesn't threaten heterosexual marriage, was used to defend racial segregatioÂn. White Southern SegregatioÂnists defended themselves by saying Southern Jim Crow laws had no impact on Northern & Western whites. Little wonder it is being used by those promoting the institutioÂnalization of gender segregatioÂn.
In a perfect world perhaps. So what's better for the child? An SSM family or a single parent family or an abusive parent family? If an SSM couple goes to the trouble of parenting a child, you can be pretty sure that they really want that child and will love it and nourish it.
Do you hold this "perfect world" position in other areas? Like race, in a perfect world races could get along but since the world isn't perfect races should be separate. You see the problem your line of reasoning leads to? Social policy is based upon the best, not the worst. The ideal, not the lowest common denominator, justice for all not justice for some, you get the idea.
"You know, I've had 12 blissful years with my lovely wife Catherine but what about Chuck? What's Chuck doing later?" - Jimmy Tingle
I say ALL of that rather lengthy explanation to state that it is NOT right to hinder someone's right to marriage because it will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Christians are not right anymore than the Jews, LDS, Catholics, etc. Religion has become a homophobic shackle chaining up individual freedoms.
So true and I have learned this firsthand. This is the part about certain aspects of religion that irk me the most, along with intolerance of others who don't sing from the same hymnal.
http://www.goodenoughmother.com/2011/02/the-god-i-know-religion-and-the-real-world/
You do this.