Success has a thousand fathers, the old saw goes, but failure is an orphan. Not this time. There is one and only one big loser in the New York's long overdue decision to legalize gay marriage: old-time religion. Rather than retreat in shame the self-anointed defenders of God's law continue to snort and stamp their feet in indignation.
But, while a new day has dawned in New York, the fight now moves to other states, so it's important to consider the arguments offered against gay marriage. Let's take a look.
In their desperate effort to block marriage equality, they pulled out all the rhetorical stops. If gay marriage becomes legal, argued Upstate New York Republican pol Sam Trombley, "we are going to have an HIV epidemic." You got that? 'Cause no way gay guys would ever have unprotected sex outside the bounds of holy matrimony.
At least Trombley offered straight-ahead absurdity.
Pentacostal preacher Ruben Diaz -- the only Democratic Senator to oppose the marriage equality bill -- having failed to persuade his fellow party members by invoking God and biblical morality, resorted to rent control. "I am calling upon my colleagues in the Senate," he declared in a press release, "to withhold their votes on gay marriage until New York's Rent Regulation laws .. are in place" Yeah, and maybe they shoulda also waited until we secured peace in the Middle East and ended poverty in Africa. There's about as much connection.
Did I mention hypocrisy? Rev. Diaz has a granddaughter who is openly gay -- for which she was drummed out of the armed forces. Erica Diaz spoke out at one of his anti-gay rallies. She offered a simple, moving plea: "I am not asking to be married in church, I am simply asking to reinforce my right to marry in a consensual manner with the woman who I love and who I want to spend the rest of my life with." Senator Rev. Diaz declared that he loves her, but went right on railing against same-sex unions, and remained mute when appearing with another minister who declared that gays deserve death.
In their long march against gay marriage, exponents of old-time religion have lobbed countless rhetorical grenades. They've used the "What next? Marriage with animals?" tactic. They've cried, "No special rights!" (As if legal equality were somehow 'special.') Yet, few outbursts have been as vile or absurd as Archbishop Dolan's frantic attempt to hold Republicans in New York State Senate fast to their opposition to justice.
In his official blog Dolan suggested that to grant marriage equality would be to turn America into a totalitarian state:
...[S]houldn't we be more upset - and worried - about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth - one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children - that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start? Last time I consulted an atlas, it is [sic] clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America - not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to "redefine" rights, relationships, values, and natural law.
Really, Archbish? North Korea? Letting same-sex couples obtain a marriage license would be equivalent to a gulag state where all but the military are on starvation rations?
As for natural law, the facts are entirely against you. But let us offer a little sympathy here. History shows that every time some blowhard pounds the podium in defense of "natural law," he is in fact defending brute religious bigotry. "Natural law" has been the cry against the abolition of slavery, the end of aristocracy, and equal rights for women. So, welcome, Archbishop, to the wrong side of history.
Before the sun sets on this piece, however, we must give equal time to evangelicals. The Christian Post, which, if memory serves, was founded by Billy Graham, carries a timely "story" headlined "Documentary Shows the Harms of Same-Sex Marriage." The "documentary" in question is produced by the Family Research Council, a Bible-thumping propaganda mill created by a radio preacher with pretensions to being a psychologist.
The reason for all the bluster should be made plain: old-time religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, is authoritarian, and its authority derives from a simple claim: "We have God's Word, and we'll tell you exactly how to obey it, or else." To accept same-sex marriage is to reject that claim. It's not society that's undermined, but these ancient, authoritarian structures. Don't take my word for it, though. Listen to the Family Research Council.
According to the Christian Post's puff-piece, the FRC sees it this way: "Some immediate harms involve a loss of freedom for people who disapprove of homosexuality, and the threat to religious liberty for religious nonprofit groups, such as Christian adoption agencies."
In other words? Old-time religion is the biggest loser.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
"...[S]houldn't we be more upset - and worried - about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth - one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children - that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?"
One man, one woman. Like Abraham and Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. Or Jacob, Rachel, Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah. Or Solomon and his single... I mean, 700 wives and concubines.
Don't bishops actually READ the Bible anymore?
Or is the good bishop admitting that, eschewing marriage, he and his fellow Catholic clerics are bereft of both civilization and culture?
If marriage is solely about bearing children, then we should require all marrying couples to state under oath that they intend to have children. Then if they do not do so within, say 5 years, annul the marriage and make the partners pay back all of the bennies they've received from being married. Certainly this would accomplish more of the pro-birth goals than outlawing same-sex marriage.
Frankly, I'm unconcerned with what the bible/torah/quran/book of zeus has to say about gays, gay marriage, or really anything. These texts hold as much weight as does a Harry Potter book in regards to civil law. We're all entitled to our opinions. But I'm not going to sit here and coddle people who think their 'moral truth' needs to apply to everyone, when there is no harm. There's simply not a single secular argument against gay marriage, and against the equal protection clause, and the full faith and credit clause. Yes, you may have been able to vote on people's rights yesterday, but in 20 years, people will look back with the same incredulity as with interracial marriage, suffrage, and the civil rights movement.
I'm so happy for gay marriage. However, I'm happier for putting the theocrats/authoritarians in their places.
(Is that bad?)
St. Vincent of Lerins said "Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic."
Finally, though, I have to ask: if you see the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the hierarchy (on the victimizing of children, on the rights of women, and on same-sex unions, to name a few issues), how can you NOT either walk out or rise up in protest?
That leads me to answer your question: "how can you NOT either walk out or rise up in protest." This is a very good question, and a lot of Catholics have been asking themselves this ever since the sex abuse scandal erupted in the early 2000s. It's a question I've asked myself. Regarding formal protest, I'd rather spend my energy elsewhere. Regarding leaving, the answer (perhaps unsatisfyingly) lies elsewhere. Simply put, the hierarchy does not define my experience of Church. To me, the Church is the People of God and the Body of Christ in the world. I have personally witnessed the good that the Church does at my parish, from rallying around a family that has been shattered by tragedy, to reaching out to the immigrant or stranger. I agree with the institutional Church's teaching on social justice, immigration, poverty, etc. There is also a deeper, mystical connection, that I don't feel that I could sever even by formally leaving.
God's moral laws have remained just as necessary for us today as it was in the days of past. Don't think a marriage could last longer without adultery? How about lying? Anger? Jealousy? God's moral laws were meant for the creation of today as it was for His creation of yester-year.
Bringing Iron Age mythology into the process does no one any good, and often does a lot of harm. It just distorts the discussing in ways that are best relegated to the dustbin of history.
Science never claims to have absolute answers but it does advance an evidence-based claim that there is a unitary, objective reality "out there." This places limits on the "my reality with yours" concept. If you claim the Earth is 6,000 years old, I may respect your right to hold that belief, but the light of the evidence I have no reason to respect the belief itself. Note, however, that this is not an absolute position. I remain open to new and better evidence.
Each of the old-time religions, however, claims to have the whole, unchangeable, and absolute truth. That’s the crux of the problem.
It's hard to really put in a solid understand just in comments, though, because I do like and agree with much, if not all, of what you said. My comment wasn't intend for you, but more for the comments from people who do believe that Science is the end all to be all, not realizing that science has and can do just as much harm to people as religion can if followed through fanatically.
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
Anyone who believes in scientific evolution also understands that science tells us what "is" not what "ought" to be or what we "ought" to do.
That's basic philosophy, a seperation between the physical reality of things and the subjective reality of the social world.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ny-gay-marriage-a-cold-slap-in-gods-face-says-pastor-51598/
Re China: Yeah - the X-ian belief that finally caused me to reject the whole religion was its insistence that unless you accept Jesus you are damned to eternal hell. My reaction was: "God is going to condemn 1 billion Chinese who've probably never ever heard of Jesus????"
What crap.
All of my education, from college through seminary, promoted the historical/critical way of looking at what we were studying, and once you do that, the strange things come out. More than one Creation story? More than one flood story, AND it has parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh? Really? It was interesting, but didn't sway my faith. Rather, I had an appreciation of what those early writers were trying to get across. I now teach in this same way.
If you're a Biblical literalist, then yes, stepping outside the box, admitting that something *might* be wrong (let alone thinking it) can lead to a lot of stress and even guilt. This ebbs and flows in our country from time to time, and will again. It usually ties to some sort of social or financial upheaval, where the old, "safe" ways seem to be disappearing.
Since you are apparently both a Christian and a thoughtful person, how do you arrive at tolerance of other religions (assuming you do) in the face of these core beliefs? I'd really be interested in knowing the answer to this question.
This is about gay rights. Don't get me started on women's rights, which are disappearing more and more these days. Human rights are being diminished as I type this. We know who is doing what to whom, and why. Yep; it's that "Old Time Religion". Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
If I ever told those in my congregation to suppress their individual thought and individualism because God would punish them, they'd probably laugh at me. It's out of those thoughts and that drive that new ideas emerge and we move forward.
90s that nicely tells the making and shaping of the (RC, the first and oldest) of the
sexual moral.
Looked at closer, there is not much good to say bout that moral. First of all there was
no God and no Jesus who created it, it was the "fathers" who did it. Most of whom were,
among other things, blatant and ruthless misogynists. Women were time and again
the evil of all source and subjected to incredible theological abuse.
The book is not about gays and lesbians. However, knowing that history and moral
a bit more thouroughly would not do any harm either. http://tinyurl.com/3n9r5hq
Great article. :)
- though the "old-time" qualifier is clearly redundant.
I take it you (or your editor) felt the need to be a little, well, politic.