Where's the Struggle?

I feel cheated. I've always been told that Judaism is all about the struggle -- the struggle with God, with ourselves, with ideas.

I've been told that Judaism embraces the tension between opposing views; that a key part of being Jewish is the ability to hold onto, even nurture, this tension as a way of refining our character.

So, what happened?

When I see the coarse arguments currently raging over the issue of same-sex marriage, I don't see any thoughtful or fascinating debates or any embracing of tension. I see two armies shooting at each other.

These two armies have one thing in common: They're both absolutely sure they have the truth on their side.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage are so sure of themselves that they'll accuse the other side of "hatred, discrimination and bigotry." When I saw a neighbor a few weeks ago put up a sign that said, "No to Hate, No to 8," the first thing that crossed my mind was: If these people can go so far as to accuse the neighbors who disagree with them of hatred, well, they must be incredibly sure of themselves. No inner turmoil there.

I can't say I've reached that state of blissful certitude. That's because for every heartfelt, passionate argument I hear in favor of same-sex marriage, I'll hear something that complicates the argument, such as this from Carol A. Corrigan:

"If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box."

Corrigan is not a Mormon missionary. She's a justice of the California Supreme Court. She was one of three dissenters in the decision last May to overturn the result of Proposition 22 from March 2000, when 61 percent of Californians who cast ballots voted that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Corrigan also happens to be a lesbian, who would personally like to see same-sex marriage become the law of the land. But as she wrote in her dissent:

"We are in the midst of a major social change. Societies seldom make such changes smoothly. For some, the process is frustratingly slow. For others it is jarringly fast. In a democracy the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference. That is the way democracies work.

"Ideas are proposed, debated, tested. Often new ideas are initially resisted, only to be ultimately embraced. But when ideas are imposed, opposition hardens and progress may be hampered."

Does that sound like someone who's full of hatred, discrimination and bigotry?

Similarly, I came across a scholarly and respectful essay from professor Margaret Somerville of McGill University titled, "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage." The Bible is never mentioned. Instead, strictly from a secular and ethical viewpoint, Somerville delves into the many layers of the issue, always recognizing the opposing viewpoint. And without a trace of self-righteousness, she advances, slowly and carefully, her belief that "society needs an institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive relationship."

I would love to see all proponents of Proposition 8 show the same appreciation for the complexity of this issue.

As I see it, the key point is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Corrigan and Somerville, but rather, recognizing that there's a lot more thoughtful debate on this issue than meets the eye.

Frankly, when I see the increasingly vitriolic attacks being launched against people who exercised their democratic right to vote on a proposition, all I'm thinking is: They're losing me.

One person who certainly didn't lose me was Rabbi Sharon Brous, the spiritual leader of the IKAR community. Over coffee at Delice Bakery the other day, she made arguments in favor of same-sex marriage that were compelling and genuinely moving.

What moved me the most was the way she made her arguments -- without any hint of anger or condescension, but with kindness, reason and heartfelt anecdotes. She didn't feel the need to use scare tactics. She was against using words like "hate" to characterize the opposition, because, as she said, that kind of language doesn't "open the heart."

My conversation with Brous made me reflect on my own approach. Because I'm driven by curiosity as much as ideology, I have a tendency to immerse myself in both sides of an issue -- even if I usually lean one way or the other.

I admit that I'm often tempted to just go over to my side, pick up a gun and start shooting. And sometimes I do. But then I ask myself, does the community need another partisan shooter, or does it need someone who can encourage all shooters to put down their guns and try to speak with the calmness and sensitivity of a Carole Corrigan, a Margaret Somerville or a Sharon Brous?

Maybe that's the real struggle. Instead of trying to "convert" other people to our beliefs, we should struggle to convey those beliefs in a way that won't alienate, demean or patronize the other side.

Even when -- especially when -- we're absolutely sure that we are right and they are wrong.

Cross-posted at the Jewish Journal

Comments

[SoRefined]

Many spot-on comments here, especially regarding civil rights at the ballot box. Most of the important civil rights codificati­on/legisla­tion sure hasn't come to us via en masse voting. Brown v. Board? Civil Rights Act of 1964? Roe v. Wade? The Bill of Rights and most of the other constitutional amendments?

But this is the line that really made my grits boil:

"society needs an institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive relationship."

Wow. Just wow. You're just blithely accepting that the only legit purpose of marriage is baby-making? Don't get me wrong, there are worse reasons to get married, I guess, but I seriously doubt that Somerville is going to be advocating for denial of marriage licenses to non-breeding STRAIGHT couples any time soon. (Not interested in spawning? Infertile? Sterile? Post-menopausal? If you or your beloved are any of these things, your continued place on the matrimonial roll call is threatening "traditional marriage.")

Finally, message to people who are afraid of gay marriage: I happen to live in a state where it's legal, and guess what? There's no shortage of straight people getting married, having babies, or otherwise going about their daily lives. So when change comes on a national level, and it will, someday, remember you heard it from a straight girl born in West Virginia, raised in Kansas and transplanted to Massachusetts: it's not going to impact you AT ALL. I promise.

[Smith808]

(CONT)
Marriage has evolved to the degree that social expectations of it cannot preclude gays and lesbians from wanting and achieving the same endeavors. Couples can marry for whatever reasons they choose, they don't have to "produce" children, nor are their marriages required to last. Another assumption people make is that gays and lesbians can't produce children or can't adopt (in some states they can). Marriage is, first and foremost, an institution that represents and symbolizes love, commitment, mutual support, and monogamy - THIS is what benefits society.

[Smith808]

"society needs an institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive relationship."

I, too, find this statement incredulous! Even Christianity's "first marriage" blows this out of the water. The truth is that even people who don't consider themselves "bigots" still feel threatened by the prospect of "sharing." Growing up, I did not aspire to "civil unionize" the person I would spend the rest of my life with and since birth, I have been enculturated into believing the same social facts and fiction as everyone else. Now, even "reasonable" people are claiming that my social experiences and contributions were never mine to feel nor were they ever mine to give in the first place (having been born and raised on Planet Gay, I suppose). Not only do the benefits, but the sentiments behind the "institution" belong to me, too. "I" participate in this very "society" that others now claim as their exclusive domain.

I like the point you made about how the sky hasn't fallen since gay marriage was allowed in MA. No one can explain to me how gay marriage has threatened the "reproductive expectations" in their own marriage? It seems as if "sharing" would dilute the conviction of others - as if the symbolism of marriage is and always was finite.
(CONT)

[Smith808]

"…without judicial interference" -- you have got to be kidding me. Please tell that to the NAACP.

"If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box." -- I am so sick of this “ballot” argument when it involves civil rights. My right to keep a job as an openly gay person, to adopt a child, to form any type of legal relationship with my partner have all been put up for majority vote and have been pushed through. Apparently, in the United States of America, it is okay for some states to treat its citizens this way, while not okay in others? Interstate cargo has more federal protection.

While gays and lesbians presented marriage as a discrimination issue, religion painted it as a moral one. I do not expect "understanding to develop" at the pace of religious evolution. I am also not interested in "winning over" every single voter to accept me -- this shouldn't be a burden ANYone has to endure.

Here's how I will embrace the struggle: "I know YOU would rather I wait until you’ve reconciled the tension between equality and popularity, but I will not stop insisting on my right to marry the person that I love. "

[Smith808]

It seems easy for you to assume internal "harmony" as if you have no personal investment in supporting ONE side. As a lesbian, I, too, would love to "shrug off" the vitriol aimed against me and as someone on equal "legal" footing with the next @s.shole, but I'm NOT, and guess who's deciding for me, instead? I welcome the "embracing of tension" with matters of philosophy, but not when it involves REAL discrimination against my partner, our families, my community, and me. A constitutional right has been taken away while you (and the appeasers you quote) would rather wait and pontificate on what is right and wrong about gay marriage. Who are we supposed to wait on? – You? The 52%? Those who voted their hated? God? Those who are apprehensive of change will never make it happen -- they have to witness it happening first. This is why the Constitution granted us the right to marry.

There is a big difference in the intent behind calling someone a "hateful bigot" and receiving threats of violence in response (and as an initiation to) "dialogue." Despite attempts to present my own honest arguments (as opposed to “compromise”), I have been confronted with de.ath threats along the lines of "dec.apitation," and "having my ba.lls cut off." I wish this were an isolated incident, but it's not only generic, it represents half the sentiment out there for why I shouldn't have the right to marry.
(cont)

[Cybersquirt]

Struggle?

Have your rights taken away by a Church and their liars, being relegated to a 2nd class citizen - let's see how you react.

[bannorhill]

First... how can you take away a "right" you never had. The supreme court has never ruled that same sex marriage is a "right". Laws exist in 42 states that do not allow same sex marriage. Not one of those laws has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Not One. Same sex marriage is not a right.

Second... no church took away those "rights". No church went to the ballot box. No church voted. No church got a court to overturn that "right". It was voters. It was Democracy. Democracy passed the original law defining marriage. Democracy legally revised the California constitution to match a law passed 8 years ago.

[mercury613]

We did, in fact, have the right to marry. Proposition 8 took that right away. It was even spelled out on the ballot itself: "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry." That's pretty clear.

As far as churches not taking that right away, you're splitting hairs. The Mormon and Catholic churches banded together to launch a $35 million+ campaign to get the measure passed. Had they not gotten involved and spread truth distortions and outright lies, Prop 8 would have likely failed.

[mantaraggio]

How can you equate the anger of an oppressed group with the hate spewed forth by their oppressors? Don't kid yourself - the two sides of this story don't have anything in common, anymore than Jews have something in common with Nazis. Would you say it is up to the Jews to explain to the Nazis in a rational way why they are human beings, too?

Can you blame queers for being angry? After years of suffering through anti-sodomy laws and assassinated leaders? After being spit on and blamed for AIDS, after losing their jobs and their children and having no recourse in the eyes of the law? After being beaten and raped and tortured and murdered? Oh yeah, to be angry over all of that, to accuse the society that has committed these acts of being full of violence and hate, that's exactly the same thing as thinking gay marriage just isn't peachy keen because you think god said so. This isn't an obscure religious argument to mull over for centuries - the right to marry is presided over by the state.

Jews, as a group who have so often felt the sting of racism and hatred and oppression, should be the first people to stand up and fight for the equal rights of others. It should be considered our responsibility as Jews to stand in solidarity and say "No", not to sit around and mull over whether or not a compelling argument for equal rights has been made.

[midknightryder13]

I am always amazed when I hear the argument "No one needs to know your sexual orientation". The inplication being that the way someone finds out about someone ELSE's SO is because it's announced. As in (hand outstretched), "Hello, my name is Sam and I'm gay."

Such treacle.

Most straight people reveal or reinforce their sexual orientation EVERY DAY -- they talk about their wife/husband or boyfriend/­girlfriend­. They kiss them hello/goodbye at the front door, when they drop them off at the airport or when they meet in a resturant. They display pictures of their wedding at their desk. They walk hand-in-hand or arm around each other down the street. Anybody ever listen to ANY "music for lovers" radio dedication show. How many same gender dedications do you hear? Conversely, how many OPPOSITE gender requests/stories do you hear?

[mercury613]

This is *not* about simple disagreement. This is about one group of people imposing its religious beliefs on another. It's wrong, and it's unconstitutional.

I completely disagree with the Catholic church's official policy on birth control (among many, many other things), but I'm not out there trying to enact laws to interfere. I am not Catholic, therefore, I am not affected by what they say about contraception. If you want to be part of the Catholic church, that's what you have to deal with, and it's your business. If the Catholic (and Mormon) churches would have kept their noses out of things that have absolutely nothing to do with them, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[luvobama]

Excellent analogy. Thank you.

[Aywaller]

I'm sorry, but I believe that people who hold bigoted beliefs should be alienated and demeaned by the rest of society so that those beliefs can be challenged and, hopefully, changed.

And yes, I think to argue against gay marriage is to hold a bigoted belief that homosexuals should not be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. The argument against gay marriage sounds as false to me as the arguments against interracial marriage made before Loving v. Virginia.

[RoloTomassi]

Come on, be honest with yourself and realize that the same-sex faction is REACTING to hate with hate; while I view this from a strictly heterosexual position, it's clear to me that these folks feel embattled enough that they are compelled to fight back.

And really, if you've listen with more than a tin ear to the "heterosexually exclusive marriage" side of this argument, surely you've heard and seen more blatant displays of hate directed AT gays and lesbians than coming from them.

Those people know from every right they've gained just how much hate will be directed at them, and I suspect they've just had enough of being the "whipping boy."