The real question about marriage equality, and the church's stranglehold on America was dodged in today's NYTimes.
Philip Galanes, in his Social Q's column, addressed a question posed by marriage equality activist David Bohnett. The question as printed in the NYTimes:
Wedding BoycottI am at the forefront of the battle for same-sex marriage. Lately, it feels like too big a compromise to my values of fairness and equality to accept wedding invitations while my partner and I aren't allowed to marry. Do you think it's reasonable to decline wedding invitations, with the explanation that I wish the bride and bridegroom much happiness and look forward to the day when my partner and I have the same legal rights as they do?
David, Beverly Hills, Calif.
But Mr. Bohnett's question as edited was missing this crucial point (bold text):
I have been in the forefront of the battle for same-sex marriage equality. Our recent setbacks are discouraging, but we've made tremendous progress in the last decade and I believe it's only a matter of time until we achieve full marriage equality at both the state and federal level. It feels like too great of a compromise of my core values of fairness and equality to accept a wedding invitation, particularly one held in a church of a faith that has actively worked against marriage equality. Until my partner and I have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, do you think it is reasonable to politely decline wedding invitations from family members and friends, with the explanation that I wish them much happiness and look forward to the time that my partner and I have the same opportunity to marry ?
David Bohnett, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Mr. Galanes' response:
So, like a wedding cake hunger strike?
I hear your frustration, and your impulse doesn't strike me as wholly unreasonable.But it may seem awfully selfish to the wedding bouquet set: making their big day all about you. I bet you would engender more good will, for yourself and your cause, by celebrating the happy couples and explaining (in a congratulatory card, perhaps?) how deeply you wish you could share their joy with your own partner -- not to mention the myriad rights and privileges that come along with something borrowed, something blue.
But if you truly can't be happy watching Granny pinch the centerpieces, just say so. It may still be on the selfish side, but a bride and bridegroom may be more inclined to understand.
Mr. Galanes' answer may have been the same, but editing out the faith-based aspect only serves to deny the reader the full impact of the church's financial role to support harmful discriminatory legislation.
One can only wonder if the inexorable decline of print media is somehow tied to a culture that saves column space for the sake of expediency and tidy answers.
"A wedding cake hunger strike?" Really?
David's query deserved a far more thoughtful response.
David asks how best he should stand up against a segregated institution. My guess is that if instead he'd asked a question about whether or not to accept an invitation to play golf at a country club that didn't allow Jews, or perhaps if he was concerned about accepting a teaching job at a University that didn't enroll African-Americans, Mr. Galanes' answer would have been very clear: No you should not.
Whether or not the newlyweds support equality is really irrelevant. Because of the way marriage is currently defined the institution is unjust. So for any one, gay or straight, who desires to see the end of segregated marriage laws, what is the correct response when you receive such an invitation?
Respond the same way you would when faced with other examples of injustice, you boycott. You speak up. What you don't do is attend, and smile, and dance and bring a big present and pretend that nothing is wrong and that you are absolutely delighted.
The time for joyous occasions will return. When every American can marry.
But today, what exactly are we celebrating?
Missing the special days of loved ones is very difficult I assure you, supporting injustice is so much harder.
Changes in the church may or may not affect the law.
Mr. Bohnett is quite clear. He doesn't want to enter a church which he feels has worked against marriage equality. Mr. Gregory's reference, however, is not clear. Mr. Gregory speaks of "the church" and, unlike Mr. Bohnett, Mr. Gregory alleges that "the church" has a "stranglehold on America". Mr. Bohnett never referred to "the church" nor did he make any allegations about a "stranglehold on America".
In essence, Mr. Gregory has taken an idea set forth by Mr. Bohnett and read into it much more than even Mr. Bohnett intended. That seems to me to do a disservice to Mr. Bohnett. Obviously Mr. Bohnett is quite articulate and quite capable of speaking for himself.
I think that Mr. Gregory completely changed the meaning of the question by attempting to focus on the editing rather than on the thrust of the question itself. The question was whether or not to accept wedding invitations. It was not about wheter "the church" does or does not have a "stranglehold on America".
What do you mean by "the church's stranglehold on America". That is a colorful and inflammatory phrase but as you use it, it has no meaning. Which church's have a "stranglehold" on America and in what way is it a "stranglehold"?
By all means, make your case but make it in a clear and rational manner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11meese.html?ref=todayspaper
It should be noted that the Author, Edwin Meese III, is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Google Heritage Foundation and read about it and you'll see why I point this out.
Goodnight
But what's your point?
It's important to understand that left-wing and Democratic-leaning churches and parishes exist, and the people in them vote and pray!
Oh, wait, that's exactly what they did, and we now applaud Rosa Parks for her courageous choices, as well as all of those taking part in the bus boycott. We applaud Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton for their courage.
We don't look back on the civil rights movement and say that Ms. Parks should have not only given up her seat, but have done so with a smile -- after all, someone offered her free heavy appetizers and a chance to deliver a gift of stemware! Or that Susan B. Anthony should have just shut up and served dinner.
It's not selfish for someone to feel unable or unwilling to "celebrate" something capriciously and nonsensically denied them, particularly right at the scene of the crime. It's selfish for others not to care that such capricious and nonsensical laws still exist.
If this person decides to protest weddings, the state will not care. There will be no arrest, or trial, or a need to go to the Supreme Court to protest weddings.
The ordinance of marriage was created and blessed by God for man and woman and it can never be sanctioned by God for the purpose of sin. If homosexuals want to tie the knot, so to speak, I guess they can call it marriage if they want, but that is not what it is and the true curch of God cannot sanction lt.
Strikethrough all text that didn't make it into the published version.
Underline all text that was added.
Use square brackets to contain changes, showing deleted/added text with strikethroughs and underlines.
Good thing we get to compare the as-written to the as-published...