The Internet is abuzz today with an Op-Ed in Sunday’s New York Times entitled, “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage.” Co-authored by two men on opposite sides of the camp, David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values, and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution, the piece supposes a lot, offers a little, and ignores much. An analysis.
From the very beginning of reading “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage“, one can’t help but notice the title feels a bit odd. “A Treaty On Gay Marriage”, or “A Bridge To Gay Marriage” would make more sense. The authors’ attempt at “reconciliation” is, at best, shrouded in sectarian mischief, and at worst, is no attempt at all. One wonders of their true motivation. As you know, a word used by the church, “reconciliation” is,
“A sacrament in some Christian churches that includes contrition, confession to a priest, acceptance of punishment, and absolution.”
So, from the very beginning, we realize this piece has a deep religious undertone and is written in service to the church. How? Once you read the article thoroughly you realize the authors have written it so delicately that it leads the reader to assume the church actually has a deciding vote in the battle on gay marriage. They do it from the start. And there need be no contrition, no absolution, and no apologies for the need for gay marriage. Certainly none from the church.
The authors pre-suppose a few items and need to be called on them. First, this is a country of laws. The Church, indeed any religious entity, has no say whatsoever in the law.
Second, going back to our earlier experiment in “separate but equal”, the vast majority of Americans were against equality for blacks when President Johnson convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Majority rules” has never been an acceptable argument or principle where the Constitution, the law, and human rights are concerned. “Separate but equal” gave us five decades of separate not equal. It was insufficient then, it is insufficient now.
Overall, my conversations with members of the gay community, whether in person, or on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, are that, as authors Blankenhorn and Rauch write, yes, “most, of course, want the right to marry, and nothing less.” In fact, the vast majority tell me their outrage at being treated as second-class citizens, and, while civil union is a step in the right direction, they feel it is but a step. Equal marriage, with the word marriage, is the goal of the vast majority.
Ignored is the fact that still, only two states offer same-sex marriage. So, the statement “Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level” really doesn’t do much for the millions of gays who don’t live in, or don’t want to, or can’t, travel to Connecticut or Massachusetts. The authors should have proposed an avenue to the repeal of DOMA and federal encouragement to the states to ensure an offer of same-sex civil unions.
The authors also ignore the elephant in the room. Gays could care less about the sectarian position on same-sex marriage. In fact, I took a poll recently on the social networking site “Twitter”. In response to my question, “Acceptable definition of legalized gay marriage: must it include religious marriage recognition? Is being married by “the church” a must?”, 74% chose the answer, “Hell, who cares? As long as you call it marriage and we get all the benefits, I don’t care who marries us!” 26% chose “It would be nice, but the religious aspect of marriage is not a deal-breaker.” And no one voted for, “Absolutely. If I can’t get married in a church/synagogue/mosque, etc., then I wouldn’t consider myself married.” Me thinks the church doth protest too much.
The authors’ solution, “federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level”? Yes. “Religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will”? Yes.
But make no mistake. The Church has no say in the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not a sectarian issue but a secular one. Gays have no desire to get into bed with the church and are happy to leave the church out of our business. But civil unions and domestic partnerships are merely the final steps to our rightful goal, full and equal marriage, called marriage, and not sanctioned by the church, but by man himself. No contrition, confession to a priest, acceptance of punishment, or absolution for that which is rightfully ours, necessary.
Â
Also, take a look at these posts on Gay Marriage, here, at The New Civil Rights Movement.
Elsewhere, these pieces on the Times’ Op-Ed are interesting:
Aw cute, some people still think the church opposes gay marriage in good faith