Some thoughts about the “true” enemies of marriage.
Unfortunately, the conservative argument against gay marriage often reeks of hypocrisy. Our society stopped viewing marriage as a sacred (God-ordained) institution long ago. Since the invention of no-fault divorce laws, divorce rates have skyrocketed. Now, almost half of all marriages end in divorce.
Even in the conservative Christian community, divorce is rampant. As the only lawyer in my church (a very conservative Pentecostal congregation), I frequently receive telephone calls from fellow church members requesting assistance on child custody matters, property division and other divorce-related questions.
I have fielded so many questions about divorce that I am sometimes surprised when I encounter middle-aged congregants who have not been previously married. The gay community could not treat their marriage vows any worse than many Christians treat their own.
RTWT.
(via Andrew Sullivan)
Some care needs to be made with the argument above. It could be used, for example, to treat divorced people as poorly as we treat homosexuals. We should not treat all people equally but rather we should treat all people well. How the church is treating divorced people is actually a matter of progress. It is my hope is that this will extend to other disenfranchised portions of society. Is it hypocritical? You betcha. But, we must make sure that the cognitive dissonance is worked out in the right way.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. [emphasis mine]
— Emerson
I agree, and I’m certainly not advocating (for selfish as well as philosophical reasons) treating divorced folks poorly. The point of the article is that even the communities which profess to consider marriage to be something sacred and Scriptural, and thus beyond the pale of extending to gays, are willing to make their own excuses and rules when it affects them, e.g., in the case of divorce. Since I think it unlikely that the vast majority of Americans (let alone, say, the leadership of Congress, in either party) is going to support draconian anti-divorce laws, I don’t think that if the cognitive dissonance ever does get worked out, it will be in a regressive fashion.
Some of the groups advocating the gay marriage laws and amendments also are advocating changes in dealing with divorce laws. I am inclined towards C.S. Lewis’ position where he was against tightening divorce laws in England because the society was not Christian. We should not compel the state to follow our morality and the state ought not to tread on ours when we differ from the majority. Thus, I find the following paragraph the most compelling part of the argument:
“For those who believe gay marriage is morally wrong for Biblical or other religious reasons, this decision changes nothing. Churches can still speak out against sexual immorality and can still choose not to perform gay weddings. The gay couple down the street in no way makes our own straight marriage more difficult or challenging, nor can any decision of any court of law change the definition of marriage in the eyes of God.”
Agreed.
No argument from me, either.
My wife has found parallels in the abortion arguments, as well, where women who protest clinics also use them, both for themselves and for their housekeepers. They make claims of things like, “Oh, that’s different.” It’s quite widespread.
Personally, I’m all for removal of all the religion that’s been slipping into the national political debate. No place for it.
I have to disagree with you, Scott, but perhaps more in the letter than in the spirit of what you say.
I believe that the basis upon which someone (a president, for example) makes decisions is profoundly important. It may be logic, it may be personal experience, it may be religion, it may be philosophy, it may be … whatever. If someone has strongly held moral beliefs, whether formally religious or not, that’s going to color their thinking and their policy and their decisions-making. Excluding that from the mix of what people know about someone, or pretending like it doesn’t exist, is folly.
If someone says, “I believe that we should increase food stamps to families with dependent children because it’s the right thing to do,” it’s useful to know *why* they think it’s right. Because of their religous beliefs? Because they grew up poor? Because their pollsters say it will get them more votes? Because of a book they once read? Because they threw a dart at the dartboard?
That said, using religion as some sort of shallow litmus test is goofy (“He’s Catholic, therefore he’s a puppet of the Pope!” “He’s born-again, therefore he’s a right-wing loony!” “He’s an atheist, therefore he’s amoral and sociopathic!”). Removing that from the playing field would be fine by me.
And, of course, I would worry about someone in power who based decisions solely upon a particular basis, whether it was their religion, their philosophy, their pollsters, their logic, their dart board, or whatever.