Dear Senator Santorum: You are a dolt

Dear Senator Santorum:

In Iowa, the other day, you made the following statement to a GOP dinner crowd:

The reason the left has gone after same-sex marriage is because it’s a two-fer. When you redefine marriage, you cheapen marriage. You make it into something less valuable, less special … [and] it is a sure bet that will undermine faith.

As a someone who identifies on “the left,” let me just say that you are a dolt.

I am a person of faith.  Granted, I’m Episcopalian, and you know how those people are … but I still consider myself a Christian, a believer in God, and someone who tries to follow the teachings of Christ as I understand them.  I have no desire to force my faith on others, but I am not antagonistic toward folks for their faith, even where I might disagree with where it takes them.  I believe that, as long as it doesn’t harm those around them, people should be free to exercise their faith.

So, for example, I think people who believe that marriage is morally right (and blessed by God) between two people of the same gender should be allowed to live that faith without those of other faith beliefs wielding the power of Caesar to stop them.

I’m a big believer in marriage, too.  I think it’s a keen institution. I’m married, myself, to a wonderful woman, and that legal (and moral) bond is a hugely important part of my life.

I do believe that society is strengthened by marriage (though I don’t believe folks should be forced to marry, any more than they should be forced into any legal contract or religious oath).  I believe the cheapening of marriage into a simple transaction of convenience and social advantage (see: any number of Hollywood celebrities and Washington politicians) is, indeed, a societal problem — it, in your words, “cheapens” marriage, makes it into “something less valuable, less special.”  It’s not a problem that I believe lends itself to legal fixes (making divorce significantly more difficult, for example); it’s a cultural issue that is best approached culturally — influencing hearts and minds, not compelling bodies. Sort of like, y’know, how Jesus tried to tell His good news.

To summarize, then, I am a person of faith. And I’m a married person who believes the institution of marriage is special and valuable.

So where the hell do you come off, Senator, saying that I’m part of some vast conspiracy of “the left” out to undermine faith and to cheapen marriage?

Now, granted, you don’t think “marriage” should, by light of your faith (I presume you are sincere in this), include same-gender couples.  I disagree, but, then, we probably  disagree on a number of theological issues.  I would certainly never suggest that you be compelled to marry someone of the same gender, Senator.  Nor would I suggest that your church be compelled to give its spiritual blessing to anyone it thinks are not worthy of it — whether because of gender, or race, or criminal background, or age, or whatever.  That’s between you, your church, and God.

But marriage is not simply a religious sacrament.  It’s also a civil procedure.  People can get married without any sort of churchly blessing, and have for ages. Your interpretation of the Old Testament or the epistles of Paul as to what God approves of regarding homosexuality have nothing to do with what the county clerk or justice of the peace (or legal recognition of common law marriages) can or should be doing, any more than those governmental and legal institutions have a say in other sacraments, such as baptism.

To me, two consenting adults who choose to bind themselves as partners before society, obligating themselves to “love, honor, and cherish” each other in such a formal way, whether blessed in a church of their choosing or not, deserve to be recognized as married by the law.  That’s not “redefining marriage” — that’s recognizing that the definition of marriage is more than what plumbing the individuals involve sport, or what they do in bed (if anything) with said plumbing.

I don’t know about you, Senator, but while the marriage bed is a lot of fun, it’s not the main reason why I got, or remain, married.

Now, I’m sure, based on what you say, you don’t approve of gays getting married.  Well, to be honest, Senator, there are a number of folks who get married whose marriages I don’t approve of — and yet, remarkably, I don’t choose to try and prevent them doing so by force of law, simply based on my disapproval.  Why do you think you should get that privilege?

I don’t expect this to change your mind, Senator, even on the off chance you read it.  If nothing else, this is an election year, you’re vying for President, and dropping your anti-gay appeal to your “base” amongst the citizenry would be politically inconvenient.

But I did feel the need, on the record, to disagree with your little quip about “the left” going for a “two-fer” against marriage and against faith.  I’m sure it draws chuckle, or applause, or donations.  But it’s insulting and, worse, simply wrong, and obviously so.  To make such an argument would thus require, I’d think, either a brazen ability to lie through your teeth in order to garner money and votes, or a willful ignorance of why people support gay marriage as part of (not a “redefinition” of) the institution of marriage.

I will be charitable and assume it’s the latter, Sen. Santorum.  Which makes you, instead of a lying dog, merely a dolt.

Regards,

***Dave