Fear of Public Scrutiny

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_14174369

“The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide by midday whether to lift a stay on Walker’s earlier order allowing the delayed broadcast of the proceedings on the court’s Web site by using YouTube; the justices put the unprecedented plan on hold earlier this week at the request of Proposition 8 supporters, who oppose any broadcast of the trial. They say broadcasting the court proceedings would expose their witnesses to threats and intimidation, and would ‘negatively affect the fairness of the trial.’”

Let me see if I get this right.  People who voted for Prop 8, to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, who are a part of the dominant paradigm, are concerned that they will be threatened and intimidated because their participation will be made public?

Let’s take a look at this.

Versus this.

Or, if you don’t like that wording, how about this.

Let’s see…. pages upon pages of people being murdered because they were gay or lesbian (or transgendered or transexual or any other alternative sexuality), but perhaps a single link (if that) regarding the reverse.  Yesterday in court, an Ivy League scholar was able to talk for virtually an entire day of court about the history of gays and lesbians undergoing persecution, discrimination, and degradation.  The same cannot be done for heterosexuals.

Pause for a moment.  There have certainly been ugly and hurtful things done by opponents of Prop 8 towards proponents.  That is inexcusable.  I understand that there is concern that people will lash out against witnesses for the defense and that is not wholly unjustified.  However, there is a key fundamental aspect of this that is going unmentioned by proponents.

The plaintiffs are even worse off due to the fact that their names are displayed everywhere with the case now, so they must undergo harsh treatment as well.  They are fighting for rights they do not have, while the defendants are fighting to keep rights they already (can) enjoy.  The plaintiffs are working against thousands of years of history and socialization while the defendants are trying to uphold an unjust status quo with significant national and international support (whether that’s implicit or explicit).

What I am frustrated by is that the plaintiffs (Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo; Kristin Perry & Sandy Stier) are putting themselves and their relationships out into public scrutiny because their love burns more fiercely than does the misplaced righteousness of those who would seek to strip them of their rights and yet, and yet, those who actively seek to deprive rights are concerned about the effects of appearing in court?  These lovers-seeking-equality are having to put themselves out into the public sphere for the utmost scrutiny and ridicule because of the public’s action, let alone the reaction they are receiving now or the future action they might receive.  The State of California did indeed vote, by majority, to deny gays their right to marry.  This court case is a reaction to that action and, in both cases, have placed the plaintiffs under far more stress and duress than the witnesses for the defense will have undergone or will undergo.

And, just as an afterthought, don’t think that these plaintiffs’ scrutiny will cease upon the completion of this trial.  While it may lessen should the courts decide to uphold Prop 8, it will intensify should the courts strike down the Proposition.  Consider what the media would do if Paul and Jeff or Kristin and Sandy eventually divorced?  Or one had an affair?  While these are almost commonplace events for heterosexual couples, they could very well become national news should either of these couples experience them.

Prop 8 Defense: Contradictory and Unsatisfactory

Article quotes below are taken from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-trial12-2010jan12,0,989948.story?page=1

“[US District Judge] Walker noted that many states once barred interracial marriage. [Prop 8 Rep] Cooper replied that those laws were based on a notion of ‘white supremacy,’ and not on a long-standing tradition.”

Again, I am just appalled at how completely lacking in substantive argument the proponents of Prop 8 are in this discussion.  The arguments put forth are either weak and easily refuted or they contradict themselves.  Consider the one pasted above.  When asked by the judge to account for the fact that people voted in laws banning miscegenation, the Prop 8 representative replied that “white supremacy” is the reason for those laws, not tradition.

Did it not occur to Mr. Cooper that “white supremacy” was (is) also a long-standing tradition?

He attempts to lay to rest a just question by invoking a rhetoric that has the desired effect of getting everyone on the speaker’s side (“I’m against white supremacy”) without addressing the fact that he just created an even more disturbing analogue.  It is precisely because white supremacy was a long-standing, near-axiomatic tradition that anti-miscegenation laws were passed.  It was not until enough voices cried out in challenge of this norm that justice was achieved, despite many attempts to the contrary.  The fact that Mr. Cooper attempts to dismiss an historical parallel regarding interracial marriage by citing an ugly accepted truth of the past points to how either clueless or blind Mr. Cooper (and, by extension, those he represents) are.

Did it not occur to Mr. Cooper that “heterosexual supremacy” is a long-standing tradition?

Within this same article, there is yet another bothersome argument made my Mr. Cooper.

“Cooper said the evidence would show that opposite-sex marriage is good for children, and that the “procreative purpose of marriage” would be “diluted or weakened” if same-sex couples were permitted to marry.

Asked what evidence exists to show that same-sex marriage would ‘radically alter the institution of marriage,’ Cooper replied that data from the Netherlands will show that it leads to a decline in marriage rates. He said it also would lead to more children being raised outside of marriage and higher divorce rates.

But he added that same-sex marriage is still too rare and novel an ‘experiment’ to draw conclusions about its long-term impact. Noting that only five states and seven countries permit gays and lesbians to wed, Cooper said, ‘The people of California are entitled to await the results of that experiment.’”

Which is it Mr. Cooper?  Is the evidence that you propose to show indicative of what is to come should gay marriage be allowed?  Or is same-sex marriage too rare and we cannot draw conclusions about its long-term impact?  If you are talking about evidence in the Netherlands being long-standing enough to provide indication of the future, then why keep referring to it all as “experimentation”?  Or, if we’re still in the experimentation phase, then how can you use the Netherlands as any sort of conclusive proof?  Or, further still, do you feel that the Netherlands and the United States are similar enough that information regarding one nation’s sociology is applicable to the other?

Either way you answer that will make your statement either more confusing or self-defeating.  Either the information is applicable, which would then make your statements regarding social “experimentation” misleading because your argument is framed on an unknowability factor, when instead you’re claiming we know where gay marriage will lead.  Or, if the information is not applicable, which is why we’re still in the social “experimentation” phase, then your bringing the Netherlands into the conversation as anything but another example of “experimentation” makes it seem like there is no longer any question.  The verdict is in.  Gay marriage does X, Y, and Z.  But no, Mr. Cooper does not go that route.  Because he knows that he can’t win either of those arguments.  He must attempt to cherry-pick from both sides of his argument-coin so as to have the best of both worlds because his position is untenable should he pick just one.  But alas, it seems the sociologists, anthropologists, and marriage/law historians will start to be brought in and this matter will eventually be settled.

“The day ended with testimony from Harvard professor Nancy Cott, an expert in the history of marriage in the United States.

She said Cooper’s opening statement that marriage between two members of the opposite sex was universal was inaccurate. Ancient Jews were polygamous, she said, and in some countries Muslims can marry several women.

In a 19th century case, she said the U.S. Supreme Court denied Dred Scott, a black man, citizenship partly on the grounds that he was not permitted to marry a white woman. The court said that was a ‘stigma that marked him as less than a full citizen,’ she testified. ‘In marrying, one is exercising a right of freedom,’ she said.”

Rinse and repeat until we get to the US Supreme Court.

Shame on Rhode Island’s Governor

http://www.projo.com/news/2009/pdf/veto_s0195_funeral_directors.pdf

 

Please read this veto signed by the governor of Rhode Island, Donald Carcieri.  The bill proposed seeks to provide domestic partners funerary-arrangement decision-making power.  Currently, as you can see from the amended bill, there is no such provision, which means that should a person in a domestic partnership die, his or her partner has no say, the deceased’s family does.  This bill simply sought to make domestic partnerships somewhat more on par with marriages, a common talking point of anti-gay rights advocates (“They’re equal!”).

 

But it was vetoed.  The Governor vetoed it.  And take a look at his reasoning.

“A one (1) year time period for any relationship is not sufficient length of duration to establish a serious, lasting bond between two (2) individuals to supplant the surviving individual over traditional family members….”

 

WHAT?!?!  This is outrageous!  If this is the case, why are there not laws preventing people from getting married less than a year after meeting?  Why are all of the rights and privileges of married couples afforded upon the simple statement of “I do”?  If a newlywed died while on the honeymoon, would you say to them, “Oh, sorry, your relationship wasn’t long enough to warrant funerary rights”?  Completely discriminatory and heterosexist.

 

It isn’t until his second paragraph that he makes a somewhat defensible statement.  But his primary concern is not legalism nor procedure.  It’s relational legitimacy.  This is reinforced by his third “reason” for his veto:

 

“Finally, this bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surround traditional marriage…”

 

Marriage as “traditionally” defined is the legitimate relationship.  Domestic partnerships, which is used euphemistically for same-gender relationships, are illegitimate.  They have no relational legitimacy, they are not recognized by Rhode Island, and they are merely threats to the definition of state-sanctioned intimate, personal relations.  The proposed (and vetoed) bill is not the disturbing trend.  The bill is the lens through which we can better see the disturbing trend: discrimination against non-heterosexuals.  Or, to quote the apostle Paul:

 

“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (Romans 3:20)

 

Governor Carcieri is not shown to be righteous by observing the law here; rather through the laws in place, we have become conscious of the interpersonal and structural sin of heterosexism.

 

 

 

 

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.  The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13: 8-10)

With the Passage of Prop 8…. (A Repost)

In light of Maine revoking its legalization of same-sex marriage, a vote that harkens back all too painfully to a year ago, I am reposting my blog I wrote when CA voters passed Proposition 8.

I write this before Proposition 8 has officially passed, but despite the seemingly close race, it seems like it will succeed. Perhaps in a few hours, the last thousand precincts will shake things up, but I’ll just have to write something else at that pont.

But I feel compelled to write now. I haven’t been able to sleep for two nights. Two nights ago, it was because I was too excited to vote and anxious to see Barack Obama elected President. That hope and dream came true. However, as tearfully joyous that was and is, I was very much sobered by the streaming results of the Propositions, with 8 holding much attention. And now, with nearly 95% of precincts reporting, it looks like “Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” will pass.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I can already see that we have taken another step back from healing the rift that has developed in our country over the issue of sexuality. Where churches are going through full-blown schisms over the issue, we now see our state is nearly bisected over the question of sexuality and society. This chasm that extends between supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 is one that allows people to let fly vitriolic comments in their frustration and passion. Now, with the passage of Proposition 8, I have already seen comments of hatred being directed at those accused of systematizing hatred; already have I seen Facebook statuses of intolerance indicting those condemned for their intolerance. This helps no one and heals nothing.

With the passage of Proposition 8, marriage is now legally defined as only recognizable when between a man and a woman. The California Constitution has now put an explicit limit on who can be a part of the institution. Some claim this is exclusivistic and discriminatory, others defend this is protective and beneficial. With a constitutional amendment, now the State of California must place a wholly new amendment to remove this one, should the state come to a place that deems it contrary to how things ought to be. Or, perhaps the US Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the definition of marriage and all laws restricting marriage based on gender (or sexuality) will be stricken. Either way, for the time being, rights bestowed are now rights revoked and will have to become rights reclaimed. This legal definition of marriage has indeed been a defining moment, but the effects of this momentous definition will be lasting and far-reaching.

With the passage of Proposition 8, however, the concern for me is not truly over the definition. Semantics can be debated for eons and can lead to considerable bloodshed. I am not disputing the power of words, nor the importance of definitions per se. But in this particular case, the concern is superficially about definition, but it is more about devaluation. Supporters of Proposition 8 continuously point to Europe as evidence of how the institution of marriage has become nearly defunct. However, there is no talk of the ubiquity of monogamous relationships, or of how the US has a higher divorce rate than all European countries except Sweden, or how many of those countries have returned the matter of marriage back to the state fully (just as Protestants wanted, back when they did that whole Reformation thing). There is no talk about how a change in definition does not inexorably lead to devaluation. Marriage used to be legally defined as not between people of different races. The definition was changed. African slaves used to be legally defined as not full people. The definition was changed. Gay people used to be considered not mentally healthy, socially acceptable, or personally tolerable. That definition is changing. But legally, it seems, they are still defined as second-class citizens, whose rights shall consist of a separate-but-equal means of life-long union known as a civil union or domestic partnership. Some claim that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex couples by domestic partnerships are entirely equal to that of marriage, and therefore this Proposition is merely a protection of a fundamental building block of society. However, remember that in the 50’s and 60’s, the argument was not over the drinking fountain’s water quality or quantity.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I have become discontent, to put it mildly. This ballot initiative was originally called the Defense of Marriage Act, or something akin to that, but was renamed into the more accurately named “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Today, this November the 5th, with the passage of Proposition 8 I have found the institution of marriage to be under attack. With the passage of Proposition 8, I have found the institution of marriage questionable in my eyes. With the passage of Proposition 8, if I am to be married some day to a woman I love, I will be partaking of a ceremony of privilege and discrimination. My future marriage has become personally lessened because it has become legally heightened. With the elevation of a future union of mine to a status unobtainable by dear family and friends as well as complete strangers, I will be a part of a system that is undeniably parallel to paying women less and forcing people of color to the back of the bus. Why? Because that pay grade is considered special with regard to gender. Because that seat in the bus was considered prioritized with regard to race. And now, because this union of two people has become a symbol of privilege with regard to sexuality. Paradoxically, with the passage of Proposition 8, the concern of the supporters has become the reality of the opponents: the definition of marriage has changed. The devaluation of marriage has occurred.

With the passage of Proposition 8, California has become one of those states that futurity will look back upon and wonder “Why?” If marriage is indeed a building block of society, a key component of the fabric of our culture, then perhaps we need to deconstruct our society; perhaps we need to stop trying to sew patches onto old cultural wineskins. It was revolutionary to think that a black man was a human being. It is revolutionary we just elected a black man to the Presidency of the United States. It is revolutionary to open up one’s paradigm, one’s world, one’s vulnerability to those who are inherently different. Perhaps a day in the not-too-distant future, we will have another revolution of a different equality: that of sexuality.

Reveal to Repeal: Holding Mormons Accountable

This blog was inspired by the following article:

Mormonism’s Black Issues | Religion & Theology | ReligionDispatches

The issue at stake is that up until 1978, black people (of African descent, as every Mormon publication is quick to point out; before 1978 non-African blacks could, theologically, join the priesthood) could not be a part of the Priesthood of the LDS Church.  The reason this issue sticks with me is because despite Mormons only making up 2% of California, they played a huge role in the Prop 8 battle.  This means that the Mormons staking so much on this issue puts them, their doctrines, their history, and their Church squarely in the realm of scrutiny.  Before Prop 8 went to vote, I tried to talk with a number of my Mormon friends, but none of them would discuss the issue at length with me.  Invariably, the conversation would halt when I brought up the historical parallel of the LDS Church’s historical stance on blacks or polygamy.  I would not get any messages back.  The conversations would not progress any further.

Finally, 2 days ago a friend of mine actually sent back a message after I beseeched her to connect me with someone in the LDS Church who could engage me in conversation.  And she honestly and sincerely admitted that she had no idea why the Church had the stance it did (regarding blacks).  God issued a command and the Church had to follow it.  Simple as that.  The paradigm she is working from, indeed the paradigm many if not most Mormons appear to work from (judging from the research I did in putting this blog together), is greatly at odds with my own.  It makes it difficult to converse at times because talking past one another can easily happen.

I write this with the intention of clarifying things for both Mormons and us non-Mormons.  As I am a strong advocate for gay rights (both within and without Christianity), including the right to marry, I must stand at odds with my Mormon brothers and sisters.  I must stand against them, but that does not mean I cannot sit at table with them.  It does not mean we cannot walk together in conversation and mutually understand one another better.  It is in that vein that I write.  Hard questions will be asked; harsh criticisms leveled, but I sincerely hope someone will take up the call to clarify misunderstandings I have, augment the histories I excerpt, and shore up my weak spots.
The overarching issue at stake here is this: I view the Church changing its stance on issues as the people who make up the Church coming to realize they had something wrong whereas the Mormon understanding is that God reveals truth “line by line, precept by precept.”  Therefore, with the catalyzing article above as a paradigmatic example, I would view the LDS Church’s stance on Priesthood-privilege changing as evidence of human fallibility coming to recognize its error, not divine decree.  But the Church instead recognizes it as a new revelation from God.  The Church is perfect.  There was no error of judgment.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was not being institutionally racist, but instead individual Mormons grasped for justification of something beyond their understanding and therefore, consequentially, the Church as a whole became labelled racist.  This is the stance of the Church (Reveal to Repeal, as I call it), but it is a very roseate shade.

First, let’s look at some current discussions on the issue of race in Mormonism from within Mormonism.  Below are excerpts from a talk given by Marvin Perkins, Director of African American Relations for the Southern California Public Affairs Council of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Marvin Perkins is a black Mormon talking on the issue of blacks and Mormonism.  To be quite honest, it is a very troubling read.  At one point (well, to be fair, at many points), Perkins quotes Scripture  from the Book of Mormon to set the stage for his argument.  When Perkins finally speaks directly to the Curse of Ham/Cain, he quotes the following two Scriptures (among others):

2 Nephi 5:21

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (not my emphasis)

3 Nephi 2:15-16.

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. (not my emphasis)

As is not difficult to see, it seems that the Mormon Scriptures make it pretty clear why blacks (African or otherwise) would have a hard time with the LDS Church.  Perkins attempts a very, very convoluted explanation of why we cannot read this as literally speaking to skin color.  It involves looking at many footnotes of what words should be read in what context with what other Scripture.  To be honest, although I feel I gave all the footnotes and other Scripture a fair reading, Perkins is reaching.  The word for “skin” is apparently supposed to be understood as referring to “scales” of the eyes (cf. Acts 9:18 or 2 Nephi 30: 6).  However, even if one were to accept Perkins’ convoluted exegesis, he actually says the following in reference to the 3 Nephi 2: 15-16 passage:

“There are Blacks here today who are members of the Church. Why have we not turned White? But there are Blacks who have joined the Church, married White spouse, and their children became lighter than their Black parents. Then those kids grew up to marry those that believe as they do, which most are White, so they married White, and their kids became even lighter, and so on. Makes you think a bit, doesn’t it?”

When I read this, I could not help but yell out in shock.  Perkins attempts to explain that the Scriptures do not refer to skin color.  He (and many other articles) try to exegetically explain why literal black skin is not what is being talked about, but then he says this.  He says that black skin is being eliminated (dare I say, overcome) because of blacks marrying into the overwhelmingly white religion that is Mormonism.  And that this, in light of 3 Nephi 2: 15-16, is a good thing.  This is, in fact, a practical way to see the curse of Ham/Cain being lifted.

This is, in fact, racist.  Disturbingly so.  It is even more heartbreaking that it may be branded as legitimately not-racist because a black Mormon said it.  Even more so because I’m a white Protestant criticizing it.  Forgive me, but eugenics, innocuous or blatant, is one of the oldest and most despicable practices in part because of how ethnocentric it has been throughout history.  The whole idea is to breed a better humanity.  A humanity without Them or the Other denigrating it.

It must be said, however, that the LDS Church did indeed allow black men (of African descent!) to join the priesthood in 1978.  Now, you’ll find publications touting excerpts from 19th century church documents that talk about how the groundwork had clearly been laid for eventual inclusion of (African) blacks:

“While leaders had taught that blacks ‘were not yet to receive the priesthood’ (Letter of the First Presidency, as published in the Improvement Era, February 1970), it was known that one day the full blessings of the Gospel related to the Priesthood would be available to them. The temporary exclusion ended unexpectedly – and happily – in 1978, sooner than many had imagined.” (not my emphasis)

However, different paradigms withstanding, I look at these historical parallels and just wonder:

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time. In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church.

In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).”

Note that the official LDS website admits that “in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples” the President “was inspired to… officially end the sanction of plural marriage.”  Further, note that marriage between a man and a woman is “essential to [God’s] eternal plan.”  There is no “for now” or “as yet” or any qualifier.

Relatedly:

“Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.”

This Supreme Court decision took place, as you may note, immediately on the heels of the Civil Rights Act.  After these nation-changing events, you have this occur:

“In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.”

Yet again, the LDS Church changes its policies right after major shifts occur in the political landscape because of a new revelation.  To my more cynical eye, I see the political winds changing with regard to race-relations and therefore so does God.  To my Mormon brothers and sisters, however, it will be more along the lines of “Before 1978, with the way the world was, humanity was not mature enough to handle black leaders.  Therefore, God, in His good and loving wisdom, delayed this until we were ready.”  However, I do not see and have not heard any talk of women being considered equal or GLBT persons.  Even if it is eventually.

Instead we have these official stances of the LDS Church with regard to gays and lesbians:

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

Or you have this official policy regarding women:

“The priesthood—the authority of God to perform ordinances and act in His name—is conferred only on worthy male members of the Church. Men who hold the priesthood have no advantage over women in qualifying for salvation or eternal life through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. “

In both cases, there is a distinct lack of any forward looking.  There is no “yet” involved.  There is no built-in concept that these things might change.  For a Church that believes in continued revelation, there is a lot of hard and fast rules.  And there is also a lot of political action to prevent gay marriage despite the fact it was legal in CA when Prop 8 was voted on.  Because of these historical trends, I cannot help but look at all of this “yet” talk with regard to African blacks being allowed into the priesthood as retrojection.  Looking back, of course we can see all of these bread crumbs leading to eventual inclusion.  But, as current political issues show, those bread crumbs either do not exist or are so miniscule that there is no trace of them in current discourse.  In 20 years, when gay marriage is legal, will there be another revelation?  Will there be innumerable publications where Mormon leaders clearly left the door ajar for future inclusion of gays and lesbians?  It certainly doesn’t look like it now.  There is, for some reason, a certitude about this particular never-changing rule of God which makes absolutely no sense to me when understood in light of Mormonism’s history of changing policies.

My problem is this: the LDS Church does not admit that is has been wrong.  Flat-out, no-qualifying wrong.  It was not wrong on polygamy.  It was not wrong on race.  It is not wrong on gay marriage.  These were commandments from God, both in their institution and their repeal.  They had to be followed.  There is a curious dance between claiming to merely follow God’s commandments, but yet also speaking of human foibles.  I agree wholeheartedly that it would be difficult to see white supremacy as wrong when everything around you says its ok.  What’s normative in a culture is difficult to work against or even to recognize as wrong.  But, when time passes and history shows us that something is wrong.  Horribly wrong.  Inhumanely wrong.  It is even more inhuman to say that you were right to uphold the status quo.  That not knowing any better, when God’s decrees are involved, exonerates you of sin.  As if sincere ignorance absolves the Church’s guilt regarding race then and regarding sexuality now.

And so it is with gay rights.  Mormons played a key role in the Prop 8 battle.  I have no qualms with them exercising their right to vote.  I have no problems with them standing up for their individual beliefs.  I do have qualms with the beliefs themselves.  I do have problems with the institutionalization and apotheosis of racism, sexism, and homophobia.  What I do have a problem with is when my God and my Savior are used as tools of oppression up until such a time that culture changes enough that the Mormon Church can then reveal God differently.  History seems to show us that is what has happened time and time again.  This is not a uniquely Mormon trait.  Conservative strands of every major religion are bastions of traditional gender roles and sexuality norms.  This does not excuse any of them.  This demands explanation.

Can the LDS Church step outside itself to see its perpetuation of racism (even to the point of fostering internalized racism?), upholding of sexism, and revoking of Others’ rights as contrary to the Gospel?

We are still experiencing a world where interracial couples are being denied their right to marry, we are still struggling in a nation with glass ceilings for women outside and inside the Church, and we are in the midst of a inter- and intrastate war over gay rights.  The LDS Church has changed its stance on one of those issues.

Can the LDS Church change on others?

Can the LDS Church admit it was and is wrong?

(Author’s Note: There is an entire world of websites and literature that analyzes Book of Mormon Scriptural changes, Mormon-funded archaeology, and personal testimonies that paint the LDS Church in a far more sinister light.  I am not writing to demonize the LDS Church or its Scripture .  I am writing because the LDS Church stripped my friends and family of their rights in California.  I am writing because the LDS Church barred my brothers and sisters from entering the priesthood.  I am writing because the LDS Church has a lot to answer for, but won’t even seriously entertain the questions.  I am writing to the Mormons out there who do not have answers for these criticisms because we are peers and we have a mutual duty to keep one another honest.  Until Mormons can give a decent account of their erroneous past, they must be held all the more accountable in every manifestation of error in the present.)

Gay Marriage: A Radical Definition of Marriage

I was perusing CNN’s new and exciting website overhaul and came across this article talking about Maine’s upcoming vote on maintaining their recent legalization of same-sex marriage:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/25/maine.same.sex/index.html

I was reading through it rather ho-hum. Same general rhetoric being exchanged, although I was (and have been ever since he made his decision) appreciative of Maine’s governor, Baldacci, because of his considered decision to sign the bill into law. Now that law is going on the voting block. Anyway, as I read I found myself struck by the following:

“‘Question one on the ballot offers Mainers a choice, and the choice is whether to keep marriage legally defined … or to take that definition and replace it with a radical definition,’ said Stand for Marriage Maine communications director Scott Fish.”

Stand for Marriage Maine is the group advocating repeal of the law (i.e. fighting to return to a traditional definition of marriage).

What I found so striking is his opting for the term “radical.” I’m sure his usage was innocent. I’m sure he was just trying to contrast the “traditional” definition of marriage (whatever that means) with what marriage became under the recently adopted law. But I could not help but chuckle at his word choice.

Consider the definitions of the word “radical” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (with particular attention to the third definition):

radical |ˈradikəl|
adjective
1 (esp. of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough : a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.
• forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something : the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and nonliterate peoples.
• (of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.
• characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive : a radical approach to electoral reform.
2 advocating thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party : a radical American activist.
• (of a measure or policy) following or based on such principles.
3 of or relating to the root of something, in particular
• Mathematics of the root of a number or quantity.
• denoting or relating to the roots of a word.
• denoting the semantic or functional class of a Chinese character.
• Music belonging to the root of a chord.
• Botany of, or springing direct from, the root or stem base of a plant

Now, as I said, I’m sure Mr. Fish meant something akin to the first two definitions. That is the more usual rhetorical usage. However, it is the third definition that is its technical usage. In fact, the etymological sense of the term is found in this third definition. So, the flavor of the word when used pejoratively as Mr. Fish did (something is quite different from the status quo) is such that it involves a returning to the one’s roots.

Ironic. No?

Mr. Fish advocates a maintaining of the “traditional” definition of marriage instead of doing something so outlandish as returning to marriage’s “radical” definition. Probably a good call considering what the tradition of marriage truly entails (see my note on the History of Marriage: http://wp.me/pGvfU-F).

No, Mr. Fish. Let us agree to not make radical definitions of marriage. There is no need to take steps back into bigotry, sexism, classism, racism, and/or heterosexism, as you are advocating. Instead, we should embrace the expansion of the institution of marriage as we know it. This has been happening for millennia now. Why impede progress? Why prevent inclusion? Why stagnate love?

Oh, right. Because Mr. Fish, the metonym, feels those are all radical.

4 [usu. as exclam. ] informal very good; excellent : Okay, then. Seven o’clock. Radical!

Prolepsis V

In (not Santa Barbara County) Southern California, a middle-aged, gay couple stays after their worship service at a Methodist church to quietly help their congregation authentically celebrate an interracial, straight couple briefly reaffirm their wedding vows after 10 years of marriage.

All Men Are Created Equal(ly Hated)

The Senate has just passed the Matthew Shepard Act and it will go to Obama’s desk, who has pledged to sign the bill should it make it to him. Finally, over 11 years since the horrific murder of Matthew Shepard, hate crimes against people because of their sexual orientation will be considered equal under the eyes of the law to those hate crimes involving race, gender, etc.

Interesting that the government will acknowledge that gays and lesbians can be hated under the law equally, but cannot be loved under the law equally.

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4375153

Interesting that the government will acknowledge that gays and lesbians can be hated under the law equally, but cannot serve under the law equally.

http://www.leonardmatlovich.com/storyofhisstone.html

Interesting that the government will acknowledge that gays and lesbians can be hated under the law equally despite the immense fighting against it, but cannot love under the law equally despite the immense fighting that has already happened for it.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/20/86-year-old-wwii-vet.html

The opposite of love is not hatred, but apathy. While GLBTQI persons can now “benefit” from proper hate-crime legislation, that is not nearly enough. It is a mockery to tell someone that a law has been passed to protect them from hate when laws are being passed to “protect” others from their love. Do not shield yourself from this because it’s not your problem. To quote Desmond Tutu:

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

Or consider our former President, Theodore Roosevelt:

Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.

Or one of the American icons on social justice, Martin Luther King Jr.:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Or, because of the person whose name is given to this hate-crime legislation, perhaps a quote from Lois McMaster Bujold will be fitting for concluding:

The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them.

With the Passage of Proposition 8…

I write this before Proposition 8 has officially passed, but despite the seemingly close race, it seems like it will succeed. Perhaps in a few hours, the last thousand precincts will shake things up, but I’ll just have to write something else at that pont.

But I feel compelled to write now. I haven’t been able to sleep for two nights. Two nights ago, it was because I was too excited to vote and anxious to see Barack Obama elected President. That hope and dream came true. However, as tearfully joyous that was and is, I was very much sobered by the streaming results of the Propositions, with 8 holding much attention. And now, with nearly 95% of precincts reporting, it looks like “Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry” will pass.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I can already see that we have taken another step back from healing the rift that has developed in our country over the issue of sexuality. Where churches are going through full-blown schisms over the issue, we now see our state is nearly bisected over the question of sexuality and society. This chasm that extends between supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 is one that allows people to let fly vitriolic comments in their frustration and passion. Now, with the passage of Proposition 8, I have already seen comments of hatred being directed at those accused of systematizing hatred; already have I seen Facebook statuses of intolerance indicting those condemned for their intolerance. This helps no one and heals nothing.

With the passage of Proposition 8, marriage is now legally defined as only recognizable when between a man and a woman. The California Constitution has now put an explicit limit on who can be a part of the institution. Some claim this is exclusivistic and discriminatory, others defend this is protective and beneficial. With a constitutional amendment, now the State of California must place a wholly new amendment to remove this one, should the state come to a place that deems it contrary to how things ought to be. Or, perhaps the US Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the definition of marriage and all laws restricting marriage based on gender (or sexuality) will be stricken. Either way, for the time being, rights bestowed are now rights revoked and will have to become rights reclaimed. This legal definition of marriage has indeed been a defining moment, but the effects of this momentous definition will be lasting and far-reaching.

With the passage of Proposition 8, however, the concern for me is not truly over the definition. Semantics can be debated for eons and can lead to considerable bloodshed. I am not disputing the power of words, nor the importance of definitions per se. But in this particular case, the concern is superficially about definition, but it is more about devaluation. Supporters of Proposition 8 continuously point to Europe as evidence of how the institution of marriage has become nearly defunct. However, there is no talk of the ubiquity of monogamous relationships, or of how the US has a higher divorce rate than all European countries except Sweden, or how many of those countries have returned the matter of marriage back to the state fully (just as Protestants wanted, back when they did that whole Reformation thing). There is no talk about how a change in definition does not inexorably lead to devaluation. Marriage used to be legally defined as not between people of different races. The definition was changed. African slaves used to be legally defined as not full people. The definition was changed. Gay people used to be considered not mentally healthy, socially acceptable, or personally tolerable. That definition is changing. But legally, it seems, they are still defined as second-class citizens, whose rights shall consist of a separate-but-equal means of life-long union known as a civil union or domestic partnership. Some claim that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex couples by domestic partnerships are entirely equal to that of marriage, and therefore this Proposition is merely a protection of a fundamental building block of society. However, remember that in the 50’s and 60’s, the argument was not over the drinking fountain’s water quality or quantity.

With the passage of Proposition 8, I have become discontent, to put it mildly. This ballot initiative was originally called the Defense of Marriage Act, or something akin to that, but was renamed into the more accurately named “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” Today, this November the 5th, with the passage of Proposition 8 I have found the institution of marriage to be under attack. With the passage of Proposition 8, I have found the institution of marriage questionable in my eyes. With the passage of Proposition 8, if I am to be married some day to a woman I love, I will be partaking of a ceremony of privilege and discrimination. My future marriage has become personally lessened because it has become legally heightened. With the elevation of a future union of mine to a status unobtainable by dear family and friends as well as complete strangers, I will be a part of a system that is undeniably parallel to paying women less and forcing people of color to the back of the bus. Why? Because that pay grade is considered special with regard to gender. Because that seat in the bus was considered prioritized with regard to race. And now, because this union of two people has become a symbol of privilege with regard to sexuality. Paradoxically, with the passage of Proposition 8, the concern of the supporters has become the reality of the opponents: the definition of marriage has changed. The devaluation of marriage has occurred.

With the passage of Proposition 8, California has become one of those states that futurity will look back upon and wonder “Why?” If marriage is indeed a building block of society, a key component of the fabric of our culture, then perhaps we need to deconstruct our society; perhaps we need to stop trying to sew patches onto old cultural wineskins. It was revolutionary to think that a black man was a human being. It is revolutionary we just elected a black man to the Presidency of the United States. It is revolutionary to open up one’s paradigm, one’s world, one’s vulnerability to those who are inherently different. Perhaps a day in the not-too-distant future, we will have another revolution of a different equality: that of sexuality.

A History of Marriage

This took me hours today to research and write. I apologize for the slightly disjointed feel of it all, but I don’t feel up to taking more time on it at this point since I’ve neglected food and homework, haha.

Marriages in Rome and Greece were informalities for the most part. There was an agreement between families, a man (usually in his 30’s) would be wed to a woman (usually a teenager), and then the new wife would move into the new husbands household. She, and the children she bore, would become property of the husband. The marriage was not out of love, nor out of religiosity. It was done to create heirs, to expand one’s estate, and to perhaps marry into particular familial, political, or social situations. Even while married to a woman who mothers multiple children, it was not uncommon for men to have concubines and engage in pederasty.

Over time, women were granted better legal rights in Rome, which allowed for contracts to be entered more mutually. But this led to an apparent decrease in marriages taking place because Augustus decreed that penalties were to be imposed for remaining single (no property rights).

As Christianity became an increasingly influential power in the Roman Empire, the influence on marriage and divorce was minimal. Christian Emperors left the institution of marriage as a private and civil affair, but repealed the laws that did not allow the elevation of celibacy and virginity. Other than these minor alterations, the institution was not really under the purview of religious authorities. That did not take place until later. The Christian Church made consent between spouses critically important (Pope Nicholas I said “If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void”). This influenced European tribal groups to elevate the status of women, as well as theologians beginning to truly view marriage as something more than merely contractual. Theologians began to find increasing religious significance in marriage as it became a (relatively) more equal institution. In the 12th century, about the time that troubadours were lyrically singing about courtly love, infusing the ideal of love into the entire arrangement, the Church made marriage into one of its sacraments.

The Church in its desire to exert its influence over this newly religious important institution managed to create some problems. By outlawing divorce completely and by impeding who could marry whom, marriage began to need regulation. The Church, in effect, grabbed for control over entering into and getting out of a marriage. This begins the marked increase in Church control and influence on the institution as a whole. Despite these changes, both in the regulations and the religious significance, marriage remained an oft used means of social, political, and economic maneuverings of families (especially the aristocratic, who were often the ones writing the theologies, the doctrines, the laws, and the histories).

With the Reformation, the sacrament of marriage was denounced and returned to the realm of the secular. The Reformers saw the Catholic Church as abusing its power by having created a sacrament that was greatly lacking in Scriptural guidance. Thus, it became more a matter of the “state” (such as it was at that time) in European countries that embraced the Reformation (Switzerland, Germany, etc.). This is, in part, because many of the leaders of the Reformation had violated the sacrament of marriage while being clergymen. Thus, removing the Church’s influence and authority on marriage would allow clergy to partake of the institution without remorse or repercussion.

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Catholic Church answered the Protestant Reformation and decreed marriage cannot be granted if provisions in Leviticus are contravened. This is summed up in two particular impediments to marriage: consanguinity and affinity. Consanguinity refers to being too closely related by blood. Affinity means someone too closely related (not necessarily biologically) to a previous spouse. These are the restrictions that are laid down. Presumably nothing is mentioned regarding same-sex marriage because either a) it was not common enough to warrant the Church’s concern, b) the Council of Trent was more concerned with refuting Protestants and gay marriage was not a part of the debate, or c) it is understood that since Leviticus prohibits a man lying with a man as he would with a woman, and that marriage requires consummation (i.e. sex), that Leviticus indirectly precludes same-sex marriage and therefore is not necessary to discuss. It is most likely, however, that it was a non-issue at the time since the concepts of sexuality are vastly different today than back then. One was homosexual due to one’s actions, not because of one’s identity. Since no one identified themselves as gay or lesbian, there was no need to lay down an institutional injunction regarding people of the same sex marrying. The concern may be over married persons performing homosexual acts, but that is not a concern with the actual sacrament of matrimony apparently.

In this same document defending matrimony as a sacrament, virginity and celibacy are reaffirmed as higher states of being than marriage. Thus, the ideal of the Christian life is, in fact, to remain celibate for life in order to more fully devote one’s self to service of God. American obsession with marriage and the nuclear family is a recent development in history.

The Twenty Fourth Session of the Council of Trent also decreed that anyone preventing the Church from impeding divorce, or even merely saying that the Church cannot prevent divorce, is anathema. The Reformers rejected this and sought to allow divorces in special cases. For the Catholic Church, annulments were the only means of backing out of a marriage. Because of the large number of impediments to marriage laid down by church law (Martin Luther sums up 14 of the major ones in his “The Estate of Marriage”), it was not difficult for couples to “discover” an impediment they overlooked, which would allow them to annul the marriage.

This Council document also prohibits polygamy. It is “against divine law” despite it being present within the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures without any moral indignation or condemnation.

Common Law Marriages persisted in England because of Henry VIII’s break from Rome. These were carry over from the formerly commonplace Roman marriage by usus (no ceremony at all). They remained legal until 1753 when the Church of England was put in charge of all marriages (except for Jews and Quakers). This would not affect English Colonies, thus Common Law Marriages were still possible in America.

Marriage in the States underwent major development since the country was founded. Early Puritan clergy in America refused to perform marriages, deeming it a purely civil issue. The changes have generally moved towards a more egalitarian, conventional understanding of marriage: from granting rights to women to outlawing bigamy. In the context of the current debate around same-sex marriage, a major development that took place in the 20th century was the outlawing of anti-miscegenation laws. It is not until 1967, barely 40 years ago, that the Supreme Court made the final ruling that struck down any laws preventing people of different races marrying. The arguments for anti-miscegenation laws included warnings that the institution of marriage would dissolve, that people would then want to marry animals, and, that the white race would eventually disappear. Biblical verses were cited as evidence. The Supreme Court’s ruling included the following:

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Jumping forward to today, marriage has become a very convoluted issue. Scandinavian countries are commonly pointed to because of how many children are born without married parents. This is not to be confused with the pejorative “born out of wedlock” idea. Instead, many couples simply do not bother with the formality of marriage and instead draw up co-habitation agreements, in some cases with multiple people (as is legal in the Netherlands). These facts are pointed to as evidence of the demise of marriage, with gay marriage beginning to first step down that path. However, considering the history I’ve traced, it would seem that marriage simply cannot be propped up as the be-all, end-all relationship. History tells a very different story. For Christians, marriage develops into the ultimate relationship for two people to enter into, but remember it is not as ideal as celibacy. But with this development in Christianity, Common Law Marriages (or equivalents of it) develop in parallel. It does not strike me as surprising that countries so close to the powerhouses of the Reformation would have no problem with rejecting marriage as an institution mandated by our human nature (as some claim is the case). So it is no surprise that the laws governing marriage, co-habitation, etc. in these areas would differ greatly from what we are used to here.

Consider my summary of what seems to be the major perspectives of what marriage is today and historically:

Marriage is a vehicle for creating a family unit, with procreation being the traditional means to do so. Separating marriage from parenthood is damaging to this understanding of marriage. If this is the predominant purpose of marriage (as Genesis commands to “be fruitful and multiply”), then it is obvious that gay marriage stands at odds since procreation in and of the union is not possible (in vitro and surrogacy notwithstanding). However, the question must be raised of heterosexual couples unable to or who choose not to procreate. Are they failing to honor what the institution of marriage is about? What of a couple that adopts children? Are they not creating a family and being fruitful? If procreation is the ultimate purpose of marriage, then it would seem that society would be bent on making sure marriages are between healthy, fecund men and women. However, it seems that this is not the case. We are not engaged in eugenics because creating new people is not the sole purpose of marriage. Surely, some will say, that having children is a part of the institution of marriage, but that need not define it. I quite agree. Being able to have children should not define marriage.

Marriage is a contract between people. I do not write that ambiguous to gender for the sake of the gay marriage argument, but because that is historically the case. Marriage due to love of one’s partner is a rather new development. Instead, it was not until around the 12th century that love being involved at all came into play thanks to traveling troubadours singing of courtly love. In Ancient Rome and Greece, it was more the case that marriages were sound decisions for economic, social, or political purposes. Arranged marriages are still done today and reflect this trend. Throughout history, therefore, marriage was a contract between families, often including a dowry or some other compensation. Although done informally for the most part, gradually did the Church and the State become more involved in the entire process. Hence why, despite the love shared between two people today, a marriage license is obtained from a legal entity prior to and completely separate from performing a religious service. The legal entity is necessary because of the economic issues involved in a marriage (joining estates, name changes, etc.) and the religious entity is (recently and selectively) necessary to spiritually bind people together. But this is not historically the case and not legally necessary. Therefore, the separation of Church and State in our country seems all the more appropriate in regards to marriage since, historically, the Church only recently became assertively involved in the institution of marriage.

Marriage is a life-long union. This seems to be the more conventional understanding of marriage. It is a union of two people, traditionally understood to be a man and a woman. In the legality, this union continues beyond death since issues regarding finances, estate, and relations continue after life. In theology, it is difficult to know when this union ends. Jesus explicitly states that at the resurrection (the End Times), there will be no marriage, but whether that is the same as the afterlife for now is not clear. Within this more conventional understanding of marriage, there is a complex blend of emotional, intellectual, spiritual, religious, economic, personal, and social reasons to marry (and I’m sure that list is not exhaustive). Due to the gradual trend of the Church getting involved in the theretofore legal institution of marriage, the religious aspect of the institution has risen in importance. In America, it has become paramount when it comes to discussing what marriage is. It is a cultural, legal, political, social, personal, and religious institution that carries with it as much weight as we manage to give it. However, because our country is, as per the Reformers wishes, very much involved in the institution of marriage, this makes separating out the Church and the State very difficult. The State has the responsibility of serving all of its citizens equally, without regard for religious matters. The Church has the responsibility of serving of all humanity equally, without regard for worldly matters. Ironically, the institution of marriage seems to have married the State and the Church together since our culture predominantly understands both are inextricably involved. The interchangeability of the term “marriage” in purely legal and purely religious conversations points to the frustrating nature of the debate.

For Americans, the issue becomes where does the law end and religion begin. If the debate surrounding gay marriage is on a legal level, then historical precedent seems to tell us that there is no reason to preclude people of the same-sex marrying since it would be in line with the majority of marriages entered into throughout history (as a legal, political, social, and economic arrangement). The religious concern over gay marriage stems from the perspective that homosexual activity is sinful and cannot be condoned by the sacrament of marriage. However, if marriage is not a sacrament of the Church (as Protestants claim), but merely something the Church presides over, then to what extent can religion prevent people from marrying one another?

Despite all of this, marriage has still become an inculcated aspect of our culture. It is the ultimate relationship between two people in our nation, both legally and socially. Despite efforts to make domestic partnerships fully equal to married persons, there are still inequalities abound (culturally and legally). For the United States, as a nation-state, it seems an injustice to preclude people partaking of this cultural institution. The concern over the demise of marriage is contingent upon people beginning to feel that marriage is an unnecessary institution (as seems to be the case in Denmark, Norway, Holland, etc.). To prevent that happening, one should not seek to prevent others from entering into it, but instead enriching and bettering the institution itself. In some countries, marriage is viewed as unnecessary or superfluous. In America, it has become the cultural epitome of life-long love, devotion, and commitment. It is rapidly becoming not so much an issue of “How can we define marriage for you?” but more of a question of “How is marriage defined for me?” This is not to promote a post-modern fragmentation of the definition of marriage, making it devoid of meaning. This is to point to the more fruitful approach to the issue where each couple, or potential couple, really engages each other, themselves, and their communities to determine how they can truly benefit from entering into a marriage. It is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to declare that one marriage devalues another. If concern for the sanctity of marriage is evoked as a reason for preventing gay marriage, it would seem that the number of marriages dissolving is far more problematic and threatening.

Instead of seeking to define marriage for all, we should look metaphorically to the indicative nature of the wedding ceremony. Each couple seeks to not only enter into the relationship of marriage, but to do so in a manner that is unique to the couple being wed. The couple, the location, the people present, the words spoken, the vows exchanged, etc. are all dynamically special for each ceremony. While elements of the ceremony may be in common, those commonalities vary from culture to culture except in the underlying foundation: life-long commitment. If each couple is looking to uniquely enter into their own life-long commitment, how can that special event, that momentous ceremony be tainted by the uniqueness of another marriage? Who stands at the altar and feels their bond with the person across the way lessened because of how others performed their own ceremonies?

I researched and shared all of this to learn more about how to go about beginning to answer the question “What is marriage?” I still do not feel that I have a good grasp, which I’m sure partially stems from having never been married myself. However, as one who hopes to be someday, I consider it a very important question. Tracing the history of the institution, for me, points to the peculiarity of Christianity hijacking the institution from pagan cultures, elevating it to such a high status (functionally forgetting celibacy is even higher), fighting within itself as to what it actually is (Protestants vs. Catholics), and then trying to stake some sort of claim over what marriage actually is in the legal realm. Perhaps the desire is to apophatically define marriage by declaring that same-sex couples is what marriage is not. But that harkens back to the Church pushing for similar definitions in regards to women and people of color in other aspects of Church and civil life. Will allowing gay marriage be the beginning of the end? Will people then want to marry animals? Will it lead to the disappearance of heterosexuals? What does the Bible say?