There are a number of ways in which marriage is changing, but the most political marriage question of our day is clearly gay marriage. In the United States, the legal questions regarding gay marriage are being debated and decided at the state level, which means that each of us will soon (if you have not already) have the democratic opportunity to support or oppose a proposed policy on gay marriage. In our dialogue this month, we challenge ourselves to explore gay marriage policy options with the hope that each person will feel better equipped to form an informed, personal opinion about public policy on gay marriage.
Our readings come from two thinkers with opposing perspectives on the issue, but a joint agreement on a policy proposal. We will read the introductions to each of their books, and the Op-Ed they wrote together for the New York Times. Everyone is encouraged to do some of his or her own research on various gay marriage policies around the county and the world in order to enrich our discussion.
Our readings come from two thinkers with opposing perspectives on the issue, but a joint agreement on a policy proposal. We will read the introductions to each of their books, and the Op-Ed they wrote together for the New York Times. Everyone is encouraged to do some of his or her own research on various gay marriage policies around the county and the world in order to enrich our discussion.
- pgs. 1 - 9 Introduction to Jonathan Rauch's book, "Gay Marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America"
- pgs. 1 - 10 Introduction to David Blankenhorn's book, "The Future of Marriage"
- The NYT Op-Ed that Rauch and Blankenhorn authored together
Thanks for that beautiful invitation, Carri.
ReplyDeleteI HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend, for those who have time, that you go to Speaking of Faith and find the podcast called "Gay Marriage: Broken or Blessed?" (I think)
She interviews two Evangelicals. One supports gay marriage; one opposes.
The stunning thing about these interviews is the nature of the discourse. Very thoughtful, respectful, understanding of the other position. Passionate but deeply feeling for the pain involved for all. A dialogue that transcends ideology.
Hey, I just noticed that Jonathon Rauch is one of the afore-mentioned Evangelicals....
ReplyDeleteHere's another article that I think also brings up some interesting things to consider without choosing a side in the end:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Fabulous dialogue, folks. I will reiterate my appreciation for the willingness you all demonstrated to share and explore. I love brave people who will speak their minds…and brave listeners who engage with what they hear rather than jump to conclusions.
ReplyDeleteA few takeaways for me:
- Pat's point about considering "policy" from both a public perspective and a private perspective. What public policies would I support that might be different from the "policies" I define for my own home and personal sphere of influence? Interestingly, I think we discussed the fact that people might support a more lenient public policy (allow gay marriage), but try to control their own home environment more tightly (be more selective about the kind of relationships they let their children be exposed to in their own house). I feel the opposite is as likely - that people who oppose gay marriage as a public policy may institute a private policy of welcoming gay friends or family members into their home.
- The choice between two goods that Blankenhorn writes about. In my mind it's a hierarchy of values. I value free choice. I value families with mothers and fathers. When these two conflict, I have to make a policy choice that puts one above the other.
- The suddenness of this conversation. George made an interesting point that makes me wonder what, in our society, has changed so quickly. As far as we know, homosexuality has existed for millenia, and for all but the last 15 years or so of that time, it is a topic that has been taboo, to put it mildly. Now, almost overnight, it is contentious, but not taboo like it has been. I realize some would say that this has been a long time coming and the “suddenness” characterization is too simplified, but even if it's been a conversation that has been just below the surface for 50 years, relative to the time that homosexuality has been practiced (and who knows how long that has been?), 50 years is nothing. I have no conclusions about this. Just curiosity.
- I thought the conversation about what marriage means to people was fascinating and drew out some of the most genuine, personal expressions from the group. When Emily spoke of how marriage "ended the fights" about her parents' biracial marriage, I was moved by her assertion of the power of marriage (and understood better what Rauch said about the "normalizing" virtue of marriage).
- Semantics. A lot of good discussion here about the difference between calling a partnership "civil union" versus "marriage." Again, Emily stated it perfectly for me when she said simply that people don't usually get married because they're terribly interested in the legal rights that come with it. There are more powerful things going on there, and Matt asked the next question – so is the difference simply separate but equal? I think Tiffany’s point about coming to accept her biological role as a mother even though it actually feels discriminatory at times was a compelling “answer” to this question of fairness.
- I loved what Mary said about "being more creative." It has long been my personal opinion that the question about gay marriage cannot be “whether” for much longer. The conversation must be about “how.” I am convinced that the solution will be compromise and satisfy no one. But the policy suggested by Rauch and Blankenhorn is one way of getting there. Having conversations like this one tonight helps me feel better equipped to weigh the options against my personal values from all sides – religious, democratic, intellectual, and practical.
Yes, a wonderful discussion. Thank you all. As for the suddenness of this issue, the article I mentioned might explain some of this.
ReplyDeleteHere it is. http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/article.cfm?articleid=25
This is a challenging and difficult issue for me, and I think also for anyone that is truly trying to understand the issue and determine what is right.
ReplyDeleteThe issue invokes the laws of justice and mercy. This is relatively easy, I think: we love the sinner but do not condone the sin. But embedded here is in my view a deeper issue, at least for a lot of people: we are so saturated in our culture with moral relativism that we become incapable of truly understanding and believing certain conduct to be truly wrong. Or even if we do believe it, we dare not say it. And so, in our society as a whole, the notion of a real “right” and a real “wrong” is increasingly neutered. It has been banished from the public forum. The only moral certainty in our culture anymore is that anything goes – and woe unto him that should question the conduct of another!
The other issue that I see, which I think is much harder, is the extent to which gay civil unions or gay marriage should be sanctioned by society. While I may have my own personal right to believe strongly that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, I don’t believe I have standing to impose my will on others. Should the government, acting through the majority voice of its people, mandate a particular view of what constitutes marriage, and thus deprive homosexuals the right, or privilege, to enjoy the same benefits and status as heterosexuals do? I haven’t made up my mind on this. But as I tried to say tghe other night, we have been living with a relatively stable concept of marriage (one man, one woman) for a long time in our culture (I am interested in Kristen’s comments on this – I plan to read her article) and we ought to move into such a radical change deliberately and thoughtfully, if at all, and not because there is a group of people screaming for their “right” to complete social acceptance, approval and (ultimately) endorsement of sexual behavior that many find to be disgusting and morally repugnant.
Anyway, those are my brief, still evolving thoughts on the subject.
By the way, Bosco is an internet name I use. This is George Pratt.
ReplyDelete