I hate the debate about same-sex marriage. It is especially problematic for at least three reasons.
First, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. Thus was it woven into human nature by the divine creator. Thus was it affirmed by revelation and thus is it defined by the Church of God. I call this the traditional view. (I realize a lot of ideas may be considered "traditional"; here I am only concerned with heterosexuality and indissolubility.)
I also believe that all people have innate dignity and are deserving of respect. There is, so far as I can see, no fundamental disagreement between these two statements (as I tried to articulate in a post on the Guild Review some years ago). But statements which affirm the traditional view are often seen by supporters of same-sex marriage as hateful; conversely, statements affirming universal dignity, when made in the context of this debate, are often construed by supporters of traditional marriage as subversive, an attempt to undermine that institution without quite coming out and saying so.
This tension is made more acute by confusion of affirmation with agreement. I can affirm the dignity of a person without agreeing with all their positions. Mundane examples can easily demonstrate this: I think we should build a new neighborhood playground but my neighbor disagrees. That doesn't rob him of his dignity or change the way I treat him, even if he's wrong. But when the issue at hand is more contentious than building a playground, this distinction gets lost. What, for example, may one rightly display in one's front yard? What if my neighbor wants to fly a Confederate battle flag but I claim he does not have the right to do so? Or what if I want to display a massive icon of the Virgin Mary but my neighbor, whose parents were killed by Catholic partisans in some nasty civil war, objects? It can be difficult to hear someone say they deeply disagree with you, and even harder to hear that they believe you do not have the right to do something you very much want to do. Believing that someone else truly affirms your dignity, while having such a fundamental disagreement, is trying.
Second, there is the quite different challenge of political coalitions. On virtually all issues there is disagreement. The more exacting your position on a given issue, the smaller your cohort of fellow believers will be. Thus, any political grouping will, in some measure, be a coalition. The American Solidarity Party - which recently released a statement on the dignity of all people, including LGBTQ persons - is just such a coalition. Its members come from a wide variety of faith communities and include people of no faith at all. Thus, while the party's position in favor of marriage and family is quite strong, it does not define with great precision what constitutes a marriage. Proponents of traditional marriage could construe this as a sell-out. I see it as pragmatism. Sooner or later any party will involve compromises or end up becoming a party of one. The toxic debates about same-sex marriage threaten to destroy this and other coalitions which might accomplish a great deal of good in defense of marriage and family.
Third, symbols surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage have become highly charged with a multiplicity of meanings. The picture which accompanied the ASP statement included a rainbow-colored hand print, a dictionary entry for "discrimination," and a caption that reads, "Stop Discrimination!" What does this mean? One person could interpret this to mean that all people should be free of physical and verbal abuse. Another person might construe it to imply something about hiring decisions. Does it imply anything about the status of same-sex marriage? Some people might presume that the use of rainbow colors - long associated with the push for same-sex marriage - implies a specific position. Some people might presume that the graphic implies that preventing same-sex couples from marrying would be a form of discrimination. Etc., etc. The point of hyper-analyzing a simple graphic is to underscore the way in which people can jump to conclusions and react very strongly to words or symbols that may mean one thing to them but something very different to those who created them.
All of this makes the discussion of same-sex marriage difficult, painful, and prone to misunderstandings. It's a discussion we - as Americans and as people of faith - need to have, but we should precede with great caution and charity.
No comments:
Post a Comment