In debate over gay marriage, friends and foes need one another
Published: November 26, 2009
Updated: November 26, 2009
Same-sex marriage advances in one region, then retreats in another, making the United States a two-nation nation on this issue – now and for years to come. Advocates on both sides are in the majority somewhere, but in the minority somewhere else.
That’s why two church-state encounters this month, in two very different parts of the country, are instructive reminders that in a deeply divided society winners are very unlikely to take all.
First in Utah, where the Mormon Church – the dominant faith in the state with considerable religious and political influence – announced support for gay-rights legislation before the city council in Salt Lake City. After the church’s endorsement, laws banning discrimination against gays in unemployment and housing passed the council unanimously on Nov. 10.
Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., the Roman Catholic Church is asking for more religious accommodation in a proposed law legalizing same-sex marriage that’s expected to pass the city council in the next few weeks. Although the current bill has language ensuring that religious groups would not be required to perform same-sex weddings (actually, a legal redundancy, because such coercion is already unconstitutional), the church says that is not enough.
Catholic leaders argue that once gay marriage is legal, Catholic social-service providers with city contracts would be required to violate church teachings by, for example, extending employee benefits to gay married couples.
Taken together, these developments in Utah and the District of Columbia are a reminder that friends and foes of gay marriage need one another. In regions of the country with gay marriage – or trending that way – conservative religious groups need gay-rights supporters to enact protections for religious conscience. And in regions with constitutional bans on gay marriage, gay-rights advocates need conservative religious groups to support nondiscrimination laws that include sexual orientation.
Judging from the new legislation in Salt Lake City, we can say Mormon leaders appear to understand the need for give and take. While not retreating from its opposition to gay marriage, the church has reached out to support gay rights in a state where Mormons are in the vast majority. It remains to be seen whether D.C. city leaders will be as accommodating in the other direction. Public statements from city council members – proponents of gay marriage – suggest that most of the council is not interested in broadening religious exemptions in the proposed law.
However difficult it may be to bridge the divide, a good-faith attempt to find some common ground would be in everyone’s best interest. Losing the social services provided by the Catholic Church would be disastrous for thousands of Washington’s poor, including the third of the city’s homeless population now served by Catholic Charities.
As Americans continue to confront the tensions between gay rights and religious liberty in communities across the country, we might want to keep in mind the admonition of Roger Williams to his Puritan opponent John Cotton more than 300 years ago: Those who are at the helm should remember what it was like to be in the hatches.
As friends and foes of gay marriage will soon discover, how we treat others where we are in the majority may well determine how we are treated where we are in the minority.
Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
4112, I trashed your facts and then when you started crying I trashed you. The only thing comical is you still trying to argue that you have some ground to stand on. Time after time your facts were trashed. All you EVER had was your opinion.
You helped prove the case by whining your silliness about “what institution decreed?“. Dude it’s you and OW that don’t seem to understand that there is a right way to do research and then there is the wrong way to do it. By now now that may even be sinking into your thick skull.
If you are only 54 then you have not voted more than me and I voted even when I was stationed overseas. So HAH!
Now cry some more about how I was mean to you even though you were the first to start “modifying” screen names.
rjma,
I JUST noticed your 9:47 am posting to me from November 26, 2009, so this response is WAY WAY late. But, I did not want your unsavory insinuations to go unchallenged.
You wrote:
“Wayne, So then we can assume that you do not support any US constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between one man and one woman?
What exactly is your objection to gay marriage?“
Despite the snarky “I already know the answer to THIS one” tone of your first “question”, I DO in fact oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to “define” marriage in ANY way. Furthermore, based on the results at the polls a few years ago I am one of the few people living in Culpeper County who voted AGAINST amending the Virginia Constitution for that same purpose.
Your second question contains a WHOLLY illogical “leap” on your part. Please point out ONE thing in either of the two posts I had previously made to this thread which would lead you to the conclusion that I have “objections to gay marriage”. I did not state an opinion regrading that at all. I merely wrote that I think the federal government should stay out of it, and I expressed my opinion that settling the matter on a state-by-state basis won’t be good enough for some people, unless they get their way EVERYWHERE.
My not agreeing with a group’s tactics is NOT the same thing as opposing their goals; and your accusations to the contrary were both unfair and unfounded.
I hadn’t planned on giving my opinion in the VERY contentious debate which occurred on this forum, but I since rjma has made certain invalid assumptions and dubious insinuations I am going to go ahead and take a crack at it.
For the record, I favor having ALL governments (federal, state, local) stay OUT of the “marriage” business altogether. I think the term “marriage” should be returned to the religious/ceremonial status from whence it came. If two people want to be “married” in the “eyes of God” and they can find a church will perform the ceremony, then they can knock themselves out, but it should have NO legal standing and NO legal benefits/responsibilities offered/ imposed by our governments.
Where government recognition of the “union of two people” is concerned, I think in the interest of encouraging fairness our governments should recognize some form of legal partnership (what they currently consider “marriage”) between ANY two (2) consenting adults who principally reside together, for purposes obtaining loans, hospital visitation, end of life choices, taxes, health insurance, etc. (everything which currently represents the “benefits” of marriage). Of course, those who enter these contracts should also, in my opinion, be subject to the same disadvantages and/or detriments which married couples might suffer under the current system (e.g. BOTH your credit scores suffer if ONE of you screws up). After all, fair is fair, right?
I know this is idea did not originate with me; it just happens to be the plan which seems to me to offer the best solution to the issue of government and marriage.
Done fairly, such a plan would offer advantages to others besides just homosexuals who wish to “marry”. As I envision it, it would truly allow ANY two adults who principally reside together to declare themselves to be “partnered”. There should be no sexual overtones or assumptions associated with these partnerships whatsoever. An unmarried daughter and her widowed mother, as long as they resided together, could enter a “partnership” and have the same LEGAL benefits/responsibilities (as far as the governemtn is concerned) as a heterosexual couple who have a marriage ceremony in a Church and then enter into a “partnership” so as to pursue a “normal” matrimonial relationship.
For those in “traditional” relationships, these “partnerships” might be a bit more unwieldy to establish than marriages are under the current system, and there would obviously be many details to be worked out, including the rights of minor dependents who may result from these unions. But I think it might be the only way to provide the Constitutionally mandated protection of the rights of those whose lifestyles some of us may not approve of, but whose rights we respect.
That’s my two-cents worth; and that’s probably about what it’s worth.
PS - rjma, I really think you should stop reading things into my comments which are NOT there, using your incorrect assumptions to assign me a position on an issue, and then demanding that I justify the position you have assigned me. It makes you appear arrogant, condescending and sanctimonious all at that same time, and I’m worried that if you keep it up you may cause a rip in the fabric of reality… and THEN where would we all be? 
Thank goodness!!!! This might finally be over!!1 with NO RESOLUTION, I MIGHT ADD.
4112, as I see it, your whole problem is that you are fixated on one and only one definition of marriage; your religion’s definition. However your religion defines it is not the issue. It concerns only how the state defines it. However the state defines it does not in any way define how any Church defines or may define it. The issue is the state’s “contract” it calls marriage. I do not believe the Constitution will ever be amended over this issue. This is not a state’s rights issue. It’s clearly an individual rights issue. The Supreme Court should and will become involved. The sooner different states take different solutions the sooner the Court will have to become involved. Do you really think we will ever amend our Constitution to deprive a class of people of their rights? I don’t. In the civil sense, marriage is simply and only a contract. Why should we create and name differently two contracts that are all but identical? Yes, religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. No, changing the state’s definition of marriage would have absolutely no impact/effect on any religion. No, priests who refuse to marry gays would not be subject to prosecution. That is the priest’s right to do or not. Marriage is a civil contract not a religious contract. It is not beyond our ability to debate. I think the problem is you do not truly understand our Constitution and Bill of Rights and do not understand that the state’s definition of marriage and any Church’s definition are two separate things. Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.
And in the end my friend, it seems we will agree to disagree, as this will be my last post on this matter. The spot just does not move. Starting at the end of your post, it may very well be settled in amending the US Constitution. I believe we can agree that homosexuals are people that should enjoy the same rights and privilidges as anyone else (and don’t take that wrong, my intent is not to segregate homosexuals from others). This is a states rights issue and will be settled within the individual states. It would be wrong for the US Supreme Court to become involved. I believe involvement by the high court would trigger a Constitutional amendment. It may seem a contradiction to you but I have no trouble seeing the separation of the traditional definition of marriage from that of same sex unions. I have no problem with same sex unions including whatever rights may be afforded it but not by broadening the meaning of marriage. Your question is why not if you’re willing to extend the sames rights and priviledges of marriage. My answer is why? If the concern is really rights and priviledges as afforded by the US Constitution why not create this new and different type of union and define its rights and priviledges. It’s all ideological. As long as ones rights and priviledges are not ignored I don’t understand why homosexuals need to be included in the definition of marriage. Does that give them any more rights or priviledges or cause them to have any less? And to your point, people’s right to practice their religion is also guaranteed in the Constitution is it not? If marriage then was changed to include same sex unions would that not infringe on one’s right to practice his or her religion? What about priests who refuse same sex marriage or use traditional marriage language in the performance of the ceremonies, should they be held in contempt of the law? And what about civil employees who refuse same sex marriages under religious protections? Should they be prosecuted as well? It goes much deeper than we can debate in this forum. Unless anyone else responds you will have the last word on this. I will check back to read it. As for me I’m out of here. I’ve enjoyed the debate. Keep safe and have a great holiday season.
4112, thank you. I stated “in California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008.” That covers it. Re. “proofed,” thanks for the clarification. In that sense, you used the word correctly. I did not understand. We do not agree with the interpretation of the Constitution. And that is the issue. I am right and we are still having this debate. I don’t see it as a left v. right debate. The Democrats have no interest in amending the Constitution. I don’t agree that this is an ideological issue. It is a constitutional issue. The Constitution guarantees equal right to “all people.” Homosexuals are people. Does forbidding marriage to homosexuals agree or conflict with constitutional guarantees? It has nothing to do with the will of the people. We have nothing to say. It has to do with the meaning of our Constitution. That is the province only of our Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only place this issue can and will be resolved, the wishes of the people not withstanding. If we the people disagree with a ruling of the Supreme Court our only recourse is to amend the Constitution.
Opa, even though we certainly disagree ideologically, I respect your opinion. I don’t see it the way you do but I don’t sense any real animosity in the way you present your argument. For the sake of space I won’t continue argue specifics. They’re peppered throughout my posts. In addition, there are other studies that can be cited, have been cited, to substantiate my position other than those by NARTH, although I don’t see anything wrong or outdated about their research. Anthropology deals with origins. My point is that you can’t scientifically prove that homosexuality is a natural occurrance and I can’t prove that it is. That’s never been my attempt. You also failed to point out in your argument about states that have passed same-sex marriage laws that California is no longer performing them because they were voted down, and confirmed by the state Supreme Court, overriding Gov. S. and those who performed illegally in the beginning. You know though, one thing I don’t buy about you is your playing innocent when it comes to understanding certain word meanings (proofed, as in proof reading something). I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. If you were right we wouldn’t be having this debate and the left would not be having such a tough time forwarding their agenda. Even with the numbers Democrats have in Congress, they could basically bring forth for the states to approve any amendment(s) they want. But they know the effort would be useless. Anyway, at this point the whole argument is an ideological one. You’ve got your opinion and I’ve got mine. You say laws can and must be changed. I say new ones can be created it the will of the people support it but otherwise they will stay the same. The left will win some battles (as the article that started all of this points out) but I believe that this country still leans to the right and gay marriage will never be wide spread. If the gay community wants to win the war on same-sex marriage it will have to take a different approach. The majority in this country will never allow the definition of marriage to change to include same-sex unions.
4112, you may not recognize or accept it, but the fact of the matter is that your sources were “trashed.” “Conclusive evidence” is not required. Consensus is all that matters. I don’t know what you mean by “the anthropolgy of homosexuality.”
Anthropology is “the science of human beings; especially the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character.” Throughout time and regardless of culture homosexuality has been a fact. You say, “cite one credible source that offers a way to test a fetus that will tell us that the child to be born will be a homosexual?” Why? You tell us one credible source that offers a way to test a fetus that will tell us that the child to be born will be a heterosexual. Can you provide credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is chosen? What does “proofed” mean? No, what any of our legislators do in the legislature is OUR not their business. BTW, the Constitution does NOT define marriage but it does guarantee equal rights to ALL PEOPLE. As marriage is currently defined in law denies equal rights to all people. That is the issue. What “hidden agenda” is the issue?
You are incorrect that “48 states across the U.S. have either constitutional amendments or laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in their states.” The fact is four states have legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court ruling, while three others have done so through a vote in their respective state legislatures. Same-sex marriage is permitted in five of the 50 states: In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed. In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010. In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this period are still recognized. Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 54 allowing same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries performed on or before November 4, 2008, to be recognized as well. In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)
Your 2:49 PM post to me illustrates your lack of comprehension of the issue at hand. There is no such thing as “gay rights.” The Bill of Rights guarantees equal human rights to all people. There are no pluses or minuses permitted. That the current marriage contract does not provide equal rights to all people is the issue. That it does not, means that either its definition must be changed or it must be thrown out. What “point of reference?”
You would have been correct stating that the definition of marriage no longer spells out the joining of one black man to one black woman, or one white man to one white woman and so on.” Not very long ago it did in some states until declared unconstitutional. The definition of marriage was changed to fit constitutional requirements. You are wrong. One DOES necessarily trump the other. The Constitution trumps all. So yes, the definition of marriage must be altered to fit civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
No, since many homosexuals currently marry members of the opposite sex, the current definition of marriage sure DOES NOT make the sexual orientation of the heterosexual public now.
No, it certainly is those who agree with the current definition of marriage and oppose changing it who must defend their position. If you can not it is indefensible and will fail. The benefits to society have nothing to do with it. It is about individual human rights.
Dribble it sure doesn’t prove my stupidity to be rather sure that you’re a leftist, you’ve proven that yourself by your posts. Regardless of who you voted for your posts indicate that you are a leftist. I’ve never voted, at any level for anything other than a Republican, but what does that prove? And at age 54 I bet I’ve voted in more elections, at all levels, than you. There should be no question that I’m a conservative. Not because of who I vote for but because of my views. What, do you think I should apologize for that? And by the way, I don’t begrudge gay individuals their rights. I don’t dislike gay individuals. I even have some gay friends who are friends in spite of my views on gay marriage. And that’s the issue isn’t it? On sources, what institution decreed you to instruct the rest of the world on how to conduct legitimate research? And I make the same point, what have you offered in ‘legitimate scientific research’ that disputes mine or anyone else’s? You really are a legend in your own mind aren’t you? I will concede one thing to you, you have exhibited your superior intelligence in your posts through your incoherent and comical arguments. The only expertise I’ve been able to glean from your posts is how good yoiu are at slinging insults at your opponents. You are right about one thing however. I may have had your voting tendancies in error, but whatever you are, you give the impression that you’re a young know it all who probably has a Thesaurus setting next to your cell phone to enable you to throw in words that sound impressive even though you my friend are not.
4112 why do you have to go even further and prove your unbelievable stupidy by assuming I am a leftist? I voted for more Republcian this year than you probably did, actually you probably didn’t vote, so save the “you must be” trash for your idiot friends.
Only an idiot (you) would say that your source were not trashed. They were. Do you not understand how scientific theory is created? Obviously not.
I will play your stupid game. Cite me one credible way to prove a fetus will NOT be gay.
Don’t be so simple to think my typing represents my grammar. Only an idiot would do that (again, you). I post from a cell phone.
BTW - “grammer” has two “A"s in it.
Please feel to refute my facts but please do so more with more than your opinion, or “studies” that failed peer review.
“those who have already established” - Jeez, what about all those guys that claimed “we’ve always had slavery, why stop now?“ 4112 you are a buffoon.
You do not understand civlity. You started the name calling. Your mistake was to do it to me. I revel in zinging idiots like you. Especially when I can turn their own words back on them.
Just because a law is on the books will it stand a consitutional test. Get ready to start crying about having your civil rights vioated when you WILL be required to allow someone theirs
Advertisement