October 18, 2006
Andrew Sullivan opposes religious recognition of gay marriage?
I should maybe point something out here about my own writing on the subject. I have always been very clear that I am in favor of civil equality in marriage. I am not at all sure that the religious sacrament of matrimony ought to be open to gay couples. My instinct, in fact, is that it should not. The church's view of marriage is so linked to heterosexuality and procreation that including gay couples within the same sacrament might violate its theological meaning. I'm open to debate on this theologically.
Say, isn't the state's interest in marriage also linked to heterosexuality and procreation?
He continues:
But I make the same distinction Lewis makes: the civil and the religious spheres are very distinct and we need to make the distinction "quite sharp". The great blasphemy of Christianism is that it wants to erase the boundary altogether.
The spheres are distinct but no matter how sharp the distinction they ultimately share the same goals when it comes to marriage. Each sphere wants to promote stability, procreation and, frankly, the tradition of heterosexual marriage. If Sullivan can understand the church's point on this, why not the state's?
Posted by Karol at October 18, 2006 08:06 AM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Gay+Marriage Andrew+Sullivan
How do you know the argument is purely religious? You can argue against the state's recognition of gay marriage on a number of legal, economic, and public policy grounds without mention of religion.
For example: You can talk about whether you can prevent extension of legal recognition to polyamorous relationships once you have recognized same-sex ones. You can debate whether or not giving tax breaks to a small, mostly affluent special interest group to the expense of families with children is prudent. There are also studies about increases in illegitimacy in countries where marriage benefits are extended beyond married couples (including to gays).
Basically, when everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage.
Posted by: Ron at October 18, 2006 01:22 PMI love the way people can make vast and sweeping generalizations about Christians but if I were to say something about Muslims I would be called a bigot...
Posted by: Rachel at October 18, 2006 01:30 PM. . .if I were to say something about Muslims I would be called a bigot...
BIGOT!
Posted by: jay at October 18, 2006 01:36 PMNo, Karol, the state's interest is in upholding "equality" in the land of the free and providing equal opportunity for all it's citizens, no more or no less, gay or straight.
His statement is idiotic. I church can choose who it wants to marry. Separation of church and state after all. However, civil marriage guarantees gays equal rights. Civil Unions, while better than nothing, amount to separate but equal treatment of gays.
Posted by: toby at October 18, 2006 02:17 PMWhat Toby said.
Posted by: Ken at October 18, 2006 03:39 PMWhy can't anybody see that the decline of family values has nothing to do with gays. The divorce rate amongst straight people is sadly high, and hollywood makes a farce of the sanctity of marriage. Much like with fashion, the gays might teach us straights a thing or two about how to act appropriately in terms of marriage.
To tie this in with church vs. state, the state should go after J Lo and not Rosie.
Toby,
The state certainly has more interests than "providing equal opportunity for all its citizens". That's one interest among many, and the concrete manifestation of "equal opportunity" often depends on your point of view.
The state has an interest in the health of marriage as an institution because thousands of years of experience tells us it's important to the health of a society. You can argue the whys and wherefores all you want, but the reality is if experience in countries with homosexual marriage shows it weakens the institution then society, through the state, has an interest in leaving things as they are.
As far as "separate but equal" is concerned, that's a loaded term in disrepute because it referred to conditions that weren't actually equal. I don't see how a civil union with all the legal rights of marriage isn't "equal".
Posted by: Eric at October 18, 2006 05:15 PMWhy doesn't everyone cut through the crap. You cannot be a true bible believing Christian, Jew or Catholic and ,condone, a homosexual of any type, much less homosexual marriage. You can overlook them but you can't approve of them. You can make lots of excuses but that's what they are, excuses. I'm not a bible thumping, go to meeting every Sunday person, but I have read the bible cover to cover several time, both the old and new version. Pretending to believe will send you to hell as fast as breaking any of the commandments. NUFF SAID.
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 18, 2006 07:07 PMThe state has an interest in the health of marriage as an institution because thousands of years of experience tells us it's important to the health of a society.
This is speculation bordering on platitude.
Posted by: David at October 18, 2006 08:49 PMSullivan is a raving idiot and a whiny bitch, but he's right on this issue.
Gays deserve equal rights under the law, including all benefits given to married couples. But churches can't be forced to recognize marriages that violate their beliefs.
Posted by: W.C. Varones at October 19, 2006 02:18 AMToby,
You can't blame gays for weakening the institution of marriage. Blame anybody who has ever gotten a divorce for weakening the permanent bond that marriage is supposed to represent. Also blame the unwed moms that have raised perfectly fine children for challenging the idea of nuclear family as the only way to properly procreate.
The sole purpose of marriage throughout the ages has been to procreate. In contemporary times, love and romance have become as equal in importance. Divorce rates are so high because more and more people marry for the second condition rather than the first. Love and romance fades in and out, but kids don't. What the institution of marriage needs is proof that love and romance can last a lifetime. Since gays can't procreate (lets ignore adoption), love and romance is their prime motivator. I think they could show the straights how to let love and romance be the glue that holds marriages together.
Posted by: delbrians at October 19, 2006 09:04 AM
I agree with you to a point, W.C. I don't see why people can't also agitate within the church for change as well. They are unlikely to actually change anything, I suppose, but - by way of contrast - Judge Scalia has no problem saying that The Vatican is wrong about the death penalty. Why can't Catholics try to reform the church from within on issues like gay marriage (or women priests, etc.)?
And David, in pointing out the platitude you missed the more ridiculous part of the statement: the reality is if experience in countries with homosexual marriage shows it weakens the institution. What "state" does this experience come from? Sodom? Is there a state that recognizes gay marriage that can be shown to have a causal relationship between it and the weakening of the institution of marriage?
Just for clarification, by "state" I wasn't referring to U.S. states, necessarily, just any modern gov't that permits gay marriage.
Posted by: Charles at October 19, 2006 10:35 AMDavid,
What an odd thing to say. The historical record is unambiguous in this matter. Marriage is a critical institution for a functioning society. There certainly have been civilizations without it, and in every case they eventually fail and are swallowed up by their neighbors. Note that I'm not saying same-sex marriage will necessarily affect the health of the institution in the US. The point I was making is our society is unlikely to survive without it over the long haul, thus the people, through the state, have an interest in maintaining marriage as a heathy institution.
Charles,
Did you miss the "if" in that sentence? I'm not sure gay marriage has any effect on marriage, and I'm not sure it doesn't. What I would propose is quite a bit more study of countries like Denmark to see if it's possible to tease out the effects of this change to such a fundemental foundation of society. Clearly marriage is a failing institution in Denmark, but does that have anything to do with the legalization of same-sex unions? I don't know and neither does anybody else.
