My lovely and talented friend Choralgirl jetted me an email about a blogswarm taking place today, all of us urging you, the reader from California, to vote No on Proposition 8 next Tuesday. (See Choralgirl's piece here; gorgeous, on point, perfect as ever). I'm happy to take part.
I believe Proposition 8 does what it says: it denies gay and lesbian citizens of California a right accorded to the rest of the populace. Why our country is so in love with taking away these particular rights puzzles me: any institution that is designed, by virtue of the many rights it confers, to strengthen and undergird relationships would seem to be a no-brainer, good for society. Marriage is designed to further all sorts of good things in society: people taking care of one another, people being responsible for and to one another, people sharing the risks and benefits of things such as home ownership, parenthood, insurance policies. Marriage is a good thing for those who wish to partake, and I believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is both unconstitutional and un-Christian.
However, I believe something else, and this something else is part of the problem with the whole rationale of those who are for Proposition 8. I believe that religious groups should be out of the marriage business altogether. If you are a Presbyterian couple, and would like to have the blessing of the church on your marriage, I am overjoyed to help you to have that. But I don't think that I, a minister, should be an agent of the state. The first year I was out of seminary I was shocked at how loosey goosey the whole thing was. I called around in vain, trying to find the place where I would register as an ordained minister, or where I would get my state credential. No such place or credential (in my part of my state) existed. I was told, "Just sign "Rev" on the license. That's it." Well, if marriage is going to be about giving rights on behalf of the state, if it is going to be about legitimizing some relationships over others, if my signature is going to be the stuff on which court cases can be decided, or wills contested, or children acknowledged... I think it should be done by officials of the state, thanks.
Then... Rick Warren and the Roman Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in America and all the other proponents of this sorry piece of legislation can withhold their blessings and approval from those they choose to exclude. And I can preside over the blessing of those unions I think have a shot in hell at succeeding, whether the organist has played Here Comes the Grooms or Here Comes the Brides or even Pachelbel's Canon.
So, No on 8, people. But... taking the longer view, let's us religious types get ourselves out of the business of working for the state in this particular way. If we are agents of the state, how can be be free to critique it... as all who stand in the shadows of the prophets must from time to time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I really agree, I would rather not be an agent of the state but instead be a bless-er of couples.
Brava brava brava!
One of the things that really gets me going (and FWIW this is often mentioned by many priests I know, but then you know that I am not around so many right wing RCs) - that marriage, a civil matter, is all "churched" up in a confusing and damaging way.
No on 8, let people be.
Right on. In France when you get married you always go before the mayor (or other justice of the peace - equivalent; it always used to be the mayor or deputy mayor of your town or neighborhood). That's your civil, legal marriage. Then later -- later in the day, later that week -- if you want, you go before the religious community have your religious ceremony.
'course hardly anyone gets married in France any more. Or at least half the population doesn't bother. (Note: they don't have gay-lesbian marriage but they have had civil unions for both lesbian/gay folks and straight folks for many years.) The daughter of a friend of my brother's was married there recently and the civil ceremony was very beautiful apparently, and the official who performed it, when complimented, said "hardly anyone gets married any more so we want to make it beautiful."
What a great post. I don't understand the need to keep full civil rights from anyone.
I 100% agree. I have talked with my session about my discomfort with being an agent of he state. This has puzzled them greatly, since my predecessor did at least 40 weddings a year, as a side-job. (He rented himself and church out for them.)
Anyway, if I still lived in CA, I would be voting NO on 8!
This is terrific, Mags--I absolutely agree about getting the church out of the state's business and vice versa.
And thanks, BTW, for your kindness.
another great one...
Great and thought provoking post. When I have argued in favor of gay and lesbian marriage, it has been because I believe that people who want to avail themselves of marriage in the sacramental sense (ok, so Protestants don't view marriage as a sacrament, but you get the idea) should be supported, encouraged, helped,and married. But I had not thought in terms of clergy as agents of the state. And now that I do -- no, it's not a good way of doing civil business.
Post a Comment