New Hampshire's newly passed law on same-sex marriage is good public policy, and will be welcomed by many people, including both those who support, and those who oppose it. But it won't end the fight over this divisive issue. Why? Because that fight is dominated, on both sides, by those who want not only their rights protected, but want all people to accept that they are right.
By making gay marriage legal, the new law assures that those gay couples who want to marry will now have that choice recognized by the state. But for many gay marriage activists, this fight has never been about that. Or at least it has not only been about that. It has been about their demand that society embrace their choices. And that is why for some, including a dear friend of mine, this law, which affords clergy the right to decline performing such marriages without risking a law suit or jail, is nothing less than the legalization of homophobia. But they could not be more wrong.
This law simply puts gay couples seeking a religious wedding on the same ground as all couples who turn to a particular spiritual community to sanctify their marriage. And in fact, were those communities not in fear of the backlash against those who decline to perform such marriages, the law would not have needed to protect those who do so.
That "with us or against us" culture, so prevalent in the gay activist community, is truly problematic, and it's one which that community needs to better address. Of course, that kind of thinking is at least as common among those who invoke God and religion in their fight against gay marriage.
Jumping right past the issue of marriage, the religious opponents of gay marriage bombard us with arguments about this being the beginning of the end of civilization, a threat to all Americans, and the total subversion of an institution which has "always meant one man and one woman".
The first two claims are baseless fear-mongering and last claim is simply wrong. Ironically in fact, our current practice of monogamous marriage is a relative newcomer on the family scene. Until about a thousand years ago, plural marriages were more than common, even among the Jewish and Christian ancestors of those folks who now invoke Judaism and Christianity to "prove" what defines a marriage.
Like it or not, the same tradition can be understood in different ways over time, and pretending otherwise is foolish. That doesn't mean gay marriage is necessarily right from either a Jewish or a Christian perspective. It simply means that a measure of modesty too often missing from religious arguments against gay marriage needs to return to such arguments. And if it can not, then those arguing need to ask themselves why false claims and scare tactics need to be advanced for them to make what they deem a compelling argument.
Like their fiercest opponents (isn't that how it often is in a conflict?), the issue for many religious folks who actively fight against the legal recognition of gay marriage is not marriage at all. Their issue is not securing their right to be free of gay marriage within their particular community, but demanding that everybody else affirm the conclusions of their community. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I am quite confident that such demands cross the line between asserting one's right to the free expression of religion to religious coercion.
The New Hampshire law respects the choice of those who want freedom from religion denying their equal access to a civil institution, which for the purposes of legal recognition is what it is. And, it protects the religious freedom of those who do not support that choice, from participating in something which their faith tells them is wrong. That's the kind of lawmaking which benefits us all. The fact that those with the shrillest voices will decry it is all the proof the rest of us need.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
"That "with us or against us" culture, so prevalent in the gay activist community"
Pardon my vernacular, Rabbi, but I call B.S. Major B.S., in fact.
I am one (of many) activists and have been since 1969. My (legal) husband and I began the 'Freedom to Marry' movement in our country (note: not the 'right' to marry - no one has that 'right' - not even the betterosexuals). We have hundreds of friends and fellow activists and never, not once in those 40 years have I ever heard one of them use that phrase.
Frankly, you are wrong when you say we "want all people to accept that they are right". We are intelligent enough to know that will never happen. Go visit the Crunchy Con blog for some vivid proof.
We simply don't care if the Rod Drehers or the Erin Mannings of this world "accept" us. They will not accept us - as persons, nevermind as "right". They still revel in referring to our relationships as the equivalent of "marrying a plant" or a "rock", a "bicycle", a "child", an "animal", a "corpse. They do not - will not see us as even human beings.
What we do care passionately about is that we are treated equally under the law. That means by the government. And this is right, whether or not conservatives agree. (The U.S. Constitution's Equal Protections Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause demand it.
Those "communities [who were] in fear of the backlash against those who decline to perform such marriages" were and are wrong. No special protections were ever required, exactly as no Rabbi has ever been 'forced' to marry non-jews. No Catholic priest has ever been 'forced' to marry divorced persons. The language that was added to placate them was unnecessary. And, apparently, unappreciated. The Crunchy Con blog is currently in an attempt to convince people that "the gays", through the 'clergy protections clause' wording, have some sort of hidden agenda that the 'right' needs to first 'expose' then be 'protected' from. It is sheer and utter nonsense. Seems even this extra protection (that they demanded in the first place) will not placate them. They are, imnsho, simply paranoid. (Not to mention delusional.)
"the law would not have needed to protect those who do so."
It was not and is not "needed". The Constitution already saw to that. But thanx 4 tryin'.
This alleged "with us or against us" culture you seem to believe is so prevalent in the gay community is one that you say we "[need] to better address". Funny that, considering that you go on to say, "that kind of thinking is at least as common among those who invoke God and religion in their fight against gay marriage". I agree that it absolutely is. The language is a direct lift from George W. Bush, in fact. But I found it odd that you don't call for the 'religious' opposition to equality to "better address" the exact same attitude! And I think you should, since, as you typed, their 'arguments' consist of: "baseless fear-mongering", "simply wrong", "foolish", "false claims and scare tactics", "the shrillest voices", and "religious coercion". Why on earth would anyone want to be "with" that side?
I was married in my Church. There are many faiths that perform SSMs. We simply do not need for the anti-gay 'religious' to be "with us", or even believe we are right. Theirs are the same voices and words and 'reasonings' that so vehemently fought against inter-racial marriages not so very long ago. Some still do. Why would we want 'them' "with us"?
Sorry if I come across as strident, but I've had it up to here and then some with their constant bearing of false witness against God's gay and lesbian children.
Here's a hint for them and for all: Treat us equally and the issue will go away. And, I promise, we won't insist that you/they "like us".
Bravo, Husband.
In my country, marriage is a right - legacy of the National Socialist era.
We learned that everything which is not codified in law will be stripped from us, regardless of how "basic" it is.
The conservative Christians will take any olive branch we offer and use it to hit us. You can't expect anything better from people like Rod Dreher who welcomes racists on his blog with open arms.
Now, another man is in danger of losing his life because of an attack by a right-wing christianist. (OK, that was a tautology). Can't wait to hear all the conservatives jump on here now to defend his attack and probable death as having nothing to do with their "right" to oppress us.
All we are asking is for the conservative Christians to take their hateful, spiteful beliefs out of the public sector. By all means don't welcome us into your churches - but stop telling the rest of Christianity and the very large number of Jews who do believe in live and let live what to do.
Gay marriage is about equality and justice. It has nothing to do with asking conservatives to accept us. We just want to be left alone.
Rabbi Brad,
Husband's tone is a touch strident, but he is right. To the extent that you can make any generalizations about GLBTQ people, it is that we want the law to be worded and interpreted in such a way that the same legal standing is possible for us that every person living in an OSM assumes as a given.
Do some individuals want everybody to love them? Sure. That applies equally to straight people. But the vast majority of us GLBTQ people just want the law to treat us the same as it does the straight majority.
That said, GLBTQ people are members of every faith community. And as MEMBERS of those communities, we have every right to hold our faith community accountable for how it treats us and people like us( and people different from us, too). Not how someone else's faith community treats people like me but how my own faith community treats people like me.
I am not Catholic, for example. But if I were I would be ready for major revolt, the moral right of a member who sees what s/he perceives as a wrong being perpetuated by the institution to which s/he belongs, with no attempt to promptly correct it on the part of the leadership. Outsiders can complain about another group's beliefs and practices, and that is as far as their right goes. But the MEMBER has a right to demand change. (S/he may or may not have the power to force the demand to its proper conclusion.)
My denomination lobbies for SSM and joyously celebrates SSM where legal and equivalent religious ceremonies where SSM are not YET legal. I would never belong to a religious organization that did not take this approach. But in pushing for legalization of SSM, we are not involving ourselves in the internal disputes of other religious bodies on these matters. We are making a moral, ethical, and legal statement about living up to the equality already enshrined in our constitution but which most state governments and the federal government are not living up to.
Peace,
Paul
Rabbi,
I must join this chorus.
My experience in the gay community and the fight for marriage equality is that no one entertains fantasies in which rabbis are coerced to join divorced Catholics to Buddhists, or anything else.
Clergy already have discretion in the services where they officiate. If you have this strident gay friend, then you need to point out that you already can turn away heterosexual couples.
It is the opponents of same-sex marriage who have this "with us or against us" mentality, or more specifically, a "with us or against God" mentality.
You are right, however, when you intimate that they jeopardize your religious freedoms when they say that their beliefs trump all others.
And now, if you didn't believe the above posts, I see that the Westboro Baptist "Church" intends to picket you (jews).
Seems they're not "with" you either.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.