Religion and Politics and Human Rights...or it's about Power? I think.

[shadowkat]

The weather smells tonight. That damp smell, that is wet. With a bit of lily thrown in. Like a pool without the cholrine or a shower. Three days straight of rain. This summer it rains for five days straight, takes a break over the weekends, then starts right up again. I feel like I am living in Seattle. And this ahem is the reason I don't live in Seattle. I require sunshine dammit.

Read two things in the morning paper today. The first made me laugh, the second made me think - about power, human rights and what is really really wrong with religion in our country.

The first was about New York State politics. Not sure anyone outside of NY has been following this? A couple of weeks back the Republican Party staged a "coup" in the Senate, and ousted the Majority Leader and the Democrat control. It was 32/30 - Democrate. But two Senators from NYC (one a Democrat from the Bronx) and the other from Elmhurst (Queens) - decided to switch parties in exchange for better positions, ie. a committee position and a majority leader position. The Democrats were furious and protested, refusing to acknowledge the switch and have locked the Republicans out of the Senate Chambers and refuse to turn over the keys. The Republicans insist they'll just convene in the hallway, no problem. Meanwhile the governor declares he is not leaving Albany or the State until the Democrat Majority is restored or at least order is. The two guys who switched? One is under investigation for finance fraud and the other for domestic abuse, he allegedly slashed his girlfriend across the face. As a result State Government has ground to a halt, they haven't balanced the budget, the Gay marriage act has been put on hold, and the governor's economic diversity package is up in the air.

Have decided to laugh at this, because what else can one do? Also is it just me, or are we stuck in high school still? Or maybe there's something to that old adage - all systems lead to chaos? Eventually?

The second was an interesting opinion piece by a guy against the gay marriage equality act.
This week the Metro is covering the gay marriage debate from multiple perspectives - because, NY State is still debating the issue. Yes, the Northeast has okayed it. But New York can't make up its collective mind on the issue. Yesterday they had opinion pieces from the Gay and Black Perspective. Today it is from the anti-same sex marriage perspective. One article states that proposition 8 supporters don't want to be called bigots. They aren't against gays having rights. Or civil unions per se. They are against defining marriage as anything but a union between a man and a woman. Here's the quote:


"Marriage has a definition that does not include two men or two women. It's like, if someone found a new color, they can't call it blue. Blue already exists." But does he support any kind of legal recongitionof same-sex couples? "Sure as long as they pay taxes."

"I believe that all states should get out of the marriage business and issue only civil union licenses with equal rights for all citizens. If someone wants a marriage ceremony, they can do it in a church." [Uhm, we already do that. We just restrict it to heterosexuals.]

"I'm happy the California Supreme Court upheld the vote because it was a lawful expression of the majority." [Yes, people said the same thing about the Jim Crow Laws, slavery, and women not having the right to vote. Seriously, does anyone study history any more? Or do they just google everything on wiki?]

[Homosexuals do want to get married in churchs, they want to celebrate their union. Their love. Why is that a problem? Why would any Christian be against someone celebrating love? Well...article two written by this Dalrymple dude explains why.]

And here's the second article by Timothy Dalrymple.

"The Christian views of the sanctity of marriage and the potential harm of homosexual marriage arise from the basic Christian convictions on what it means to be human. The Bible, in this view, teaches that we, men for women and women for men, are made to find partnership and companionship in one another not in spite of, but because of our differences. It is essential to the power of marriage that it conjoins male and female, since God uses our differences to shape us and make us one flesh. But also in the Christian view, we find our deepest fulfillment and become most deeply ourselves, in learning to love across the deepest divide.

We can no more revise the basis of marriage than we can revise laws governing atoms. Societies may shape marriage differently, but the intrinsic need of male and female for each other is written into the created order.

Thus the traditional Christian is concerned for several possible harms if the understanding of marriage is revised. First - and potentially most offensive - is the concern for gays themselves as they pursue lives which cannot lead to complete wholeness and healing. Second is the concern that more children will be led astray from God's design for marriage. The third is that society as a whole will suffer. Traditional Christians generally see homosexual marriage not as an extension of the civil rights struggle, but rather as an extension of the sexual revolution [female rights], which they believe has done immense damage to the structure of the family.

Heterosexuals, of course, have failed to fulfill the ideal of marriage. But for the Christian, this is the reason to restore the ideal, not abandon it."


Sigh. As much as I like the whole Greek (and it is Greek by the way, not Biblical) that marriage is the unity of two halves. It's the Aristophenes' (at least I think it was Aristophenes) theory that people were split in half and looking for their other half. And once they find it, they are whole. I've learned it is so not true, and certainly not for everyone. That's a romantic pipe dream.

I'm getting the feeling that the best way to fight this might be to just take away or separate all the legal rights that come with marriage as a religious union. In other words, yes you can get married in church but from a legal standpoint unless you have a license from the state authorizing a civil union it means absolutely nothing legally. Your spouse does not collect your life insurance, you can't get spousal health benefits, etc. Oh, wait, we already have that. You can get married in a church by a priest, but if you do not have a marriage license issued by the state, and/or the priest is not licensed by the state - you are not recognized as being legally married by the state. But if you get the marriage license and never do the ceremony? You are more or less considered married by the state. Civil unions =legal marriage. Purely religious unions do not equal legal marriage. So, Let's just take it one step further and make the religious ceremony completely and utterly meaningless from a legal perspective. No one but a state representative is authorized to grant a marriage license, no priest, rabbi, etc can grant one. That is what we should do. And to a small degree it is what we are doing already.

The church really doesn't mean anything from a legal perspective - you can get divorced without the church, you can dissolve property and in some states such as California you are considered a common-law marriage with shared property even if you never get a license or are married in a church - all you need to do is live together for a certain period of time. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie under California Law are considered married for example. The same-sex marriage act is basically saying homosexuals and heterosexuals are recognized as a civil union by the state. They are married under the state's laws.

The last time I checked, the US Constitution states there is a separation of church and state. I'm guessing a bunch of people have forgotten why that is, and why it has to be. We do not want religion dictacting what we can or cannot do. If you think that is something you want, go back and re-read your history books. People often use their religious beliefs to justify enforcing their views on to others in increasingly nasty ways.

As a heterosexual and a Christian, I am deeply shamed of the extent that many so-called Christians have used their religion to control and exert power over others.

And another reaction to it: http://mcornwell.typepad.com/mikes_blog/



I did not write my query letter again - have until June 20, when I'm going to share it with the writing group I've joined. But I wrote this...which I'd intended to leave opinion free - ie, my opinion not on it, but being me, I apparently found that impossible.

Comments

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting those, lots of food for thought.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see a change to various religions that would make them less stuck in a kind of biological determinism that seems akin to I Tarzan You Jane. Men and women are different, sure - as is everyone. There may be some trends of qualities in men and women, but we're all human, and all different from and similar to one another in a variety of ways.

To talk about men and women as two pieces of a very simple jigsaw puzzle is just...well, as a jigsaw puzzle, it's suitable for ages 3-5. Insert penis A in slot B, and natural law is served.

Now, religion is no more a homogenous mass than women or men are, and there are plenty of denominations of plenty of religions that have a broader view of these things. But, in the main, I think a lot of those views will be sticking around for quite some time.

So, in the meantime, the suggestion of stressing the division between church and state in legal matters does sound a very sensible one. While I think that religions should show gay people (or any person) the same respect as straight people, I would at least like to see straight and gay people having the same civil rights - the right to form recognised unions that allow them to do essential, civilized things like visit their partner in hospital or remain in the same country.

In the UK, we don't have a separation of church and state where marriage is concerned (or where anything's concerned, technically, as the queen's the head of the church of england! Weird, I find that), in that you can get legally married by a C of E vicar/priest (though not a catholic one, or at least, not without some extra document signing on top of what you have to do in the C of E I believe).

On one level, I'd like to have civil partnership (what it's called here) translated into marriage, to avoid the implication that straight marriage is somehow different or even better. I'm not quite sure why it's not...someone told me it's to keep the church happy, I'm not sure, must look into it more. But, the legal rights are a bare minimum that I'd like to see worldwide.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the great response.

In the UK, we don't have a separation of church and state where marriage is concerned (or where anything's concerned, technically, as the queen's the head of the church of england! Weird, I find that), in that you can get legally married by a C of E vicar/priest (though not a catholic one, or at least, not without some extra document signing on top of what you have to do in the C of E I believe).

I did not know this. For some reason I thought the UK had better laws or a more open policy than the US did in this regard. But that may just be Canada?

Also didn't realize you still went by the rules established during Henry the VIII'th time - when the Anglican Church got established and the King/Queen of England made the rules, not the Pope. Pretty sure it was Henry who ousted the Pope/ Roman Catholic Head of the Church from England the first round (because he wouldn't let him divorce Catherine of Aragone - at least I think it was that wife). His daughter brought the Pope/Catholicism back (Bloody Mary), with Elizabeth exiling him/Catholicism again.

It was less about faith and more about who had the power - I think. Who controls what people may or may not do.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see a change to various religions that would make them less stuck in a kind of biological determinism that seems akin to I Tarzan You Jane. Men and women are different, sure - as is everyone. There may be some trends of qualities in men and women, but we're all human, and all different from and similar to one another in a variety of ways.

Agreed. I think a lot of religions have not been allowed to evolve past rudimentary concepts. They are still, unfortunately, in their infancy, relying on dogma that dates back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

Biological determinism ignores a lot of things - like the fact that a good percentage of heterosexual couples have to resort to artificial means and devices in order to have children. My cousin certainly did.
And many people who have children naturally, can't take care of them or are destructive to them.

Sure the theory makes sense if you are a nomadic tribe living in a desert, isolated, with the only hope of extending your tribe through well biological determinism. But it falls apart in modern society. And sure, you can say that things were better back then - but if you read history - with a clear realistic eye - they truly weren't. Women were property. People died before the age of 30. Most children died early. Many woman died in childbirth.

I think a lot of religions subscribe to a sort of nostaligic amensia - life was better way back when. We had better values. People loved each other more. If we can go back to those days...but, if they bothered to pick up a history book or read a geneological record - they'd discover this is not true. Women had no rights.
People were enslaved. There was more death. More disease. And the problems they rant and rave about? Still existed, in some cases far worse than they do now.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

For some reason I thought the UK had better laws or a more open policy than the US did in this regard. But that may just be Canada?

Like most things in Britain, marriage law is a mixture of pragmatic compromises and archaic traditional survivals that somehow seems to work despite itself.

Marriages in Britian must be conducted by a government-approved official, and take place in a designated public building. A 'civil ceremony' is conducted by a registrar in the local registry office.

Because the Church of England is technically a branch of government and has been since Henry VIII's reign, ministers of the C of E automatically count as "government-approved officials", and C of E churches as "designated public buildings".

Other religious denominations can't conduct marriages as of right, but individual priests/ministers/rabbis/imams/etc can apply for a licence to conduct marriages and get their church or temple approved as a designated public building. Even so, there are additional hoops to jump through - if you have a religious wedding at a non-C of E place you still need to go to the registry office before hand to sign the register.

The Civil Partnerships Act created a status that is legally identical in virtually every way to marriage apart from the name, but for gay couples. You become civilly partnered ("civilised"?)(most people just say "married") using the same procedure as a civil marriage.


It was less about faith and more about who had the power - I think

Bit of both. Henry VIII was just a cynical pragmatist. His teenage son Edward VI - or at least the men ruling behind the scenes during his reign - seems to have been more of a fervent Protestant. Mary, in turn, was a dogmatic Catholic. Then came Elizabeth who, once again, went back to the more pragmatic and moderate end of the scale.

Part of the problem was that in 16th century England, Catholicism was regarded much like Communism in 1950s America - it wasn't only considered a false and dangerous ideology, but the people who followed it were traitors and supporters of the nation's enemies (Spain and France, in this case).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Another great response, thank you so much for this.
I did not know that was how they did it. Always wondered how it was handled in the UK.

In some respects what you describe above sounds like what I was somewhat tongue firmly in cheek proposing.
I do remember seeing Princess Diana's wedding being performed by the Church of England - the ritual is certainly still there and in some respects more involved than other denominations, such as many American Catholic Churches.

The Civil Partnership Act

This sounds like a potential compromise. It's not perfect of course, but at least it provides gay unions with the same "legal" rights as heterosexuals? Which would be a big step forward.

Maybe if we changed the name - instead of calling it "marriage" - call it a civil partnership? If the problem is the word? Maybe that is the solution?
We still have all the meaning, we've just changed the word.

Part of the problem was that in 16th century England, Catholicism was regarded much like Communism in 1950s America

I remember a little of that from the Dorothy Dunnett novels - Catholicism was in some respects a political as well as a religious movement. The Pope had a great deal of power back then as did the Catholic Church.
England at one point was a bit isolated in that it was one of the few countries not under the Church's umbrella in Europe.

In some respects, we haven't changed that much. Religion and politics are still entwined - and the battle is still partly over control of property or land, as well as the cultural practices of the inhabitants. I think to a degree the gay marriage debate is hitting against that.

Henry was just a cynical pragmatist.

Interesting point about Henry and Elizabeth. Thank you again for this. Much food for thought.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

"As a heterosexual and a Christian, I am deeply shamed of the extent that many so-called Christians have used their religion to control and exert power over others. "

I hadn't commented here, because I always ended up in a rant, you know how much I really agree w/you! I had become a Catholic, as an adult (ie in College), because I had been moved by Vatican 2 and Pope John 23rd's attempts to make the Catholic church more catholic (inclusive). But with Pope John Paul 2 I saw the up swing of the hatred of women and Gays become more and more dominant (not in every single parish, but it does spread... now it seems to have infected everywhere). I feel that the Catholic church needs to take some responsibility for the hatred and violence they have fostered, sure the killers may not be Catholic per say, but the church has helped to make the Anti Abortion extremists appear more main stream, they have given aide and comfort to the violence.

And there I am ranting again.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, not really a rant - or no more than I do on the topic.

I read another column on the same topic, it appeared in the paper the very next day. In it a theologian and Christian stated : "Unfortunately many think that the Bible gives them easy support for their prejudice agains gays and lesbians. But as the late minister of Riverside Church, William Sloan Coffin, Jr. was fond of saying, too many Christians use the Bible as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination."

Considering posting. But it is a long column and no time.

[spacedoutlooney.livejournal.com]

Sigh. As much as I like the whole Greek (and it is Greek by the way, not Biblical) that marriage is the unity of two halves. It's the Aristophenes' (at least I think it was Aristophenes) theory that people were split in half and looking for their other half. And once they find it, they are whole. I've learned it is so not true, and certainly not for everyone. That's a romantic pipe dream.

It's also worth noting that in that story, there were 3 types of original people: male/male, male/female, and female/female. There's also a whole song about it in Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

AAh yes. I remember. It was animated and really cool!
I think Aristophenes may have been homosexual, not positive. I am pretty sure Socrates and Plato were.