Supporting gays, but not gay marriage

Steve B. pointed me to an interesting story in the Philadelphia Enquirer concerning MAFS (Mentally Anguished Fence Sitters). This group is conflicted concerning the debate about gay marriage. Not only is this applicable to the issue at hand, but also what do we do when our value system conflicts with itself. In this case, where you believe that all people should be treated with respect and dignity due them as being created in the image of God and a belief that gay marriage is wrong. I count myself amongst this group at least in the religious area. Civil laws don't give me much angst (civilization will not end if there are civil unions), but how we treat this as individual Christians and as a church does. I really don't have a good answer to that question.

They have accepted the gay man next door, the lesbian couple down the street. They have agreed that gay Americans should not be discriminated against.

But same-sex marriage is something else.

"I am not a bigoted person," said Vincenza Maiorano, a 20-year-old Temple University junior from Northeast Philadelphia. "I'm in favor of gay rights and antidiscriminatory legislation for gays. But within the context of Catholicism, marriage is blessed by the church and reserved for a union of a man and woman. Gay people don't have the right to marry."

For people such as Maiorano, the images of two tuxedos at the altar, or two wedding dresses under the chuppah, are just too unsettling.

Maiorano is part of a hard-to-track, demographically diverse group that includes liberals and conservatives, city folk and suburbanites, the religious and the nonreligious.

Some - dubbed "Morally Anguished Fence Sitters," or MAFS - are intellectually troubled by their heartfelt anti-gay marriage stance, and have a hard time squaring it with their support of gay rights. Others are less conflicted.

Even so, they all consider gay marriage an uncrossable line.

"I'm a MAFS," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank on the family, based in New York. "On the one hand, people like us don't want to be bigots, and we believe in equal dignity for people, regardless of sexual orientation.

"On the other hand, we believe children deserve a mother and father and are worried about a law that would write that idea out of the script. People are torn about this."

John Musumeci, 51, owner of Alloway Village Hardware & Feed in Salem County, feels no such discomfort.

"I don't care about sexual orientation, but gay marriage is a step too far," said Musumeci, a former Navy man and nuclear engineer. "Marriage is for procreation of the human species. There's a fundamental principle that's wrong when a government or a church says two girls or guys can marry."

A confluence of events

These days, gay marriage remains a topic of widespread debate. Many Americans are still whirling from a confluence of events over the summer that placed gay life at the forefront of U.S. culture.

Since June, Canada legalized gay marriage; the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law, a ruling that many believe could pave the way to gay marriage; and the Episcopal Church elected an openly gay bishop.

Meanwhile, court watchers are awaiting a ruling in a Massachusetts case - said to be imminent - that could make that state the first to allow gay marriage.

In addition, television has been filled with gay-centric shows, while photos of men kissing men and women kissing women have been making the newspapers.

Polls show that these events and trends might be changing many Americans' minds about gay rights, which had been receiving growing support until recently.

Between 1992 and 2002, the percentage of Americans who said it was wrong for people to engage in homosexual sex fell from 75 percent to 56 percent - "a huge drop," according to Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago. He attributed that in part to the deaths of elderly Americans who disapprove of gay life, along with an increased acceptance of homosexuals encouraged by the Clinton administration.

But in a recent reversal, a Gallup poll taken after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June showed that Americans' approval of civil unions between homosexuals decreased from 49 percent to 40 percent.

A 28th Amendment?

And support for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning gay marriage, has begun to grow. Polls show that half of Americans favor it, although when it came up at a Senate hearing last month, there was little support.

Two dozen conservative groups have declared this "Marriage Protection Week," starting today, an idea endorsed by President Bush. They are trying to gather support for the amendment, which would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Could this change in trends reflect the attitude of MAFS and others opposed to, or ambivalent about, gay marriage?

"Even very liberal people say gay marriage makes them uncomfortable," political scientist Alan Wolfe said. Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, added, "There are significant numbers of people who support tolerance for homosexuality, but marriage is the issue where they draw the line. Marriage is an ideal image Americans want to protect."

Some heterosexuals reject gay marriage on religious grounds, citing biblical verses that they believe prohibit it. Others say that while sexuality is private, marriage is public - and that gay people should keep their love lives unseen. Another concern given by some is that gay marriage will drain the benefits system, such as health insurance, a notion that is still being debated.

Many are confused by an idea that seems radical and difficult to understand.

John Di Pasquale, 71, of Springfield Township, Montgomery County, describes himself as a liberal who was part of the avant-garde Beat Generation of the 1950s. He is against the conservative call for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage.

Di Pasquale believes that "whatever homosexual people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is OK." He thinks gay people should be able to adopt and raise children. But, he said, "I think gay marriage is ludicrous. It puts the whole institution in a bad situation. A marriage is a man-and-woman situation. And marriage is sacred."

Jim Fenton, 68, of Bridesburg, who is relatively conservative on political and social issues, said he was "not for or against gays," adding that his attitude is, "just don't bother me and I won't bother you." But, he said, "same-sex marriage ruins the fabric of the family, whether there are children or not. And families are the backbone of the nation."

Adapting a more conciliatory tone, Patricia Little, 37, director of a University City group that works with inner-city teenagers, said she always has felt comfortable with gay colleagues and friends. Still, she does not agree with the notion of gay marriage, because it's not supported by her born-again Christian-Presbyterian views.

"It boils down to what the Bible says," Little explained. "For me, it's Leviticus, First Corinthians, Romans, and the Adam and Eve story, of one man with one woman. Still, I do not condemn or treat homosexual people differently."

Although some critics in the gay community say it is not possible to support homosexuals and object to gay marriage - "if you're not for it, you're against us" is the attitude - representatives of gay-marriage groups take a more understanding view.

As hard as it is for gay people to hear anti-marriage views from these middle-of-the-roaders, criticizing MAFS would be unfair, according to David Smith, an official with the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay-advocacy group, based in Washington.

"People who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage or with images of gays kissing in newsmagazines are not bigoted," Smith said. "People are operating out of what they've been taught as they've grown up, which is, unfortunately, that being gay is wrong. People are trying to come to terms in their own minds with this, and are working through the issues."

Similarly, Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York City-based national group working for acceptance of gay marriage, sees a class of Americans he calls the "confused middle."

"They grew up not knowing gay people, and they're struggling with this issue," Wolfson said. "But they are thinking things through, and their positions are much further along than a decade ago. And they'll be in a better place a decade from now."

Smith said younger Americans were more accepting of gay culture and tended to be more supportive of the idea of gay marriage, which, he added, bodes well for the future.

But today it's still an issue that leaves the nation deeply divided.

"Maybe I'm missing the point somewhere," said Catherine McLaughlin, 74, of Fox Chase. She's a generally liberal retired federal employee who attends church and does not consider herself closed-minded.

"I try to be a good person and understand all people. But I cringe when I see two of the same sex getting married. It shouldn't be condoned. It's just the way I was brought up."

Comments

[Steve B.]

I hold hearty respect for folks who speak to ambivalence or anguish related to orientation issues. It is an honest place to be.

A lot of gay and lesbian folks, as well as ex-gays, have worked through similar perspectives during adolescence. Particularly for those of us who grew up without positive models of non-straight folks in our families and communities, wrestling through the stages of grief is natural. In my case it took the form of arguing with God over the "ick" factors:

"C'mon, God, why couldn't I have been given the same baseline desires that my friends have? How could you relegate me to being different? Mixing this differentness with an ability and desire for intimate relationship feels like salt added to a fresh wound."

I was in my 30s before I faced up to the fears and questions I held about being gay. Up to that point, I ricocheted from recognizing my desire to be close to a guy, to being grossed out over potential physical intimacy, to dreaming of a simple, intertwined life with a guy I cared about, to seeing same-sex relationships as OK for others but never for me. Like Catherine McLaughlin in the article, part of me cringed to think of two men marrying.

My parents didn't teach it to me, but it was the way I was brought up.

I appreciate it tremendously, Rich, that you separate the civil and religious aspects in your head, and the thoughtfulness with which you approach the issues.

In the big picture, I hope people are able to continue thinking through what these things mean to them. Richard Evans Lee blogged last November, after his partner had been hospitalized:

"Our partnership has no meaning in North Carolina. I’m not a relative. What got me in was being the ‘contact person’ the doctor recorded when Charles was in the ER."

Same-sex couples often must have the means to secure legal assistance in order to honor their commitments to each other in ways that married folks don't have to worry about.

One of the images floating through my head when it comes to same-sex marriage is that of senior citizens. A recent nursing home visit reminded me that age ultimately blurs gender, leaving elderly men balder and matriarchs more plentiful, while their most basic needs for community, company, and care become much the same. The intact marriages which stretch long into the golden years are revered and celebrated. Will gay couples who have also survived and given much be marginalized when they need equal treatment most?

Some folks have found marriage to be a liability when catastrophic long-term care is needed, so I don't see marriage as a panacea to be envied by every unmarried couple. (Even in those circumstances, an equitable divorce is only possible because of the preceding marriage.)

I think about couples like Louie and Ernest. After 25 years together, they celebrated their anniversary by renewing their vows in 1999. Certainly they've covered their legal bases, establishing power of attorney for medical decisions and protecting their shared assets so that the survivor will be OK when the first dies.

But, the question that we must consider is this: After all that Ernest and Louie have shared for three decades, and all of the ways their bond has enabled them to give back to their community, what factors lead us to a collective conclusion that they are best left disadvantaged -- financially, legally, culturally -- compared to other couples who can drop in at a Las Vegas wedding chapel on a whim?

I had to spend years working though my ingrained sense that same-sex couples were icky, not part of my experience, missing from my family's visible traditions, not in the same league.

When people talk about dealing with the same kind of stuff, I can accept and respect that.

I hope that, as part of our process, we are considering the basic framework of marriage. Are there heterosexual marriages that bring out our "ick" reactions? Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall? Liz Taylor and hubby #2 Michael Wilding (twice her age) or hubby #7 Larry Fortensky (20 years her junior)? Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell of "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire"? Arranged marriages? Teen marriages?

What role do marriage statutes play in communicating social approval or disapproval? Are new legal standards warranted to prevent the next Anna Nicole from marrying her J. Howard because we don't approve, or is it more accurate and consistent to recognize that marriage licenses confer rights and responsibilities, not approval? How can family law be employed justly for the sake of the individuals involved, their families and our broader communities?

I applaud the folks who identify as morally anguished fence sitters. As an Episcopalian, I line up with Archbishop Eames in hoping that we can move forward by telling our respective stories, asking our own questions, learning from each others' answers, in a shared quest to discover common ground.

[Natalie Davis]

I applaud them and don't. I appreciate their honesty, but the issue of legal, secular marriage has nothing to do with what goes on in their churches.

Railed about this on Open Source Politics in commemoration of National Discriminate Against Gays week.

[Vigilance Matters]

Americans, by and large, are tolerant of Gay People, because we all suffer our own sexual peccadilloes.

It's the Gay Activists we cannot tolerate...

[Rich]

What I hope to model here is how the dialog needs to occur. This story illustrates that for many people there is a moral issue going on. Thus, the best way to address us is to address the moral question, not presumed motivations. If we were motivated by fear, we would not worry about the current trajectory of the relationship between conservative Christians and homosexuals. You will not darken the doors of our churches and we would not care.

But, the segregation between gays and straights bothers us morally -- and moreso than what bothers us concerning homosexuality. When Dr. Martin Luther King said that 11 A.M on Sundays was the most segregated hour in America, that stung. We knew that it was wrong. Just as it is wrong to have black churches and white churches, it is also wrong having gay churches and straight churches.

Here are some examples of appealing to our moral sense:

1. Appeal to the unity of the church.
2. Appeal to the need to be unconditionally gracious and forgiving.
3. Appeal to the concept that we should accept into our churches all those whom Jesus would accept.
4. Appeal to the concept that it is hypocritical to accept some ongoing sins but not others.
5. Appeal to that our current behavior causes people to reject Scripture and the Gospel. This is not because they are inherantly offensive but because our presentation (and misrepresentation) is offensive.

I believe but am not confident that homosexuality (the modern definition) is sinful. I believe and am confident that violating the list above is sinful. If the church can accept me with all my flaws, then they should be able to accept you, also.

Thanks for stopping by. You have been good hosts to me. I hope to return the favor.

[Rich]

Here's a piece of common ground between us: It should be allowable for any person to bind themselves legally to any person or persons for the betterment of others. The state should not care why people volutarily bind themselves. They should just care whether they have the mental capacity and that it was voluntary.

In addition to Steve's examples, I would add another category. Shouldn't you be allowed to bind oneself even if the other person has no sexual relationship with you of any kind? We already do this for adoption, but I see no reason to limit this to that.

When a state "recognizes" such things, it is neither approving or disapproving of the whys. For example, if I foolishly buy a car, the state still recognizes my contract with the dealer. Nevertheless, the state will still enforce my contract. It makes no commentary on whether the dealer is good or not.

The state's compelling interest is to get people to think beyond their self-interest. An ego-centric country is not only not Christian, but also not governable. Thus, I disagree with my conservative Christian brethren on the so-called family amendment to the constitution. This will not strengthen society nor does the absence of it compel me to sin.

[Vigilance Matters]

Rich typed:
>>The state's compelling interest is to get people to think beyond their self-interest.

While I have said:
> The primary interest of The State/The Culture/The People is to protect the viability of its future citizens.

Which sound alot alike. But they are not.

[Rich]

The primary interest of The State/The Culture/The People is to protect the viability of its future citizens.

I have voluntarily bound myself in marriage. I have voluntarily bound myself to care for my children (one of whom may never be fully independent). I have voluntarily bound myself to care for my parents if they need support in their old age. I have voluntarily bound myself in church membership and financially support it and will comply with their discipline.

What is being discussed puts none of these at risk. Those future citizens, my children, are fully protected. I am teaching them they should be monogamous in marriage or celibate in singleness. I also teach them that regardless of their performance, I will remain their father. I refuse to relinguish moral instruction of my children to the state. The state may be able to communicate the law but they are completely incapable of communicating grace.

[Anony mous]

This is a very hard issue. However, I'm glad to be an American and voice my view. Here are some ideas to think about.

1. It is true the bible teaches against homosexuality. It isn't a belief like someone posted above. It is what the book says. You can't accept some of the scriptures and custom tailor the rest till you re-write it out in your head to fit your lifestyle. Some people say the bible really doesn’t hit much on the issues so it must be ok. Well, the bible doesn’t hit much on child molestation either, but you know it is morally wrong! What this comes down to in biblical terms is “Immorality”. Homosexuality and sex outside of marriage are immoral in the eyes of God. However, because we see so much sex on TV, it portrays sex between man and a women a natural thing and it’s no big deal to go out and mess around. But is it right? In the defense of Homosexuals, it isn’t any better for a man having multiple women sex partners. Just because society accepts this doesn’t make it right. Both are immoral in the eyes of God. If you love baseball, don’t re-write the rule book when things don’t go your way. The same is with the bible. If you love God, keep his commandments.

2. No gay should be given in marriage as a man and women. You better not even mention God in you vows! However, there should be some type of legal document that allows a union between couples for purposes such as medical, possessions, insurance. I’m lacking words here so figure out what I’m saying. I guess you can say “Union” not “Marriage”. I would hate to have the hospital refuse my visit to a loved one. I can really feel for anyone in this situation. I only support .

3. I have no mercy on Gay clergy. I also don’t have mercy on clergy who have sex with children and mess around with people outside of marriage. They are to be the examples. They are the representatives of God. Remember, this whole thing is grouped as immorality. It’s not just a Gay thing!

[brad]

Do not confuse your religious beliefs with the laws of the united states. the 14th amendment allows for equal protection under the law. we are not a theocracy. gay marriages should be allowed

[Jason]

1. The trouble with the bible and homosexuality or the bible and just about any sexual ethic is that it is that the bible is not as clear as you would expect and often does not say what you would expect. In the case of homosexuality, the bible mentions usually mentions it in the context of holy prostitutes, male prostitutes, idolaters, kidnappers, and gang rape. The bible almost forgets to mention lesbian activity, as there is only one mention of it from Paul and all others are directed at men only. The bible mentions nothing about what you should do if you should fall in love with someone of the same gender or be attached to someone of the same gender. It simply deals with sex. Also most homosexuals are not holy prostitutes, male prostitutes, idolaters, kidnappers and they do not wish to gang rape anyone and what do you do with all those people such as Jewish lesbians who have no such restriction?

In the case of celibacy, some parts of the bible promote it for everyone and others condemn it and still other parts promote it only for those who have the gift of celibacy. No where in the bible does it state that men should save themselves until marriage. However it does give you permission to divorce your wife if she is not a virgin at marriage and it does give you permission to execute her for not being a virgin. According to the teachings of some churches Heterosexuals have a choice get married or live a celibate life. Homosexuals however do not have that choice. I think it is very dishonest for such a church to take that stance. Heterosexuals always have the option of marriage if they are unable or unwilling to be celbate. Homosexuals on the other hand never get that option no matter how unwilling or unable they are to be celbate. Heck, falling in love is the number one reason why the roman chatolic priests leave the church.

2. If divorced heterosexuals can stand before a church and be married then homosexual should be able to do the same. Divorce is bared by none other than Jesus himself, but neither Jesus nor Peter says anything about homosexuality. Perhaps Paul was on to something when he stated that it was better to marry than to burn.

3. As for gay clergy, they are not new. There have been gay clergy since the start of the church. It is just now that people are being honest about it. I would prefer an honest one living in a committed relationship to a dishonest one living in shame.

[V.L. Carey]

Regarding the Bible and homosexuality being a sin, and thus opposing gay marriage, the "Christian" right has it wrong.

I invite you to read: "Connecting the Biblical Dots: Why Jesus Is For Same-sex Marriage." It's a biblically grounded paper that gives a convincing argument why homosexuality is not a sin to God and why marriage, including same-sex marriage, is the acceptable standard. You may read it here: www.purplepew.org/biblical_dots.html

Kind Regards,

V.L. Carey
The Purple Pew
Stand Up For Truth
www.purplepew.org

[Jessica]

I am a mother of 5, living with my fiance', a man, I have alot of faith in God but have lost alot in the church. All sorts of discrimination are taught to be wrong yet when we discriminate against gays and lesbians and keep them from having equal rights, those same people say it is to "save" us all. I don't get it. It is that simple, I don't get it. I would never teach my children that there is anything wrong with a gay or lesbian relationship. I love my children and can't imagine not allowing a couple who love each other and want a a family, not to have one based soley on sexual orientation. Especially considering you hear on the news and read in the papers how children who were placed in foster care or adopted are treated horribly and that abuse is at the hands of the "straight" families that they insist they are placed with. I am not saying it is easy to take a stand in such a hot issue but it has to be done. If one of my children comes to me one day and tells me he or she is gay, I can say with complete honesty that I will say, "ok". I want them to love and be loved, treated well, and be happy and I don't know what in the hell that persons gender has to do with that. I live with someone who doesn't particularly care to know the personal lives of gays but that doesn't mean I have to share that opinion and if others would take that same stance, maybe, just maybe the laws would really change. My religion says gays and lesbians are destined to burn in hell. I say that if you read the bible AT ALL, standing in judgement of someone else is NOT a good thing either!!!!!!!! I don't have to believe what they believe. I have more faith than that. I believe it is how you live your life day to day, the way you treat others, the way you treat yourself, and not who you sleep with at the end of the day that matters. It scares me when something like denying gays and lesbians the right to marry and have it recognized everywhere and not allowing them to adopt, is accepted and tolerated. It is even more scary that people say it is to "save" the union of marriage. If you believe in love and marriage is no more than a piece of paper, then what the hell is the big deal?????