I thought the testimony in support of marriage equality in Monday's senate judiciary committee hearing was pretty professional and fair. The hearing was even contemporary--I heard stories of children in the awkward position of explaining to their peers that their parents were in a civil union. I heard civil union partners talking about problems proving to hospitals their legal right to know about their partners' medical condition. I heard about medical insurance companies withholding same-sex benefits that otherwise they would grant in States with same-sex marriage. I hope that the gay rights debate in this country in general soon catches up with these issues and moves to a level of discourse that doesn't sound like broken records on both sides recorded by speakers who cannot hear each other.
I write this note to call the Constitution out for being a sadistic magician: while it might speak clearly and unambiguously to both you and me, what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to me is not necessarily what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to you.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. . . . For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." I grew up a born-again Christian believing in John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8--9 and condemning homosexuality. I left the faith in college and became open about being a gay man. Now I lobby for gay marriage.
Having been on both sides, I realize that Scripture, statistics, and logical discourse join the Constitution in volunteering their authority to enforce the beliefs of popular culture and lobbyists on both sides of the marriage debate to a point that many on both sides can only interpret the claims of the other as results of irrationality, dishonesty, or both.
The marriage equality lobby accuses conservative Christians of dismissing separation of church and state and the Constitution. Christians don't necessarily interpret the Constitution and separation of church and state in the same way as I do, but many Christians certainly believe that they must and do uphold the Constitution.
And going in the other direction, conservative Christians accuse gay Americans of lying whenever they claim that being gay is a matter of intrinsic identity rather than choice. In some Christian world views, Romans 1:18--20 can be read as saying that only by lying can any person deny that his or her conscience and mind demand a heterosexual Christian lifestyle. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
What productive conversation can result when on the one hand gay rights proponents believe that conservative Christians are incapable of logical consistency while on the other hand conservative Christians automatically categorize as lies each and every claim that gays and lesbians make about their most personal and fundamental emotions?
There are some really fundamental problems with the arguments and myths that supporters from both sides of the issue conveniently permit to circulate in popular culture. If I aired out the dirty laundry of gay culture, many conservative parents would probably attempt to enroll gay children in destructive so-called "reparative" therapies. Wait, wait, wait, before you do that, if I aired out the dirty laundry of straight culture, many conservative parents would probably enroll their straight children in reparative therapies to prevent them from having any sexual orientation.
And if I aired out the dirty laundry of the so-called Judeo-Christian position against homosexuality, many Christians would leave their faith. These painful consequences are not the purpose of this note.
The purpose of this note is to admit and ask you to admit that we often hear what we expect to hear, instead of what is realistic. As much as we'd like to think of ourselves as logical computers, much of our intellectual discourse is merely gift-wrapping for our deepest emotional convictions, which sometimes lack the consistency and sense necessary to possess an articulation in language.
I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is not that some people want what's "right" while some people want what's "wrong." Does anyone actually believe that he or she wants what's wrong? I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is that people from both sides of the issue simply have different personal emotional experiences. Wait. Stop. This blog entry is not a cheerleading piece for politically correct warm and fuzzy respect for all personal emotional perspectives. The origins of differences in personal experiences are important.
I know with deepest conviction that when my friends and I treat gay couples as though they were married, literally referring to them as spouses in marriage, they live up to that name and act just like straight couples. They work hard to pay the bills, squabble about stupid things, and fight to give their children the best future possible. They benefit their communities as do straight couples. I know this because I sincerely recognize gay couples as deserving of marriage and say it face-to-face. This is an emotional experience I hold at the most fundamental level in my heart: it drives my so-called "dispassionate and logical" thoughts to justify same-sex marriage, and it drives me to fight for its legalization.
Are you unable to find this emotional experience in your heart when you ask whether you can support marriage equality? When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, don't they live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment? Have you tried to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married" believing sincerely that it is true?
I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not through any distinguishing fault on the part of gay couples to live up to the label "marriage," but through the fault of some gay marriage opponents who don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what happens when they tell a gay couple with honesty and warmest embrace, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."
No comments:
Post a Comment