And a response to his response
It's odd.. He was glad I had kept my response confidential (as it was sent only to him). I hadn't intended the initial message to be confidential, merely personal. It contained (as does this second) enough of my own passion on the subject that I feel I have to share it.
Friend,
I guess my question to you is, what is it about "traditional marriage" that is different in substance from marriage as it stands in California?
Why does it matter if you have one each of "boy" and "girl"? If it's just makin' babies, what about elderly people? or infertile people? Or people who have no intention of having kids or raising a family? Shouldn't the amendment read "Only marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are willing and able and intend to bear children is valid and recognized in California"? It would seem to be much harder to get such an amendment passed. Discriminating because it is convenient sucks.
Is it about the Church not being wrong? It's devastating when that happens, but it does. As moral people the sooner we own our mistakes, the more quickly the healing can begin. We're still suffering from the Church's complacency in slavery. (by the way, when I refer to the Church, I'm generally referring to all Christians, not just the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Mormon, or various Protestant groups)
If there is some fear that the institution of marriage would deteriorate by allowing more people to participate, or participate in different ways, I would argue that marriage would be better protected by more marital counseling (in quantity and in depth; both before and during).
I totally agree that we're talking about the secular definition of marriage, as this affects non-religious people as well. I guess my big question is can't we have (I know this is the wrong term to use but) separate but equal types of marriages?
No, I don't think that's the wrong term. "Separate but equal" exactly captures what you are suggesting. What does that get us? Why is it needed? More paperwork? More boxes on forms at employers? More laws to duplicate the effects of marriage?
More importantly, I think we cannot have "separate but equal." It isn't possible. Something else will always be less. "Marriage" is important. For the very reason it's important to you to protect, it is important to me to have. It is the gold standard of commitment. It is the measure against which all relationships are held. To say I can never have it, is to say I can never reach that level of commitment. Perhaps I'm incapable of loving Vinse as much as you are of loving Sun?
What's more, the public perception of a committed relationship is "marriage." Again, even if all the laws really were duplicated and everything granted by marriage was granted to this other institution, there would still be that difference in public perception. Something else will always be something less.
Perhaps I only have three sides?
This is a totally imperfect analogy, but it's like we have a 4 sided object and we call it "square" but others want to call 3 sided objects square as well. Could they not be content calling it triangle? It would still be an object on its own and even more so retain its own uniqueness without changing the definition of another object. I don't know, what do you think about that?
Squares are squares and triangles are triangles. To go along with your analogy, I would argue that you think I'm looking at a three sided object, but that I am indeed looking at the four sided object. What I am unable to see by your reasoning is that "fourth side" that sets us apart. Again I ask, what is the substance of the difference? Is a marriage only the sum of its body parts? That is not a convincing argument to me. If it is, as my Bishops say, about love, affirmation, commitment, respect, community, and witness to the importance of those things, I fail to see how a marriage between two men would be any less powerful than a marriage between a man and a woman. In fact, I should think it would do more for those ideals, if only because it is so new to our society. For so many years, the idea of such commitment was denied to the gay and lesbian community. So much mental anguish and even a dismissal of such values. If you deny someone the right to marry, are you really suggesting they remain celibate? If so, are you suggesting they suffer from a mental disease? The public affirmation of love is what is at stake. I do not want to redefine marriage. I want to take part in it as it is.
I do not want special rights. I do not want different rights. I want the same rights.
The only argument for prop 8 that has held any water with me is tradition. The way things were done by our parents and those who came before them is of course important. I wouldn't trade my rituals for the world. Holy Communion, the Easter Vigil, Advent, the notion of the Anglican three-legged stool, all of these things are dear to me, and truth be told, I like the way my church does them more than most others I've been in. But there are other things in the world than tradition. In the tradition I come from, our model of faith is often described as a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. No two are enough without the third. By arguments of reason I would implore you to see how my presence could enhance marriage, not diminish it.
To grant me civil union is to tolerate me. To grant me marriage is to affirm me. One is to offer scraps, the other is to welcome me to the table. "Tolerance" is insufficient. I demand affirmation. Rather than have you suffer my presence, I would hear you say I am a child of God. Anyone that says they are worthy of something I am not, is telling me that I am less than them; that God loves them more than I am loved. If you cannot look at me and see value in my love, if you would deny my gifts, what am I?
Last, Christ's message was one of radical inclusivity. As it has unfolded, our power to love those around us has increased. I keep mentioning things like slavery and women's rights, not because they're the same thing, but because they are expressions of how this inclusivity has grown in time. Please don't let "they way it's always been" stifle that message.
-John
Friend,
I guess my question to you is, what is it about "traditional marriage" that is different in substance from marriage as it stands in California?
Why does it matter if you have one each of "boy" and "girl"? If it's just makin' babies, what about elderly people? or infertile people? Or people who have no intention of having kids or raising a family? Shouldn't the amendment read "Only marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are willing and able and intend to bear children is valid and recognized in California"? It would seem to be much harder to get such an amendment passed. Discriminating because it is convenient sucks.
Is it about the Church not being wrong? It's devastating when that happens, but it does. As moral people the sooner we own our mistakes, the more quickly the healing can begin. We're still suffering from the Church's complacency in slavery. (by the way, when I refer to the Church, I'm generally referring to all Christians, not just the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Mormon, or various Protestant groups)
If there is some fear that the institution of marriage would deteriorate by allowing more people to participate, or participate in different ways, I would argue that marriage would be better protected by more marital counseling (in quantity and in depth; both before and during).
I totally agree that we're talking about the secular definition of marriage, as this affects non-religious people as well. I guess my big question is can't we have (I know this is the wrong term to use but) separate but equal types of marriages?
No, I don't think that's the wrong term. "Separate but equal" exactly captures what you are suggesting. What does that get us? Why is it needed? More paperwork? More boxes on forms at employers? More laws to duplicate the effects of marriage?
More importantly, I think we cannot have "separate but equal." It isn't possible. Something else will always be less. "Marriage" is important. For the very reason it's important to you to protect, it is important to me to have. It is the gold standard of commitment. It is the measure against which all relationships are held. To say I can never have it, is to say I can never reach that level of commitment. Perhaps I'm incapable of loving Vinse as much as you are of loving Sun?
What's more, the public perception of a committed relationship is "marriage." Again, even if all the laws really were duplicated and everything granted by marriage was granted to this other institution, there would still be that difference in public perception. Something else will always be something less.
Perhaps I only have three sides?
This is a totally imperfect analogy, but it's like we have a 4 sided object and we call it "square" but others want to call 3 sided objects square as well. Could they not be content calling it triangle? It would still be an object on its own and even more so retain its own uniqueness without changing the definition of another object. I don't know, what do you think about that?
Squares are squares and triangles are triangles. To go along with your analogy, I would argue that you think I'm looking at a three sided object, but that I am indeed looking at the four sided object. What I am unable to see by your reasoning is that "fourth side" that sets us apart. Again I ask, what is the substance of the difference? Is a marriage only the sum of its body parts? That is not a convincing argument to me. If it is, as my Bishops say, about love, affirmation, commitment, respect, community, and witness to the importance of those things, I fail to see how a marriage between two men would be any less powerful than a marriage between a man and a woman. In fact, I should think it would do more for those ideals, if only because it is so new to our society. For so many years, the idea of such commitment was denied to the gay and lesbian community. So much mental anguish and even a dismissal of such values. If you deny someone the right to marry, are you really suggesting they remain celibate? If so, are you suggesting they suffer from a mental disease? The public affirmation of love is what is at stake. I do not want to redefine marriage. I want to take part in it as it is.
I do not want special rights. I do not want different rights. I want the same rights.
The only argument for prop 8 that has held any water with me is tradition. The way things were done by our parents and those who came before them is of course important. I wouldn't trade my rituals for the world. Holy Communion, the Easter Vigil, Advent, the notion of the Anglican three-legged stool, all of these things are dear to me, and truth be told, I like the way my church does them more than most others I've been in. But there are other things in the world than tradition. In the tradition I come from, our model of faith is often described as a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. No two are enough without the third. By arguments of reason I would implore you to see how my presence could enhance marriage, not diminish it.
To grant me civil union is to tolerate me. To grant me marriage is to affirm me. One is to offer scraps, the other is to welcome me to the table. "Tolerance" is insufficient. I demand affirmation. Rather than have you suffer my presence, I would hear you say I am a child of God. Anyone that says they are worthy of something I am not, is telling me that I am less than them; that God loves them more than I am loved. If you cannot look at me and see value in my love, if you would deny my gifts, what am I?
Last, Christ's message was one of radical inclusivity. As it has unfolded, our power to love those around us has increased. I keep mentioning things like slavery and women's rights, not because they're the same thing, but because they are expressions of how this inclusivity has grown in time. Please don't let "they way it's always been" stifle that message.
-John