The use of this religious freedom frame is really interesting. I think it suggests a couple things. First, that the Religious Right no longer feels like a morality frame is working. Remember Moral Majority in the 1980s? It was based on the assumption that a majority of Americans shared a moral consensus of sorts and opposed homosexuality, among other things. Since then, however, Americans ' attitudes toward homosexuality have liberalized significantly, and birth cohort differences are tremendous. The most recent birth cohorts are much more liberal in their attitudes than earlier cohorts. And while most Americans have problems with homosexuality, most support gays and lesbians' civil rights. Also, civil unions for gays and lesbians exist in several states, and same-sex marriage is now legal in three states (CA, CT, and MA).
Increasingly, I believe that religious conservatives are feeling increasingly marginalized as 1) Americans attitudes become more favorable toward gays and lesbians, 2) institutions are becoming increasingly accommodating toward gays and lesbians, and 3) the media is largely favorable toward gays and lesbians.
I believe that the use of this religious freedom frame is evidence of that growing sense of marginalization. Religious conservatives feel increasingly that they are actually a persecuted, marginalized minority. Now, I believe that part of this is a genuine sense of frustration and fear, and part of it is really just framing efforts, or "spin." And I think the religious freedom frame is somewhat brilliant. They are now the victims that deserve special protection from discrimination. Does that sound familiar? That's basically the frame that originated in the Civil Rights Movement. I think it's potentially brilliant because 1) it is likely highly effective at mobilizing individuals and religious groups, including congregations, that sympathize with the movement's goals, and 2) it resonates with the deep and abiding importance Americans place on religious freedom.
However, I think it is problematic for several reasons. First, claims of dangers to religious freedoms if same-sex marriage is allowed are grossly overstated and mostly amount to fear mongering. Ironically, those very religious freedoms that opponents of same-sex marriage enjoy would largely protect them from what they fear. It is very, very difficult for me to imagine churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages or being sued for "hate speech." Freedom of religion and freedom of speech I think would see to that. In fact, I believe that those freedoms are so important that I would fight to protect them for religious groups whose beliefs I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Second, while the gay rights movement has largely used a secular, civil rights-oriented frame, some religious groups in the U.S. see marriage equality as a religious and moral issue, as well. Unitarian Universalists have supported same-sex marriage for decades based on the belief that all humans have worth and dignity and should be treated equally and fairly. Other religious groups, including Jews, some liberal Protestants (most notably the United Church of Christ), and others, feel the same way and routinely perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. What about their religious freedoms? What about the religious freedoms of gays and lesbians that see their unions as sacred and God-given? The religious freedom argument cuts both ways. (Here's a list of religious organizations that are formally and officially against Prop 8 in California.)
Obviously, I support same-sex marriage and feel that they are many, many compelling reasons why it should be legal, and must be legal in order for us to have a just, fair, and compassionate society. But most of those arguments won't mean much to people that believe homosexuality is wrong and marriage is ordained of God for a man and woman. I recognize that those beliefs are powerful and difficult to change.
However, I have recently seen some interesting arguments that conservatives should hear out. Tom Campbell, a five-term Republican congressman says Prop 8 is bad because 1) it goes against Republicans' belief in limited government, and 2) it's bad for business in California. Jonathan Rauch argues that same-sex marriage should work for conservatives because encouraging gays to marry is just good for everybody, especially gay and lesbian-headed families:
Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM [note from me: Rauch is referring to "anything but marriage," i.e., civil unions and domestic partnerships] make a mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.Ironically, supporting civil unions (and not everybody on the Right is for civil unions - Mormons are probably more friendly to it than more right-wing evangelical groups) amounts to encouraging cohabitation and extra-marital sex. That's pretty messed up for folks that don't like cohabitation and extra-marital sex, isn't it?
Finally, I'd just encourage people to hear both sides. Check out what the No on 8 campaign has to say about those claims about religious freedom. And check out this piece written by an active Mormon that debunks myths that supporters of Prop 8 are using. It's concerned solely with legal issues and sticks to the facts.
2 comments:
Have you read proposition 8? It is a strange construct for an English sentence.
You have to be very careful when writing constitutional language. If they are defining Marriage in one sentence, then they haven't excluded incest, for example.
Will Judges be compelled, to legalize incest. (as http://RavagedFaces.com/ suggests) based on that wording? I'd be very afraid to vote YES on this one.
While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.
If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.
As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.
The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.
The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.
What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.
More here
Post a Comment