Gay marriage and the Catholic Church in Maine
Over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen I lament the defeat of marriage equality in Maine. I think opposition to gay rights and gay marriage in particular is the wrong course for conservatives, and I think in the end it will come back to haunt them – much as I believe their inability to work toward actual compromise in the healthcare reform debate will come back to haunt them – not just in what will certainly become fairly popular reform amongst voters, but also because Democrats will get so many things they want and Republicans will be left with nothing but regrets.
A bit from my post:
In any case, the fact that the Catholic Church was instrumental in defeating marriage equality in Maine is saddening to me. The Mormons did it in California, and they were an easy target for my ire, I have to admit. I’ve always had issues with Mormonism, whether that’s fair or not. But Catholics? I mean, here is an institution devoted to peace and justice! Catholic priests were at the vanguard of the anti-war movement during Vietnam. The Pope came out against the Iraq war. Catholics were social activists against slavery, against the slaughter of native Americans….
But not for the gays who want – shudder – to marry. To become families. To join one of the most important social institutions our civilization has to offer.
I think marriage equality is going to come, piece by piece, to the United States, and I think it’s a good thing. I think marriage is a generally conservative institution, and those gay people who are in love and want to join in marriage are probably the most likely to be conservative on other issues as well. In other words, Republicans are really missing an opportunity to bring in more people to their tent. And over an issue that is really little more than civil equality. Equal rights under the law.
Again, we’re simply witnessing a lack of imagination and compassion on the right. The ability to adapt to changing political and social realities is essential – even if you’re underlying premise is to prevent change from occurring too rapidly or too drastically. Standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” is all well and good unless you open your eyes and find that history has passed you by entirely.
Also read Andrew Sullivan here and here:
After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.
It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn’t the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy – especially in its more conservative wing – is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.
It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty. It is time to reveal them in this respect as the enemies of the Gospels, not the champions.
Beyond this, it just seems like such a huge waist of time and potential. With all the wrongs in the world – all the hunger, all the hurt, the continued fight to protect the unborn, and on and on and on – that the Catholic Church has the time and energy to fight this battle strikes me as very sad, indeed. This is not a shining day in the history of the Church in America. I don’t like the way Sullivan tosses around the term “Christianist” but I do think that when a religious organization actively participates in a political battle that seeks to deny a group of people their rights, you begin to see a glimmer of what Sullivan is talking about.
As conservative Anglicans flee to Rome, will liberal Catholics perhaps join the ranks of Anglicans and Episcopalians? Could Episcopalians embrace the other traditions that Roman Catholics may not be willing to do away with? Even for liberal Catholics the saints and Mary and many of the other aspects of the faith are important and would be hard to part with.
I think conservatism needs to adapt in order to survive. Tradition, family, community – these are all important, necessary things. Conservatives should look for ways to incorporate the gay community into the fold rather than try to keep them out at all costs. The Church, of course, will adapt more slowly. But I hope it adapts, too, and for the same reason.
(Image via Daylife)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
E.D.,
I wouldn’t expect the Catholic Church to change its views on homosexuality. Its position on it is the logical extension of its understanding of the meaning of human sexuality and meaning of marriage. To take a fundamentally different stance on homosexual actions, relationships, and unions, it would have to fundamentally change its teachings on sexuality and marriage, indeed one of its seven sacraments. I don’t see the church changing its basic sacramental theology of matrimony.
I’m not sure how it will ultimately respond to the obvious changes in our society’s understanding of sexuality and marriage. As you know, the idea of gay marriage is much more socially acceptable than in used to be – remember when Ellen coming out was considered a big deal? – and, as you point out, the trend favors the state recognition of gay marriage. The meaning of marriage has changed and will continue to change. I don’t know what all the effects of the changes will be upon society (are there any historical examples?), so I don’t know exactly how the church will respond.
If it is going to succeed in persuading non-Catholics (and Catholics too) that at least its philosophical understanding of marriage is correct, it will need to appeal to more than Scripture and even the idea of Natural Law, hardly authoritative sources in our postmodern, pluralistic society. Much will probably depend on the effects, real or perceived, that gay marriage has on society. If it appears in time to be a good thing, it will be much more difficult for proponents of traditional marriage to argue their case. Not that they all are doing such a grand job of it now. “I was raised to believe marriage is X; therefore, society must uphold X” doesn’t cut it.
In any case, it’s a very difficult issue. Even from the Catholic standpoint, which sees homosexual acts as disordered (fundamentally not ordered toward procreation), the love between homosexual persons is real love, the kind of love from which the lover would sacrifice anything for the beloved. While I share the church’s sacramental theology, I get why many people (more every day) are seeking “to incorporate the gay community into the fold.” It’s about love.
Kyle – thanks for stopping by! I think you’re right. It’s not an easy question, and I know it will be worked out over a very long period of time. And that’s okay. I just want the Church to stay out of politics as much as possible – for its own sake as much as anything else.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty. It is time to reveal them in this respect as the enemies of the Gospels, not the champions.” More… [...]