MyQuest | my thoughts on life's journey

Social meaning of marriage

A very good essay on the social meaning of marriage.  The author identifies this as the primary concern of conservatives who oppose marriage equality, but then goes further in explaining how these very arguments actually support marriage equality.

Thus, the most important elements of marriage’s social meaning are the assumptions that married life normally involves sexual intimacy, domestic and economic cooperation, and a mutual commitment to sustaining the relationship.

It seems clear that, while the theoretical arguments for same-sex marriage often focus on legal claims, the actual conception of many same-sex couples is broader and includes this social meaning. This broader conception lies behind the emotional appeals that same-sex marriage proponents have so often made, but there is also a more theoretical case to be made as well. Many same-sex couples have the very same interest in having access to an institution that has this social meaning as opposite-sex couples have, affording them the intangible benefit of being able to signal to their community that they wish their relationship to be interpreted in the light of these generally shared assumptions. Given that, it must be unjust for the state to deny same-sex couples the right to marry when this right is made available to other couples who have precisely the same interest in having it.

 

Anti-gay petition drive in Lincoln

Lincoln has a very low threshold for citizens attempting to overturn a city ordinance.  The city council recently passed an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination law by a 5-0 vote.  Lincoln law allows citizens to attempt to block and overturn any ordinance via a petition within the first two weeks of passage.  It appears that opponents have collected sufficient signatures to possibly force the ordinance to a vote.  Thereby violating a core fundamental of American constitutional law -- minority rights are not subject to majority vote.

Cardinal supports equality for same-sex relationships

The Cardinal for Berlin called for such and joins what this article reveals is a growing chorus of prominent leaders in the Roman Catholic Church calling for a re-examination of church teaching on same-sex relationships.

Revolution vs. Reform

Warren Blumenfeld worries that the gay movement has lots its Stonewall revolutionary drive and settled for an accomodationist reformism.  That has been a worry of mine for some time.  I usually say I'm not part of the gay rights movement but of the queer liberation movement.  I worry that gay people will become accepted into the status quo but we will not revolutionarily alter the status quo.  The same sorts of problems have occurred in the civil rights and women's movements, where the legal equalities were mostly gained but the underlying social and cultural revolutions did not occur.  One might argue that these are occurring more slowly and over time, and accepting LGBT people into the mainstream will likely do the same.  But I'm not always sure.

Krauthammer on Obama's marriage contortion

Conservative Charles Krauthammer has a good Washington Post piece on Obama's marriage equality arguments.  Krauthammer says that there are two main arguments for it, one based on empathy and one based on rights.  The President initially adopted the former, but has moved to the language of the latter.  The latter position then makes it untenable to allow states to decide for themselves (which remains the president's position) and paints opponents as bigots (a politically difficult position).

Krauthammer is wrong on his facts in the piece in his claim (and oft-repeated by the other side, though erroneous) that marriage has always been heterosexual in every society and through all time.  There have been culturally, legally, and religiously accepted same-sex relationships as much historical and anthropological research demonstrates.

UCC general minister applauds Obama on marriage equality

Rev. Geoffrey Black, the General Minister and President of the UCC, applauds President Obama for his position on marriage equality.

And Rev. Otis Moss III's statement from the pulpit:

 

Changing African-American positions?

According to an article in the Daily Beast, Obama's change of position on equality is already causing some re-examination and change in the African-American community.  Now, this news made me happy and grateful.

Obama's "evolution"

Yesterday, about an hour before the announcement, I saw on Twitter the prediction that he would be announcing his change of mind yesterday.  I read the analysis of that, which I found more interesting than the actual announcement.  

I was in the middle of something and received a call from a friend who was excited and wanted to share.  Because I had been busy, I had not been on-line to see the burst of news.  I rather unenthusiastically responded.

Now, I'm normally very excited by every major vote in our favour, every court ruling, every important development.  But this didn't really excite me in any way.

I guess partly because I think this was his actual position all along and that he only took the opposite position because of political cowardice.  Overcoming your vices doesn't deserve celebration on my part.

Another reason is because I don't find this a difficult or controversial moral issue.  It should be a pretty easy call.  Nor is it leadership when a majority of the country already feels that way.  There shouldn't have been a religious issue for him, as he was part of the UCC which has endorsed marriage equality theologically.

The "evolution" language has always annoyed me.  And I think that the final evolution was politically expedient because major gay donors had been withholding funds.  I generally agree with this WashPost blogger.  

The HRC wanted everyone to send a thank you e-mail to the President.  Unlike most of their e-mails, they didn't let you change the text.  I didn't agree with their text, and didn't send it.  

Yes, this president has achieved more for LGBT rights than any other president before, but when you are comparing to a bunch of folks that did nothing or actually enacted laws to make our situation worse (Bill Clinton), then there isn't much to compare to.  I don't find that he's acted with moral courage or leadership on our issues.  And I doubt I will forgive him or Democrat party for their failure to pass ENDA when they controlled the Congress.  Part of the array of things I was voting for in 2008 was to see that achieved within the year.  I really don't think I'll ever get over that disappointment.

So, this President has still not excited or motivated me.  I'm still disappointed in him.  With his personal change of heart yesterday came no call for action and no new steps, because he basically said his personal position wouldn't change any federal policies or laws.  Well, that was Dick Cheney's view a decade or more ago.  Doesn't do much for me and my household.

One qualification: will his public position put more pressure upon those opponents in the African-American community to change their position or lessen their opposition?  If so, then I'll be grateful for that.

The state of gay (in)equality

A very visual and helpful graph showing off the current state of (in)equality for LGBT persons.  I shows, especially, the regional differences in the US.  

The Pizzazz of Creation

Yesterday a question from a congregant drew me back to my 2008 lecture at Wake Forest Divinity School on "The Pizzazz of Creation."  You can listen to a podcast of it here.

I develop a queer theological perspective on diversity and freedom and respond to various ethical issues, including abortion.  Listening to it again yesterday I was pleased with my intellectual work in the lecture.  I wish I got to do more of this.