Gay Marriage and the "Judeo-Christian" Myth
Ask a sampling of U.S. citizens if gay marriage should be legalized and you will likely get a diversity of opinions. Some are supportive, others not. Some make arguments in between, suggesting for example that every couple should receive a civil union under law regardless of gender pairing and the sacred connotations of “marriage” should be left to religious communities. It is rare, however, at least among the people I call my colleagues and friends, to ask such a question without getting into a discussion about biblical notions of sexuality. “God says it’s a sin.” “I’m not judging gay people but I don’t support their lifestyle.” “I love the sinner but hate the sin.” “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality.” “God’s ideal is one man and one woman. Besides, gay couples can’t procreate.”
In the context of gay civil rights in the United States, these kinds of religious arguments suppose the myth of the “Judeo-Christian nation.” “Our nation was founded on ‘In God We Trust,’” some argue. The term “Judeo-Christian” in reference to the United States is a misnomer, however, given the fact that in our nation’s history Catholics, Jews and others were excluded from naturalizing as U.S. citizens or at least held with great suspicion on the basis of their Jewish and Christian identifications. Perhaps it would be more accurate to argue that the U.S. was (and in many ways still is) a nation of very European Protestant paradigms and privileges (with forms of deism in founding documents), but never some homogeneous “Judeo-Christian” state.
It’s one thing to oppose gay marriage on the basis of one’s religious beliefs; it’s quite another to drag isolated biblical passages into a conversation about gay civil rights under the United States Constitution. If we are going to appeal to selected biblical passages and the "Judeo-Christian" myth when discussing civil rights and law, then we could make it illegal to eat shrimp and pork; to wear a garment with different types of cloth; women could be the legal property of their husbands; men could have multiple wives; and slaves could be forced to obey their masters. Yet many of those who oppose gay civil rights on biblical or "Judeo-Christian" grounds would not likely support the legalization of slavery, polygamy, or the criminalization of people who consume pork or shrimp. (Although some would probably support slavery on biblical grounds, as their forebears did before emancipation.)
Religious-based discrimination enshrined into the laws of the United States ignores the religiously pluralistic landscape of our nation. People of faith have every right to add or forbear their blessings on same-sex marriage. However, while I am no Constitutional scholar, it seems to me to enshrine discrimination into the laws of our pluralistic democracy based on appeals to biblical passages is both unethical and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Furthermore, if marriage is as sacred as Christians claim, then why are we so quick to hand over its definition to a secular state? Why do ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ willingly become agents of the state, rendering the things of God unto Caesar by signing marriage licenses for the state? Why do we not instead forfeit our privileged state-agent status by putting "marriage" where it belongs: in sacred spaces and communities of faith rather than in the hands of secular government? Perhaps because we would rather live with the myth of a “Judeo-Christian" nation and all the real and supposed privileges that come with religious establishmentarianism when the established religion is our own.
In the context of gay civil rights in the United States, these kinds of religious arguments suppose the myth of the “Judeo-Christian nation.” “Our nation was founded on ‘In God We Trust,’” some argue. The term “Judeo-Christian” in reference to the United States is a misnomer, however, given the fact that in our nation’s history Catholics, Jews and others were excluded from naturalizing as U.S. citizens or at least held with great suspicion on the basis of their Jewish and Christian identifications. Perhaps it would be more accurate to argue that the U.S. was (and in many ways still is) a nation of very European Protestant paradigms and privileges (with forms of deism in founding documents), but never some homogeneous “Judeo-Christian” state.
It’s one thing to oppose gay marriage on the basis of one’s religious beliefs; it’s quite another to drag isolated biblical passages into a conversation about gay civil rights under the United States Constitution. If we are going to appeal to selected biblical passages and the "Judeo-Christian" myth when discussing civil rights and law, then we could make it illegal to eat shrimp and pork; to wear a garment with different types of cloth; women could be the legal property of their husbands; men could have multiple wives; and slaves could be forced to obey their masters. Yet many of those who oppose gay civil rights on biblical or "Judeo-Christian" grounds would not likely support the legalization of slavery, polygamy, or the criminalization of people who consume pork or shrimp. (Although some would probably support slavery on biblical grounds, as their forebears did before emancipation.)
Religious-based discrimination enshrined into the laws of the United States ignores the religiously pluralistic landscape of our nation. People of faith have every right to add or forbear their blessings on same-sex marriage. However, while I am no Constitutional scholar, it seems to me to enshrine discrimination into the laws of our pluralistic democracy based on appeals to biblical passages is both unethical and unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Furthermore, if marriage is as sacred as Christians claim, then why are we so quick to hand over its definition to a secular state? Why do ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ willingly become agents of the state, rendering the things of God unto Caesar by signing marriage licenses for the state? Why do we not instead forfeit our privileged state-agent status by putting "marriage" where it belongs: in sacred spaces and communities of faith rather than in the hands of secular government? Perhaps because we would rather live with the myth of a “Judeo-Christian" nation and all the real and supposed privileges that come with religious establishmentarianism when the established religion is our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment