This
week, North Carolina voted in favor of Amendment 1, a state
constitutional amendment that strictly defines marriage as being between
“one man and one woman”. The result was predictable. Conservatives
across the country claimed victory while progressives were stirred into a
fury. The very next day, President Obama came out in support of gay
marriage and the same two groups reacting in the inverse. A lot of
rhetoric gets stirred up in this debate. Opponents of same-sex-marriage
are dubbed “bigots” and “hateful” while proponents are deemed “immoral”
and “going against God”.
I’ve
seen a conservative state bluntly, “Marriage is between one man and one
woman, period!” offering no further explanation as to why his
particular view ought to be enshrined in law. And I’ve seen a liberal
claim, “I’m pretty sure your gay friends hate you!” in response to a gay
marriage opponent who claimed to indeed have gay friends. But what do
these polarizing arguments really accomplish? Is anyone being swayed one
way or the other? You can ask that question about any topic in our
current political climate, but I think this one is particularly valid.
Some issues are a bit more simplistic. But this one I find more nuanced.
Probably because I’ve found myself in different places within it.
As
I’ve noted in earlier blogs, I was once a Republican. Ten years ago, if
you’d asked me my take on the gay marriage debate, I would have been
unequivocally against it. I felt that marriage was indeed between a man
and a woman and that it transcended religion into nature and society. (I
give myself credit for at least knowing enough to not back up a
political position with religious doctrine.) To allow gay marriage was
to change the definition of the word.
A
lot has changed in ten years. Being a creative professional in New York
City will do that. Most of my friends are left-leaning, if not outright
liberal. But moreover, living among such a diversity of people will
change your take on life. Not all at once of course. But over time it
has an impact. Knowing people who are gay will chip away at your
preconceived notions. Having friendships with them will start to
jackhammer at them. And your brother coming out not only as gay but in a
committed relationship with a really good guy will demolish them and
force you to re-examine just about everything you thought you knew about
human sexuality.
When
you see a group of people who oppose your views as “THEM”, it’s easy to
hang on to preconceived notions. When you actually get to know “THEM”
you may find there to be some cognitive dissonance. What you thought you
knew often turns out to be wrong and those views you held don’t seem to
hold up quite as well. That certainly happened to me.
And
so my view on this subject has evolved. For a time, I felt that gay
couples should be able to share the same rights and privileges as
straight couples. But I remained uncomfortable with sharing the term
“marriage”. I felt that civil unions for homosexuals and marriage for
heterosexuals was an appropriate compromise. As a self-proclaimed
moderate, I value compromise. I also felt it appropriate for states to
make their own laws on this matter. But, as I noted, the relationships
around me had an impact. Seeing two people of the same sex in a loving
relationship finally gaining some degree of acceptance and recognition
as a straight couple and the joy they experience in that is profound.
This is not a perversion or a choice but who they are as human beings.
My faith also had an impact. For some, Christian faith is the reason for
being staunchly against any form of gay marriage. But mine made me
question my opposition. Above all else, my faith emphasizes love for one
another. I determined that it is not loving to use my personal
preferences as a justification for laws that limit another's choices.
And while I do wrestle with the notion of same-sex marriage within the
church, my qualms with it in the civic space have consistently eroded
over time. Moreover, I came to the conclusion that any qualms that do
remain are mine to deal with and should not be used to deny someone else
the opportunity to live their life.
I’m
not alone in having evolving views on same-sex marriage. The views of a
large portion of the country have changed as well. Less than ten years
ago, two thirds of the country opposed gay marriage. Today, that number
is slightly less than half. Some of this can be chalked up to generation
Y coming of age and being generally more open minded. But considering
the short span of time, it’s also reasonable to assume that there are
many who have “evolving opinions” like the President’s. But if that’s
true it means there are a great many people who are caught in the
middle. They don’t despise gay people and do want them to have equality.
But at the same time they struggle with the evolving culture and find
altering the contemporary notion of marriage to be at least a bit
jarring. That’s where I was and, if we’re being honest, still find
myself to a degree. But people who feel that way aren’t bigoted or
hateful. Getting used to changes can take time. No one should be
demonized for having to process that. And I would argue that,
ultimately, it hurts the cause to do so.
On
the other side of the fence, I believe Christians of all kinds would be
better served by changing their focus. Rather than spending huge
amounts of time and energy trying to pass laws that are arguably
strongly rooted in religious beliefs, why not seek out injustices in the
world and work against them? Poverty, hunger, and homelessness are all
pervasive in this world. Allowing these things to continue unabated
poses a much greater threat to faith than does the civil observance of
same-sex marriage. And moreover, what about the conservative principle
of limited government? If conservatives feel that the government should not be responsible for charity and aiding the needy -- an undeniable
Christian principle -- then how can they possibly argue that it should be
responsible for determining who should be able to get married, a
principle that there is much debate on even within the Christian world?
Polarization
has been the name of the game in recent years. But in the end we do
have to coexist, whether we like it or not. In that, creating laws based
on our personal beliefs rather than the greater principles of free will
and live and let live is dangerous territory. And the notion that one political ideology should prevail in a country as large and diverse as
ours is absurd. But so is the notion that “you’re either with us or
you’re against us”. Cultural evolution takes time and patience is needed
to enact real change. In the grand scheme of history, a couple of
decades isn’t that long, especially considering that the human race only
began broadly embracing equality in the last century. If that eroding
number of Americans who oppose gay marriage is any indication, it may
not be long before we see the overwhelming majority of the country
coming to the conclusion that they don’t want to stand in the way of
someone else’s happiness in defense of their own ideals. And moreover,
the conclusion that that’s really all it is.
