Religious Refusals - Kim Davis

Again we see a county clerk, Kim Davis, who has made the news for refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds that providing a license to them violates her religious commitments.  Here's an article on the clerk.

After the SCOTUS decision, I wrote a blog post on the issue of religious liberty and this very issue, here.    I've since thought more about the issue.  As a country we do make accommodations for religious commitments whenever possible and we should continue to do so.  The question is whether this is one of those instances.

I don't know whether there would have been an easy work around, whether the offended clerk could have easily had someone else issue the licenses, or if that was not possible.  It is ironic that the clerk evidently has been divorced more than once and has no problem ignoring that, but that is a side issue.  It is also clear that folk on both sides of the counter have decided to make this particular instance a test and that the SCOTUS has ordered her to issue the licenses.  If there had been a reasonable work around (which I outlined in my previous post), the clerk has made it impossible to access.

So, here's my new thoughts on the issue.  While we make religious accommodations, there are jobs for which no changes can be made to make it fit the religious objections of a given individual.  For example, I am a pacifist for religious reasons.  While the government did make accommodations for pacifists when there was a draft, there are clearly accommodations that could not be made.  If I were to join the military as an infantryman and then refuse to carry a weapon because using one offended my religious commitments, nobody would argue that I be allowed to go into battle sans weapons, waiting for someone else to shoot their rifle.  The job itself does not fit with my religious sensibilities.  I could not and cannot do it.  It seems that this is the case for this clerk.  The clerk's job includes issuing marriage licenses and she is not empowered to decide whether a given couple meets the criteria to receive one.  If her conscience will not allow her to issue marriage licenses to any who are legally entitled, she must resign or be fired.  It is that simple.

re-defining marriage

I have been for marriage equality for a long time and have performed a small number of same sex weddings.  For me, it is a no brainer.  And frankly I haven't really understood where all of the animus has come from on the anti side.  Nobody was ever going to make a straight person marry someone of the same sex.  What Bob & Ted do doesn't have any impact on what I do with my wife.  And no church, synagogue, temple, or mosque would be required to perform a ceremony for anyone they don't want.  Add to that the fact that we are constantly redefining marriage.  Seriously.  The folk who point to a "Biblical" marriage and define that as something like our modern nuclear family just are being dishonest.  And the thought that marriage works the same way in the United States now as it did 100 years ago is just silly.  Then today I read a piece on Red Letter Christians by Morf Morford that included a real Ah Ha moment for me.

In his short piece, Morford says that marriage is constantly being redefined, but the difference is who gets to do the defining.  In the past, it was the white male power structure who did the defining.  In this case, it is not the government, the Church, or even the majority (although the majority does favor marriage equality now)... it is the individual.  Two consenting adults can decide to marry and gender or approval of any of those institutions is irrelevant.

And I got where the animus is coming from.  I'm not sure that Morford's argument is 100% correct, but I think he did point to the key to this issue and so many of the other struggles in our society.  It is all about the loss of power.  As a pastor, I have run into lots of folk who as they got older and began to lose a variety of physical abilities, watched as the future contracted, and lost positions of power and influence just got nasty and cantankerous.   Like terriers they would grab hold of something and just not let go as they tried to assert control over something, over anything.

As a nation and as a culture we are at one of those places.  All of the old institutions and groups that held sway are losing it.  Religion has lost its influence.  Government is not trusted.  Our population is no longer white and male.  The economy doesn't work as it once did.  Everything is in flux and those who once were at the top of the heap, no longer are.  And the reaction to all of that loss is to strike out and try to hold on to whatever power can be grabbed.  Stop whatever change can be stopped.

Now, I know that this argument may not hold for any given individuals.  I guess there really are individuals who have well reasoned arguments against marriage equality and who actually are motivated by those beliefs... but I think on the large scale it is still about power and about fear.

Prop 8 yet again...

First the obvious disclaimer. I was against Prop 8. I think it reflects poor law, poor sociology, and poor theology. I think it should not have passed and it should have been overturned. Still, I think my understanding of theology (or anyone else's) is irrelevant to the question. I shouldn't have a say in the issue.

31 states have had popular votes regarding same sex marriage and in all 31 cases, same sex marriage was outlawed. In the case of my state, I have often heard, "The people have spoken. They passed Prop 8. The courts should not be involved. Don't we live in a democracy?" That argument is specious. Rights are not legislated by popular vote. Indeed, the majority has often worked to repress the rights of the minority, often violently. US history is ripe with examples of that taking place. It was so visible a problem that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifically addresses it: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" Indeed, it is the proper role of the courts to step in and stand against popular opinion or states' rights when the majority abridges the rights of any minority.

The lawyers working to overturn Prop 8 sought to show three things:
1. that marriage is a fundamental right
2. that depriving gay and lesbian citizens to that right harms them and harms their children
3. and that depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry does not help heterosexual marriages at all.
The judge ruled that all three propositions were right and that even the witnesses for keeping Prop 8 as law had admitted all three propositions in testimony.

As for the folk who are afraid that this ruling will force them to act in ways contrary to their beliefs... again, the argument is silly. As a pastor, I am not forced to perform a wedding for anyone or to recognize any particular couple as married. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize a second marriage as a marriage and will not perform one. Still, as a civil matter we allow legally divorced people to marry. Some churches will not recognize marriages between people of different races or different religions. Such couples are free to find a clergy person or a justice of the peace who will preside over their ceremony. It is irrelevant whether or not a religious group recognizes or doesn't recognize the union, it is legal. On the other side of the coin, I have presided over weddings of gay or lesbian folk in states where such marriages were not legally recognized. It didn't matter what I did or said, the union was not legally recognized. The religious act and the legal reality were separate issues. The bottom line is that a religious group can remain true to its beliefs regardless of what the law says regarding same sex marriage. The legal issue is a separate one and in this case, if marriage is a right, the Constitution is clear that gay and lesbian folk cannot be denied that right.

I'm sure this ruling will be appealed and will make its way to the supreme court. I am hopeful that they will see their way clear and stand for the rights of the minority and for the Constitution, ruling that all people are free to marry and enjoy the legal protections and obligations of marriage in all states.

Prop 8... again

If they're serious about "protecting" marriage, the folk who voted for Prop 8, ought to get on board with this one...

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

a theology of marriage

Since I've been posting on prop 8, I thought I should give a short post regarding my theology of marriage. I will not go through all of the scriptures and exegete them. Others who are much more skilled have done that. I will give you my understanding of the broad strokes. And I won't talk about the shape of marriage across the centuries or across cultures. It is enough to say that it isn't the same and never was.

About gay and lesbian people... I don't know what makes one person gay and another straight. My guess is the answers are as different as people, but at the bottom line, I don't care whether it is chosen, inborn, a combination of the two, or completely fluid. I don't think God cares either.

I believe people are not created to be alone, but that basic idea plays itself out in very different ways from individual to individual. Some of us are single and find the companionship we need in the broader community. Some of us require a different kind of intimacy that requires a life partner. Still others fall somewhere in the middle. I believe God's concern for us and God's design for us in creation is that we be in relationship and those relationships reflect the love of God. Period.

But what about sex? First, let me say that I do not believe that any of the passages traditionally used to condemn GLBT relationships are relevant to the issue as we experience it in our culture. I do not see any passages in scripture that directly address two same sex adults involved in a committed relationship. There might be hints - check out 2 Samuel 1:26 - but tey are only hints and nothing for sure. So how do we make decisions regarding the appropriateness of sexual expression between two people? The criteria for GLBT folk are the same as for straight folk.

I really like a book I read some years ago by James Nelson called Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. If I remember it correctly, after talking about the meaning of sexual expression in human relationships, Nelson sets out a schema for judging the morality of sexual expressions. He says that sex is always infused with meaning and that it is never just a bodily function. As such, there must be a theological/moral framework to evaluate the appropriateness of sexual acts. His criteria, as I remember them, are
1. Is the sexual expression appropriate for the depth of the commitment of the two people?
2. Is the expression humanizing for the partners or is it exploitative of one or both of them?
3. Are both partners willing and able to live with any possible consequences of the act?

Obviously two people who just met in a bar cannot meet #1. A pair of teenagers cannot meet #3. A pedophile and a child cannot meet any of the three. Nelson would argue, and I think rightly, that there are sexual expressions between married couples that do not meet his criteria and are immoral. He would also argue, again I think rightly, that sexual intercourse between a gay couple can meet all of the criteria and if so, is proper and absolutely blessed by God in the context of their relationship.

So what is marriage in my theology? It is a covenant between two people before God in the context of their community to work together to fulfill God's yearnings for them as individuals and as a couple. Gender is not an issue. For me, the legal aspect is entirely separate. Because marriage is a covenant before God, the role of the state is secondary. I have done weddings of gay and of lesbian couples in New York where it was not sanctioned by the state. I still performed a marriage and believe they are married before God. Regardless of what happens with the law in the state of California, if a gay or lesbian couple comes to me seeking marriage, I will perform the service under the same criteria I would use for a straight couple. Unfortunately, if prop 8 passes, that same couple will not have legal standing, secondary though it is.

Stepford Wives?

I love Column One in the LA Times. Every day there is a fascinating article there about some quirky thing going on in the world or some interesting people. Yesterday's article both made me laugh and cry at the same time. It was a perfect picture of the ridiculousness of some fundamentalist interpretation of scripture and the way that fundamentalists confuse culture and faith. My heart breaks for one very talented woman who "credits the class with helping restrain her take-charge instincts. 'I have to be able to shut my mouth.'"

Southern Baptist Seminary has evidently begun an undergraduate program to train women to be... good wives. And of course, the definition of a good wife looks suspiciously like those sitcom wives from the 1950's, or if you're really cynical, Stepford Wives. Consider these paragraphs from the article

God values men and women equally, any student here will tell you. It's just that he's given them different responsibilities in life: Men make decisions. Women make dinner.

This fall, the internationally known seminary -- a century-old training ground for Southern Baptists -- began reinforcing those traditional gender roles with college classes in homemaking. The academic program, open only to women, includes lectures on laundering stubborn stains and a lab in baking chocolate-chip cookies.

Philosophical courses such as "Biblical Model for the Home and Family" teach that God expects wives to graciously submit to their husbands' leadership. A model house, to be completed by next fall, will allow women to get credit toward bachelor's degrees by learning how to set tables, sew buttons and sustain lively dinnertime conversation

Well... it is not only hopelessly unrealistic and wasteful of the talents and abilities of some 50% of the population, it is poor interpretation of scripture and just as bad interpretation of culture. Any student of US culture has to see the "refeminization" of women in the media of the 50's as a reaction to the liberation of women during WWII when Rosie the Riveter was the model women were to emulate. The men returned home from war and had to find a way to put the women back into their places... the kitchen, the laundry room, the bedroom, but never the boardroom, the factory, and certainly not the pulpit.

It is also bad interpretation of scripture. For example, the text never says, "wives submit to your husbands..." The text actually begins in the phrase before where we are all told to "submit yourselves to one another..." The first example of what this means follows, "wives to your husbands." Yes, it does say that husbands are the head of the wives but the meaning there is not about authority, it is referring to the Genesis story where the man is the source of the woman (Eve is formed from a rib taken from Adam...) The image is not unlike the headwaters of a river. The examples continue with husbands as well.

And the woman as a "helper" to the man? Again, cultural interpretation of a text. The word translated "helper" in the Genesis passage is also used to refer to God and can just as easily be interpreted as a savior figure as a subordinate. Think how differently things would have gone if the KJV said something like, "it is not good for the man to be alone so I will create a savior for him" and then there comes the woman.

Evidently the folk in leadership of the Southern Baptists actually believe that this degree will act as an evangelistic tool. Someone will visit one of these homes where the woman has sublimated all of her gifts and directed herself solely to being Mrs. and the visitor will be so taken by the wife's chocolate chip cookies or squeaky clean counters that they will drop to their knees and become Christians.

What would happen if instead the Southern Baptists put energy into helping folk figure out how to maintain relationships and build strong families in the culture we actually have? What would happen if they actually taught the men to share responsibility and respect the gifts of their wives? What if they worked for a world where as Paul tells us "In Christ there is no male or female"? Or where women were treated with the kind of revolutionary respect that Jesus showed to them? Then there might actually be some evangelism taking place... but of course that would mean they would have to read the Bible and the culture with new eyes and that is not likely to happen any time soon among Southern Baptists.