Reading blogs and visiting America several times this year has impressed upon me quite how concerned much of the American church seems to be about what they are calling "gay marriage". This seems to have overtaken some people as the biggest moral concern of the age (ahead of worrying, for example, whether people a few blocks away have food, or access to basic healthcare), and seems to be a yard-stick by which you judge someone's theological orthodoxy.
I'm glad that in the UK, we've largely avoided the depth of this discussion. We've had "civil partnerships" for a few years now, which are gay marriages in all but name. Indeed, colloquially they are known as marriages, with accompanying weddings, husbands, and divorces. And they carry almost identical privileges and responsibilities to marriages. And, surprise, surprise, the moral structure of society hasn't collapsed as a result. The Anglican church has rather tied itself in knots over what to do with its members - and clergy - who elect to enter into such partnerships. But the Anglican church has rather specialized in knots lately.
Now, I confess that I was rather opposed to the whole idea. Not so much on the grounds of trying to limit what consenting adults do in private, but because giving those people the accompanying tax breaks seemed unreasonable to me (a single person). But the fact is that take-up hasn't been enormous and the tax breaks aren't that substantial anyhow. It's a matter of basic humanity to let people nominate those whom they regard as next of kin; it's a matter of simple expediency that if people want to set up home together, they should be able to manage their affairs to reflect their joint ownership of property, and so on. I don't know if it's had any effect at all on promiscuity - its impact on public health can only be positive, though.
I realise that I'm being rather ambivalent about the romantic long-term commitment aspect here, but others are better-placed than I to comment on that. Long-term stable households seem good for society, in general.
In short, this law makes a few people happy and impacts almost not at all on everyone else. It's really not a big deal for those not participating.
6 comments:
You say, "This seems to have overtaken some people as the biggest moral concern of the age (ahead of worrying, for example, whether people a few blocks away have food, or access to basic healthcare), and seems to be a yard-stick by which you judge someone's theological orthodoxy."
I believe it, and I'm a little surprised that you're surprised. My impression: Health care has never been a priority for the conservative American church (it's a "liberal" concern). Before it was gay marriage it was abortion. With occasional mentions of euthanasia or prayer in schools. [However, during my time in England there was much more concern about Sunday shopping than I ever saw personally in the US (maybe that fight was lost by a generation earlier than mine).]
"surprise, surprise, the moral structure of society hasn't collapsed as a result." The preachers may worry about this, but I think 'ordinary' folk worry more about how it affects them individually. "Does this mean I have to put my gay cousin and his partner in the guest room with the double bed?" "How does this affect my Christian small business?" "Should I be home-schooling to protect my children from perceiving gay marriage matter-of-factly?"
We Americans are, indeed, a strange bunch. To me, the issue of gay marriage is more along the lines of a national issue, rather than an issue of religion. I would say that the issue of equality amongst all men and women is the driving force behind the liberal leaning sides fight for gay marriage, and religious views strongly lead the conservative leaning sides fight.
As far as the more important issues, such as the millions of uninsured and under insured, discussing the ideals of that argument (coming from my liberal self towards a conservative) leads towards arguments of social Darwinism. Rather amusing, as the conservatives who often voice the loudest dissent against natural evolution, are the same who seem to support the ideals of Social Darwinism the most.
Again, we are a strange country indeed. I'd much rather live across the pond.
(I forgot that you Brits have mixed up left and right, so I changed everything to liberal and conservative for you :) )
@Ruth. Yes, I think the British church did get a bit too wound up about Sunday shopping - though at least in that regard they were on the same side as the unions, arguing it would disadvantage the lowest-paid. I know that the European perspective on healthcare has never been shared in America: I'm not sure how that divergence came about.
As for how `ordinary' folk are affected, well, surely the issues arise whether or not there is legislation: though I suppose you might take the view that an unmarried gay couple should not share a bed but a married one could. And there are enough other separatist reasons for home-schooling, without needing another, surely?
But I take your point that the impact of moral decisions extends beyond those whom one might see as directly involved. I guess I'm arguing that gay marriages, by whatever name, are more a matter of common humanity than a reasonable place to take a stand on what you believe in.
@Matt: It's not that the British left and right wings of politics are completely different from yours, rather that, because it's rather a simplistic reduction, and because we don't have a simple (de facto) two-party system, and because our centre is somewhere different than yours, they're not necessarily useful labels...
One of the more curious features of the UK civil partnerships legislation is that there is a list of close relations with whom you are not allowed to have a civil partnership - the exact analogue of the rules around marriage (so gay cousins cannot marry). This seems a spiteful and pointless limitation, failing, for no good reason, to accept that people end up living in all sorts and conditions of relationships. That's an odd thing to do in the context of something intending to promote, as you say, equality.
I read somewhere something along the lines of "Jesus didn't die for us to spend our lives bickering about our sexual orientation" ... that made me think a bit about how polarised 'Christian' issues have become.
I wish I had all the answers but I do think as Christians we need to 'love folk into the kingdom' because it's there that God (not us) starts to do the work on changing us to become more like Him. (Whatever that means in practice)
Americanruth's point about us normal folk worrying about where to put the gay cousin and his partner (or other relative with unmarried 'friend') are real issues of course ... the temptation is to isolate ourselves and our families from such 'messy' issues ... but Jesus wasn't an isolationist and I honestly don't think we're called to be either.
As for Sunday trading. I'm rather glad it's not widescale in this neck of the woods. :)
@seethrough faith: yes, I think to a large extent it is a matter of priorities, and how best to embody, live, and share the generous heart of Jesus.
Post a Comment