Through a Glass Darkly

6 Comments:

• 

  John Hanna

  October 6th, 2008 on 1:35 pm

  Ultimately, marriage, like all things actually, exists in relation to God “from whom, to whom, through whom are all things.” Furthermore, marriage is not only a basic created institution but a redemptive one as well, picturing the relationship between Christ and the Church. Having said that I disagree with the “quick take.”

  Civil marriage, as a government regulated institution, is not based on particularly religious beliefs or written revelation, or for inaccessible reasons. It is valid for the government to differentiate between the relationship that brings human beings into existence and one that does not. Such a distinction is not prejudicial, but is founded on empirical reality. As a matter of fact, a living human being is the height of empirical accessibility, In taking this position, I’m not saying that only marriages that bear children are valid, for the distinction is between the two types of relationships.

  While I’m on the subject, opposition to same-sex marriage is not a public imposition on a private arrangement. On the contrary, same-sex marriage advocates are requesting government involvement in what our now private arrangements absent government interference or regulation.

  For a bit of a longer treatment, you can read my response to my former law professor, Jamie Raskin, who is now also a Maryland State Senator, here:

  http://johnhanna.blogspot.com/2006/09/civil-marriage.html
• 

  admin

  October 6th, 2008 on 2:50 pm

  I think I mostly agree with you John, but to some extent I’m not clear on what you’re arguing here or in your longer piece.

  I agree with your first paragraph above. Because of that, it is crystal clear that my qualms about gay marraige are primarily religious. I don’t believe this rules it out of bounds in public policy debate — I don’t accept a naked public square — but I do believe this means the debate implicates very difficult church-state issues that cannot be solved by sound bites in a pluralistic democracy. I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to argue against gay marriage on purely pragmatic or “secular” grounds. Almost everyone who opposes gay marriage does so out of religious convictions. There is nothing wrong with that, and those who hold such views should simply be honest about their reasons.

  I don’t agree with the historical claim in your second paragraph. Clearly, Western law regulating marriage developed around a religious institution. I’d highly recommend the chapter in John Witte’s “Christianity and Law” for a strong historical treatment of how canon law on marriage provided the foundation for Western civil family law.

  Though I agree a distinction might be warranted, I’m not sure I understand in what context or to what extent it’s valid, on purely secular grounds, to distinguish between potentially child-bearing and non potentially child-bearing realtionship. We might agree that child-rearing should be a privileged activity that enjoys tax breaks and such. However, it does not follow that other kinds of relationships should receive no government sanction at all, or should be constitutionally prohibited. Also, the discussion of privileging child rearing completely overlooks the issues of adoption and artificial insemination. Gay couples can rear children too.

  I’m not sure what you mean by “not a public imposition on a private arrangement.” I guess the issue here is what is meant by “opposition.” I think you’re probably right insofar as anti-gay-marriage advocates seek to block state laws that give legal status to gay marriages. I don’t think you’re right to the extent that anti-gay-marriage advocates seek to amend state constitutions or the U.S. Constitution to provide a unique constitutional status to traditional marriage. In the latter case, advocates are seeking to have private arrangements regulated by state statutory law declared unconstitutional.

  I reject the religious right’s approach to this issue, which reduces all the difficult legal, constitutional and policy questions into a simple moral question. I agree that the Biblical ideal for marriage is one man and one woman for life. I agree that healthy marriages are crucial to the health of society. I’m not sure, however, that it follows that the government of a pluralistic democracy should legislate this moral principle through prohibition. There seems to be some significant confusion about what’s expected of the covenant community and what’s expected and possible in the world.

  I further reject, even more strongly, the religious right’s harsh and hateful rhetoric towards homosexuals — and it is, without a doubt, harsh and hateful. Somehow we (they) have forgotten that the Church’s mission is not political. I’m ashamed that one of the top responses in survey results to the question “what is an evangelical” is “someone who hates gays.” I’m embarrassed that our “leaders” have such a pragmatic, unprincipled approach to legal and constitutional theory.

  Would I vote in favor of a ballot measure to institutionalize gay marriage? No. Would I vote in favor of a referendum to amend the state or federal constitution to prohibit gay marriage? No. Would I spend the time, energy and money to picket legalized gay wedding ceremonies? Certainly not.
• 

  John Hanna

  October 7th, 2008 on 11:26 am

  Dave, you’re right that my position, and just about everyone else’s, is founded on religious convictions. However, I don’t think that such convictions are detached from what we might regard as secular arguments. Those who self-identify as secular consider religious positions to be an arbitrary imposition detached from the real world of evidence, logic, reason, etc. Contrary to such a view, I hold to my convictions because I think they provide the best explanation for the world we can touch, feel, smell and taste (I’m not reducing faith to that, but only saying that it is not less than or other than that). In other words, I believe because it puts me in touch with reality, connecting me to the world that is. What concerns me is what’s true, what’s real and how can we know. What we’re discussing is the flourishing and well-being of all of us marvelous and misshapen image-bearers.

  IMarriage is an institution everywhere rooted in the complementary and procreative character of the male-female relationship. That it was a church-governed institution for hundreds of years doesn’t suddenly mean that it was about obscure rituals and men wearing pointy hats (though I wouldn’t mind getting me one of those hats for special occasons) for all those years.

  In pointing to the stark distinction between procreative and non-procreative relationships I’m doing a number of things. Admittedly, I’m arguing according to the “permissible terms” of public discourse. At the same time, this is an effort to employ the evidence that is plainly in view. Regardless of our ability to employ medical and scientific technology that introduces third parties, such a distinction is one that reality imposes on us. This offers something tangible and accessible to people who simply think opposition to same-sex marraige is rank prejudice that has no connecton to “objective” real world considerations. It properly, reasonably and fairly counters what I think is the crux of this entire issue -that same-sex and heterosexual relatonships are equal in every way and that any denial of such equality is impermissible. Quite frankly, I”m also hopeful that God employs such evidence to make known the truth about himself and us. Our bodies testify and they do so powerfully. It’s actually an attempt to say, “what do you think of this? don’t you think it matters? what do you think it’s telling us about ourselves?” This does not mean that I think people will be persuaded or that there are no counter-arguments. People (including me) have deep commitments and there are always counter-arguments to support them.

  With respect to the matter of public imposition, you spoke of relationships being “prohibited.” I don’t think that’s in play here. People’s conduct and living arrangements are not limited. Same-sex partners can have commitment ceremonies, religious or otherwise, execute contracts, wills, etc. Proposed prohibitions do not relate to conduct but to the government’s relationship to that conduct. I realize of course from an emotional and pesonal standpoint, it feels like a prohibition. Furthermore, much of what’s spoken relates to moral considerations. There is a distinction between permitting conduct and providing an imprimatur of public approval for that same conduct, along with the inevitable legal and societal implications. It is at this point that I have difficulty, even as I realize there are associated legal complicatons. The two primary competing public voices are: “you can live how you like, even as I disagree” vs. “our laws must reflect that this is good and whoever openly disgrees should be publicly shamed.”

  Unfortunately, I don’t think that my “live and let live” (you may call it something else) legal approach is going to hold sway. It’s bracing to have “heterosexism” identified as “hate speech” in my kids grade school or to attend a lecture by a self-identified gay Christian (last night on campus), which if it had one decent word for those who disagree, I missed it. I do not say these things with any self-pity or sense of victimization or even a sense of surprise, but only as indications of our present landscape. Furthermore, I realize that from an opposing perspective, small measures such as school speech and a single campus speaker do not stem the overwhelming tide of fear, rejection and hatred.

  None of the above offers a fully-orbed view of the subject, which is the one in which I am most trully interested. One of the reasons I try to tread lightly (at least from my perspective) with respect to legal parameters - only pointing out the complementary and procreative distinction - is that any talk of sin requires an attendant offer of the grace of God in Christ to sinners of whom I am the worst. Again, it’s not that I at all want to avoid this, but I don’t see a discussion/debate about our marriage laws being terribly receptive to an explanaton of the human anthropology of sin not as simply behavioral but as much more deeply rooted at the point of inclinations and desires expressing themselves in all sorts of ways, including sexual. This universal condition requires the gracious and merciful intervention of God himself in and through the life, death and resurrection of Christ. “You are not your own. You were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your body.”
• 

  admin

  October 7th, 2008 on 12:55 pm

  John, good discussion. You said: Regardless of our ability to employ medical and scientific technology that introduces third parties, such a distinction is one that reality imposes on us. This offers something tangible and accessible to people who simply think opposition to same-sex marraige is rank prejudice that has no connecton to “objective” real world considerations

  Yeah, but it seems like a distinction without much of a difference because of reproductive technology and the huge global surplus of unwanted children available for adoption. The real issue, it seems to me, is not the biological ability to create children through ordinary sexual procreation, but the capability of raising children who can experience a good life and contribute to the good of society. The social science literature on this, as far as I can tell, is all over the place. In any event, we’d probably be wary of social science literature because it doesn’t consider the spiritual aspects of what “healthy” means, and that gets us right back into religious arguments.

  You said: People’s conduct and living arrangements are not limited. Same-sex partners can have commitment ceremonies, religious or otherwise, execute contracts, wills, etc.

  I respond: yes, but this really does sound like “separate but equal,” doesn’t it? If “marriage” doesn’t confer some kind of special social status, why do social conservatives spend so much energy fighting gay marriage?

  I think we in the Church who believe promoting traditional marriage is essential need to be open and clear about our reasons. We believe this because we intuitively know it to be true, because human experience tells us it’s true, but foremost because we believe God has made it so and has confirmed the importance of sexual ethics and marriage in scripture.

  I think we also need to be circumspect in what we expect from the secular government and pragmatic in our efforts to influence the secular state in the context of the overall mission of the Church. In my view, the mission of the Church is not primarily to exert power in the sphere of secular government. Influence, yes; power, no. The church should be the church, as Hauerwas would say. The primary way in which the Church can influence society concerning marriage is to become a counter-cultural community of faithful marriages.

  I don’t object at all to Christian leaders explaining our reasons for what we believe a just and moral civil order entails. I do object to angry and manipulative efforts to exert power over and through civil government, and I think groups such as the Family Research Council long ago stepped over that line. I think the Evangelical Manifesto strikes a good balance here.
• 

  John Hanna

  October 8th, 2008 on 8:33 pm

  I appreciate the pushback Dave. Some thoughts:

  It seems that one of your concerns is to distance yourself from the unsavory tactics of the “Christian Right.” I concur with your concerns, acknowledging the need to learn from past mistakes and from conduct that does not at all represent the Christ whose name is espoused. However, I also think it can be an overcorrective, so that we define ourselves by what we are not, instead of our convictions. In that respect, our position is likewise reactionary, though in a different direction.

  I myself am likewise circumspect about what the government can accomplish. You can read a short piece on my church-state views here:

  http://johnhanna.blogspot.com/2006/08/church-state-etc.html

  My basic principle is that the coercive and confiscatory power of the State is not one that should be used to advance God’s kingdom, whose almighty power paradoxically came about through Christ’s surrender of power.

  The difficulty is that the same-sex marriage issue presents us with a unique circumstance. Its uniqueness is due to the fact that behavior considered wrong/sinful is not simply legal and permissible without government interference, and even accommodated by the government to some extent. The demand is that it be completely and fully endorsed by our society through its laws and considered equal to marriage as it has been defined. Same-sex marriage is to be advanced as a public policy good throughout our educational and legal systems. I don’t think it’s good for our society to legally entrench gay identity in this way.

  In so far as I can tell, this is ultimately not about benefits, economic or otherwise, which can be addressed through various means, including legislation if necessary (I think that persons should have the right to dispose of their property, receive hospital visitation, etc., as they see fit). The crux of the matter is society saying, “it is good,” or moreover, “it is just as good.” The word marriage confers that positive affirmation. That is not an “objective” or morally neutral or non-religious position.

  With respect to “separate but equal,” gender and sexuality are not race, and race is not gender and sexuality.

  My pointing to the biological distinction is an effort to say that there is accessible evidence that we can point to and reasonably evaluate to differentiate between heterosexual and same-sex relationships. If the overt distinction between relationships that bring human beings into existence and relationships that can’t do so is “without a difference,” then certainly no sociological evidence is going to be convincing to anyone. Furthermore, the sociological assumption that a mother and father are better for a child is rooted in the biological fact that men and women make babies. Also, you are of course right to realize that any evaluation of the sociological evidence is grounded in the unavoidable matter of convictions regarding human “success.”

  Citing to the biological difference is not, I think, a lack of transparency regarding a commitment to the Bible. It is an attempt to state in plain language what Scripture and creation testify to. It is an attempt (maybe a failed one) to point to the reality that God has made known, without confounding the person(s) I’m addressing with church-state issues or with the much more complex matter of the trustworthiness and reliability of the Scriptures. That is a discussion I’m ready and willing to have, but may not be one my interlocutor is prepared for or one that a particular written or speaking forum allows. We employ the Scriptures as we see fit and as the opportunity allows, even as that is ultimately where we want to go. As usual, I think we’re generally in agreement here regarding the employment of evidence, experience, reason with and in light of Scripture, even if not identical (but that wouldn’t be interesting). Also, as you know, the biological argument is consistent with the Catholic natural law position (even if there is disagreement with the Catholic position concerning the effects of the fall on human reason).

  Here’s a compelling counterargument, which is in the same vein as your concerns: people who feel as if we’re using the law to condemn them will not be prepared to listen to and receive the power-abandoning love of Christ for them. Fair enough (I say to me), but as I’ve already stated, the alternative is blanket societal affirmation through legislation (I’m aware that law and society are not one in the same, but they are not detached either). To surrender the legislative and judicial spheres to commend that which is inconsistent with human flourishing and well-being (not all aspects of the relationships, but this isn’t about all aspects) is not necessarily loving and kind. “Have it your way” can be just as much an act of judgment. Again, the counterargument I’ve stated above is forceful and even attractive (though not if it’s motivated by a rejection of the historic and well-grounded Christian position on sexuality). But it’s not clear to me that the legal position I espouse is detrimental, even as it implies a moral judgment, which will be strongly resisted (is that bad?). Furthermore, regardless of legal acquiescence, calling homosexuality sinful will remain socially marginalized and increasingly unacceptable.

  Here I’ll bring to a close my already very lengthy comment. The most vital issue concerning same-sex relations is not the legal one. It is whether, in the face of highly-charged rhetoric, compelling and heartfelt testimonies, legal sanction (and maybe legal strictures on opposition eventually) and scientific developments that present new possibilities, the church will continue to commend Christ’s truth in love concerning redeemed and renewed sexuality. The personal and impassioned testimonies concerning the struggles with same-sex attraction are consistent with the struggle with sin in general. It is powerful, impulsive, compulsive, attractive, irresistible. A denial of homosexuality as contrary to God’s intention calls into question the category of sin overall. This is not because homosexuality is unique but because it is characteristic. “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man.” That is not to make light of its presence and power, but to highlight the depth of all of our plight. This is why we need God’s radical intervention. Unfortunately, most evangelical views of sin, at least practically, are shallow and inadequate – either behavioral (probably highlighting homosexuality as particularly bad) or therapeutic (sin is feeling bad and Jesus makes me feel good. How does that help or address the person experiencing same-sex attraction?). The slavery of sin and the glory of persistent, pursuing, particular mercy and grace for sinners are obscured.

  Those who live with same-sex attraction, experiencing temptation, who have entrusted themselves to Christ, seeking to honor him with their bodies that belong to him, as they live in and with his community, are wonderful examples of discipleship for all of us. They are aware of what the daily call to discipleship requires, constantly dependent on the mercy of God in Christ by the power of the Spirit, walking in fellowship with the crucified and risen one, who experienced all of life’s hardships and was tempted in every way, yet without sin.
• 

  Jeff

  November 13th, 2008 on 9:27 pm

  I strongly support the idea of removing the concept of marriage from government completely. Although I think it would take a lot of work to take marriage records out of the federal government and state governments hands, I think this is really the best way forward in the debate of same sex marriage. Such a direction could also garner support from Mormons or other religious groups who see it as their right and sometimes as their duty to be able to maintain more than one spouse. Where does anybody get the nerve to try to restrict other free peoples right to engage in these personal relationships.

  For those who are unaware, the Republican Party has opened up a new web forum for submitting ideas to rebuild the party. I suggested such an idea as described above and it could use as much support as possible to try to get signal to the party that people want this type of sensible solution from government.

  Separation of Marriage and State
  http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/suggestions/66509