California Prop. 8: Christian Privilege vs. Human Rights

Nothing is more basic to human liberty than the ability to designate one’s choice of a partner to be recognized under the law. Nothing is more important for personal freedom than our ability to define our own standards for private behavior. Nothing is more upsetting to religious conservatives than watching people freely doing both.

For this reason, gay marriage rights (previous article) have become the touchstone issue of our time. For humanists and atheists, it could just be the most important legal question of this decade. We’ve seen baby steps forward toward allowance of gay marriage in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, and now California. But every time a court issues a favorable ruling, "family" organizations can be counted on to rally their troops to slam the door shut–in a bid to "save" traditional marriage from "activist judges" ignoring the "will of the people."

Of all the smear campaigns undertaken by the radical fundamentalist right, their lumping together of the gay and atheist agendas has to be most disingenuous–as if to be atheist is to be automatically gay, and vice versa. But let’s examine this a little further. Atheists, both straight and gay, do tend to almost universally support gay rights. Why are gay rights so important to atheists? For the same reason they’re so deplored by the fanatics: because such rights are diametrically opposed to the acceptance of the concept of sin. Sin, with its accompanying payload of repression (denial), guilt and fear, is the fundamental bludgeon used by all religions to perpetuate their control.

Let’s start with "original sin." Where did it come from? I take the position that whatever its origins, the bible quickly became a political document. Long before press freedom was widely recognized, bibles and other religious tracts were being printed and distributed all over the world at the behest of powerful forces in both church and state. Since resources were scarce and literacy rare, those folks must have deemed it pretty important. So much so that prior to the invention of movable type, endless generations of monks and scribes dedicated themselves to manual copying–hence the word "scripture." This was not unique to the West. To this day, a perfectly hand-copied Quran is the sine qua non of Islam.

At a time of history’s maximum brutality, brought about–remember–by the "divine right of kings," it wasn’t enough to simply force obedience at the point of a spear. The church and state wanted your soul. They wanted you to feel exactly like the peasant you were. You were born that way, it was your lot in life, and you could never escape. What better way to condemn the ignorant peasant folk to a life of servitude than to convince them that all men (and women) were literally conceived in sin? By this logic, before we hapless sinners even exited the birth canal, we were in need of the church’s product: redemption. And it wasn’t the kind of sin that could be "indulged" away for money. It was so heinous that it would condemn us to eternal hell.

Sexual sin could not be justified on any other grounds than something even more fundamental, the survival of the species. Hence the link was established between piety, "legitimate" sex and procreation. If you doubt this, ask yourself why every pope down to Benedict has refused to reconsider the ban on contraceptives–even in the face of plagues such as HIV. In ecclesiastical terms, the possibility of conception (and of course the church-state-centric ritual of marriage) was deemed essential to permissible sex.

Though Protestants are more relaxed on issues of birth control, the die of church-sanctioned sexuality was already cast prior to the Reformation: Conception equaled holiness. (After the Reformation, Protestant priests could marry, but not Catholics). In spite of itself, the pro-conception position was actually a positive thing for the species, and–making a virtue out of necessity–it’s not really optional. Memes that discouraged reproductive behavior died out along with with their celibate adherents. So religions had to strike a bargain with their "devil." If they outlawed sex entirely, they would not survive. Many chaste extremist cults throughout history learned that lesson the hard way, and for the most part we don’t remember their names. The Shakers represent a recent example. In religion and otherwise, the fecund have survived.

But happiness, (brought about through self-actualization) not survival, is the end-all of human existence (top of Maslow’s pyramid). Religions would all have you wait for their peculiar brand of paradise delayed. But whether it’s heaven, Avalon, Eden, Nirvana, the Satya Loka, or whatever, they still all promise you some form of future happiness. This is where atheists sharply differ. We are looking for happiness right here–and right now.

As for survival, humanity is no longer broken up into insular tribes. Population has exploded. There is no need any longer for the human species to madly breed. Since the gay population of the world is somewhere below 10%, their failure to breed represents absolutely no threat to human survival. In fact, they’re doing the rest of us breeders a huge favor by reducing the strain on global resources.

Which brings us back to the shrill rhetoric and repressive policies of the Christian right. They have been so accustomed to having Christian "values" carry the day, they have taken it as some sort of God-given fait accompli. But to paraphrase the Massachusetts Constitution, "we are a nation of laws, not gods [men]." Given our representative democracy, with a large majority of believers, it has been a simple matter through the initiative process for Christians to enshrine their theocratic principles in the law. This is what has led to 39 states adopting some form of "defense of marriage" language either by statute or constitutional amendment. [Incidentally, the threshold in California for getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot is 8% of the turnout in the previous gubernatorial election and as such, it’s among the lowest in the nation. And any amendment deemed "minor" only has to pass by simple majority.]

My question is, what are the amendment proponents defending marriage from? The Supreme Court did not eliminate the benefits of opposite-sex marriage, or change the institution in any way. Yet to hear them whine, it’s as if the very nature of family were under attack:

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

There are at least two blatant lies in that paragraph. 1) Marriage has never been redefined for the whole of society. It was only redefined for same-sex couples. The rest of society was left unchanged. 2) No one is required to teach children anything of the sort. Kindergartners are not taught about marriage at all. According to SFGate,

An opponent of Prop. 8, attorney Shannon Minter, who represented same-sex couples in the state Supreme Court case, said California law requires only that students be taught at some point before high school graduation about the legal and financial aspects of marriage. The state Department of Education recommends that marriage be discussed in high school, but each school district designs its own program, with parental input, said Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "This is a pure fabrication," he said of the Yes on 8 ballot argument. "They are trying to inflame people by making up these falsehoods about kids."

Of all the foul pandering and scare tactics which inevitably precede repression, arguments "for the children" are among the worst. Who could possibly vote against a clear and present danger toward children? Except when it’s not. Countless studies of kids raised with gay parents show no difference in outcome. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

A number of professional medical organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association — have issued statements claiming that a parent’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.

For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research — approximately 67 studies — looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.

Moreover, a 2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child’s mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship.

So when you remove the lies and the smoke screen, what’s left? Two things: scriptural prohibition and the "yuck" factor. That’s what some people are trying to use–right now in 2008–to codify their snobbery and prejudice against gays by taking away vital legal and human rights from a substantial subculture of Americans.

Who are these bigots? The usual suspects. What do they have in common? Their Christianity. Wikipedia lists the sponsors of Prop. 8:

Leading the Proposition 8 initiative is ProtectMarriage.com. This coalition consists of many organized Christian denominations including: Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Presbyterians, and many protestant non-denominational churches as well.^[19] Other significant supporters include: National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson, Republican State Senator Tom McClintock, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain. Senator McCain released the following statement of support for the proposed constitutional amendment:

I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions.^[20]

Maggie Gallagher, nationally syndicated conservative columnist and President of the National Organization for Marriage, states that gay marriage "is not primarily about marriage…. It is about inserting into the law the principle… that sexual orientation should be treated exactly the same way we treat race in law and culture…. The next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation."^[21]

Adding to the fallacies and lies listed above, the National Organization for Marriage pulls out their "sky-is-falling" slippery-slope arguments. Make no mistake, there is no accommodation with these ideologues. It is a make-or-break issue for them and they know it. They are not content to live their heterosexual marriages in peace. They really want to destroy families that don’t fit their narrow definition. It seems to be the only way they can feel good about their own choices. But once the law in an influential state like California goes against them, their ideology will have to either adapt or die.

Some retired religious figures (and others still active) have seen the writing on the wall, and are doing just that. Their drive for mercy and compassion has outweighed their former self-righteousness. Often times it has put them at odds with their church policy and leadership:

More than 80 retired Northern California clergy from the United Methodist Church are offering to perform same-sex marriages, saying they want to help out active ministers who would risk more severe consequences for presiding over these ceremonies.

Church law forbids clergy - both active and retired - from performing gay marriages.

"We’re willing to challenge the injustice and contradictions of this," said the Reverend Don Fado, retired pastor of St Mark’s United Methodist Church in Sacramento.

As California enters its second week of legalised gay marriage, faith leaders are mobilizing to either fight the unions or support them.

During the annual meeting for the California-Nevada conference of United Methodists, 82 ministers agreed to perform same-sex marriages.

If disciplined, the clergy could be defrocked, said Fado. He believes that is unlikely.

With this kind of division and even "clerical disobedience" within their ranks, it’s obvious that organized religion is having its own crisis of confidence. It’s not just the United Methodists who are split, but also the Anglicans and others. But then, isn’t it clear by this dissension that there is no such thing as "God’s law?" There are only human rules and interpretations of (human originated) scripture. Organized religions have at various times opposed interracial marriage, supported slavery, or stoning for adultery, and many other archaic practices. When social mores inevitably evolve, so do the religions. Then they act like it was always that way.

In this sense it does come down to a battle of human rights vs. (largely evangelical) Christian privilege. The more fundamentalist denominations seem to exist solely to perpetuate outmoded rules. And they inject themselves into the political process–often with disastrous effect. The outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential race was swayed by yet another state ballot initiative on gay marriage–this time in Ohio. We are being forced to choose what kind of a future we want for our country: One ruled by ancient texts and prejudice? Or one ruled by human rights, human pleasure (the pursuit of happiness) and human law as our founders intended. It is a real test of our democracy. Will it succumb to the tyranny of the majority? Or will we stand up, reject prejudice, and demand equal rights, Equality for All:

Our challenge is clear. Those who oppose the dignity of our love and relationships are determined to deny us the fundamental freedom, fairness and equality we have worked so hard to achieve. We must get Californians to vote "No on 8," and it all starts with you.

Click here and sign the pledge. "Vow To Vote No" today!

Gay and lesbian couples are legally marrying in California. Many more are planning weddings and celebrations.

We will defeat this initiative one voter at a time. Stand up and take a public "Vow To Vote No." Click here to sign the pledge now!

A loss in November will dramatically slow, if not halt, progress toward full equality for LGBT Americans.

We cannot let that happen. Please take the "Vow To Vote No" and then forward this message to your friends and family.

We can win this campaign if we all dig deep and contribute what we can. As we have demonstrated time and time again: working together we can ensure fundamental freedom, fairness, and equality for all.

Corporate sponsors such as PG & E are reportedly donating large sums to defeat Prop. 8. The despicable fundie-backed proposition so far is trailing by 9 points. Like countless thousands of jubilant newlywed California gay couples, may it "go down" decisively in November.

Share This