I’m a little late doing this, but now that I have a bit of time wanted to analyze and respond to Rick Martinez’s column on gay marriage in The News & Observer yesterday. Excerpts from his article are in italics below, with my comments in normal font interspersed:
My upbringing, religion and culture, and some of my dearest friends, tell me gay marriage is wrong. But my instincts and life experience tell me it isn’t. I just can’t emotionally or intellectually accept that heterosexuals have cornered the market on meaningful love and commitment.
In my view, Rick immediately begins with a flawed jumping-off point: He elevates his feelings — his “instincts,” “life experience,” “emotions,” and “intellect” — over an established moral standard (upbringing and culture, but mostly religion) as the basis for right and wrong.
I will borrow from Marvin Olasky’s observations in his column today, in which he quotes from the Book of Judges: “In those days, there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” That verse, in many places in the Bible, always meant that the people turned away from God, that there was chaos and idolatry in the land, and unchecked sin abounded.
Rick’s wife Donna tells me that he was raised in the Catholic faith, although I don’t know if that is where he still is. But unless he has departed altogether from a religion that upholds the Bible as its moral standard, Rick should know it is dangerous to follow your own sentiments over the well-established canon. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
And I don’t buy the notion that our country’s moral values and religious foundations are threatened if the married couple across the street are Harry and Larry instead of Harry and Louise. Besides, we heteros have done a pretty good job of lowering moral standards on our own. Two words: Janet Jackson.
But they are threatened. You are changing what words mean (marriage). You are dismissing the fact that homosexuality is clearly forbidden and severely judged by God in the Bible.
It’s not an issue of heteros vs. homos and who has dragged down the culture more. It’s about defining what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and not in the gutter. If Rick is saying that homosexuals have not been the only ones to bring down the culture, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Sin manifests itself in all degrees and types.
And what of Janet Jackson? Rick obviously believes she committed an act of “lowering moral standards.” But why does he think that? Is it because of his emotions and his instincts? Millions of people believed what happened with Jackson at the Super Bowl was no big deal. Homosexuality and (mostly) breast exposure are equally OK in the view of many people. Why does Jackson’s act fall below the moral standard for Rick, but homosexuality doesn’t?
Civil unions aren’t the answer. They’re nothing more than political cover. Civil union is offensive because it reduces marriage to just another contract. Marriage is much deeper than clarifying insurance benefits and who decides funeral arrangements.
Arguing that gay marriage is a states’ rights issue is another ruse designed to protect a politician’s behind. Marriage is a federal matter and it’s been that way for a long time. The feds have more than 1,000 programs, including Social Security, that deal with marital relationships, not to mention the plethora of tax and inheritance laws. We should face up to the federal nature of gay marriage now, instead of prolonging the agony by losing legal challenges state by state.
I agree.
It’s convenient to lash out against the courts for forcing gay marriage on society. They may be ahead of the curve, but in reality the courts are reflecting society’s changing attitudes. The latest Gallup poll on gay marriage (Feb. 6-8) reported that 59 percent of those surveyed were against legally recognizing gay marriage. That’s down from 68 percent in 1996. And only 47 percent of respondents favored a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Does this justify the courts acting on gay marriage the way they are doing? Is it simply “convenient” to lash out at the courts, or is there a rationale for it? I’m guessing (although I could be wrong) that Rick believes, like most conservatives, that the courts have become unconstitutionally activist in recent times. But he seems to be willing to cut their activism some slack on this issue. He seems to say that court activism is OK as long as they reflect society’s changing attitudes. But it shouldn’t matter whether they are ahead or behind the curve (or what the polls say); they should be behind the laws and the Constitution.
Views are changing and, in my mind there’s no doubt a majority of Americans will eventually accept homosexual marriage. How fast that day comes is largely dependent on the compassion and tolerance the gay community extends to its opponents.
It’s wrong and downright cruel for gay rights advocates to belittle people with deeply held religious convictions against homosexuality by branding them as intolerant, fanatical homophobes. If the gay community is going to demand recognition and respect for one’s sexual identity, it should extend the same understanding and courtesy toward another’s religious identity. Its leaders should publicly admonish gay-marriage supporters who continue mean-spirited attacks on those who sincerely disagree.
Look, many conservative Christians have treated homosexuals equally abysmal. I too have gay friends, and we both know where each other stands on this issue. We can remain friends not because we have to “respect sexual identities,” but because we respect each other as human beings — period. Catcalls and mean-spiritedness are counterproductive and unnecessary. But still, righteousness must be established in the public square and in the law.
The gay movement is also quiet when it comes to social, moral and decency issues. It shouldn’t be. The biggest rap against gay marriage is that it legitimizes what a lot of people consider an immoral lifestyle. This contention doesn’t square with my experience. The majority of homosexuals I’ve known, including those I served with in the military, were fundamentally ethical and moral people.
This is blunt, but homosexuality is not moral or decent. To expect or encourage gays to pursue morality in every area except homosexuality is to miss the obvious. I don’t think I need to point to every verse that condemns the practice to establish that point. You are not fundamentally moral if you are gay. I am not fundamentally moral if I am a drunkard or a serial adulterer. The breach cannot be closed between those who believe homosexuality is acceptable and those who don’t. It will not lead to national acceptance of gay marriage.
Gay rights advocates should redefine themselves and claim new ground by leading the charge against promiscuity and social decay. They should be the first to define marriage as a solemn commitment between two unrelated adults, and not a loose confederation that includes siblings, minors or multiple spouses. The movement needs to continue its mature march toward the mainstream by abandoning outdated tactics that inflame instead of inform. Get rid of those awful and garish gay pride parades, and stop using shock value to introduce society to your sexual lifestyle. We’ve seen it. We get it. Move on.
Again, Rick’s solutions here don’t overcome the basic immorality of homosexuality. Why is a solemn commitment between two homosexuals morally acceptable, but “loose confederations” aren’t? Why are garish gay pride parades unacceptable? Isn’t that imposing your values on a group that has different standards, and lifestyle conduct, which they find acceptable?
It would be sad if the gay community repeated the mistakes of feminists, who, by demonizing their opponents, cost themselves the support the movement originally deserved.
Because homosexuality violates the core of morality for millions of Christians, there will always be a large percentage of the population that will never support gay marriage.
