Devaluing People

There is so much talk about values these days.  But I have to wonder where those values are – and what those values are.

One of our local opinionators was on the radio the other day.  He had an example of someone who clearly seemed to be taking advantage of a program for impoverished students.  What struck me was not that there was a dishonest person taking advantage of a program that was intended to help people who truly need help.  What struck me was the glee with which the opinionator pointed out this sponger to the listener, and then the “lesson” to be learned – that programs that help poor people are a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I realized, as I turned the radio off in disgust, that these are the values by which many in our country now function.  I hate to sound THAT old … but it didn’t used to be that way.  Well, not completely.  John Calvin, long ago, preached that wealth was a sign of God’s grace and poverty a sign of God’s wrath.  But the overwhelming majority of people rejected that idea a long time ago. … Or did they?  I'd thought they had - hoped they had.

I remember as a child and then as a youth, a maxim that was a foundation stone of our system of justice … “Better ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted.”  In case you haven’t noticed, that maxim has eroded rather dramatically of late.  Now we are approaching a maxim that says, “Better ten innocent persons go to jail than one guilty person go free.”  We aren’t there yet, but this is the direction we are heading.  And few seem to notice.  Or if they do notice, few seem to comment.  But I digress.

My point is that the same erosion is taking place in our sense of an obligation to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.  Our system of health and welfare safety nets are not perfect.  No sane person would pretend that they are.  But what the radio “news” opinionator seemed to be saying was that it was better that ten poor people go hungry than take the risk that one crook might game the system.  Think about that.  Ponder it.  This is the direction we are headed.

Last year our Congress, Democrats and Republicans, voted to pull the plug on an organization whose purpose was to ensure that the disadvantaged of our country could still have a voice and be able to vote.  Some say “Acorn” was innocent and set up.  Some say “Acorn” had, if you will, some very bad seeds.  But we return to the new mantra.  Better that ten people lose their right to vote, than one person working to help them game the system. 

How did we get here?  I don’t think there’s a simple answer.  And that may be why no one is asking the question.  I mean, really, who has time to deal with something complex?  We want our answers simple.  We want them unambiguous.  And we want them now.  That’s a part of it.  In this complex world, we crave simplicity.  But that’s not an answer.

And I’m not here to propose answers – even if I had any, and I don’t.  I am here to beg us to ask the question.  And more than ask the question, to ponder it.  Why is this the direction we are moving?

This is all on my mind as I begin pondering next week’s sermon, “Remembering Lincoln: Greatness Does Not Mean Perfection”.  What is it that we value?  Where are our values?  Our values.  It’s easy enough to complain about other people – but what do we value, and why?

Gay Marriage: Church and State

With the state legislature passing a bill legalizing it, the question of gay or same-sex marriage is back in the headlines.  I heard an argument the other day that gay marriage is wrong because marriage must be between a man and a woman.  Why? – To ensure, the continuation of the human race!  But, if that’s the criteria, doesn’t it mean that no infertile man or woman should be allowed to marry?  Should a couple that chooses not to have children have their marriage annulled?  Doesn’t it mean that no senior should be allowed to marry? 

Others believe that gay or same-sex marriage somehow threatens the very institution of marriage.  But how?  If marriage is a committed relationship, it would seem to me that multiple affairs, and multiple marriages are far more threatening to the institution of marriage than acknowledging the right of committed gay couples to marry.

For me these both of these arguments are rationalizations, not reasons. 

This is about religion.  Some, both in politics and outside of politics admit they believe that same-sex marriage is an attack on God.  That’s the truth of the division.  Yes, there are blatant homophobics.  But essentially, for most, this is about faith.  This is about what we, and the spiritual paths we follow, believe marriage ought to mean. 

That’s not an unimportant question.  What our spiritual paths believe marriage ought to mean is deeply important – and, I believe, ripe for disagreement as to what Scripture really means.  But whatever Scripture “really means,” I also believe the state has no business sticking its nose into this spiritual matter – no business whatsoever.   

And yet  it has … for centuries.  By coupling marriage with religion, we have breached the walls of separation of church and state.  And yet the practice is so ancient, that most of us don’t realize it.

Other than blatant homophobic hysteria, I believe the major reason legalizing same-sex marriage is such a huge issue is that it makes for an irreconcilable mixing of church and state.  Why?  Because ministers, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders are called upon to perform marriages.  And marriage is a contract.

I count myself among those who believe there should be a high wall, a hugely high wall  of separation between church and state.  The framers of our Constitution believed so as well.  Article Six, Section III of the Constitution specifically states that there shall be no “religious test” required to hold public office.  As our country began, this was a real and emotional issue.  Several of the colonies prohibited Catholics and Jews from holding office.  Many demanded not only prohibiting “Papists” (their word for Catholics) and Jews, but also that only members of a particular Protestant denomination, theirs, could hold office.  The framers said, emphatically: “No.”  There is to be no religious test to hold office.  None.  Ever.  God is not mentioned in the Constitution – not because the Framers sought to abolish God (most believed in God), but because they sought a clear separation of Church and State.

Most people point to the “Establishment Clause” of the 1^st Amendment as the seat of religious freedom in the United States.  But the 1^st  Amendment was intended to enlarge the separation of Church and State, not create it. 

Now the House and Senate in the state of Washington has voted to legalize same-sex marriage.  And for many who voted against it, a vote to approve of this came down to a violation of their faith. 

Could (should) the state be involved in telling these State Senators and Representatives what to believe?  No.  Emphatically, no!  But should these Senators and Representatives be telling the state what should and should not be legal based on their faith?  Again, emphatically no! 

According to the Everett Herald (1 February, 2012), there are, for me, two hugely important parts to the bill.

1) “It would redefine marriage to be a civil contract between two people, regardless of their gender, rather than only between a man and a woman.”

2) “And the bill seeks to make clear that the freedom of religious leaders to refuse to conduct marriages of same-sex couples is protected.  It states that clergy, rabbis, imams and other religious officials, as well as churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions, cannot be sued for saying no.”

So why is there still a problem?  I believe it’s because we still haven’t dealt with the underlying issue – we still mix church and state when it comes to marriage.

Marriage is a contract.  It is a legal and binding contract.  It confers upon those who are married specific legal rights as well as obligations – with specific penalties and ramifications if we fail to live up to our contract – penalties and ramifications that are adjudicated by a court of law.  No minister is allowed to preside at a divorce!

Years ago, with regards to the segregation of the “races,” the Supreme Court decided that separate could not be equal.  I agree.  And the same holds true with the so-called “civil unions.”  Marriage confers very specific contractual and legal rights.  There can be no “separate but equal” status for gays who are “allowed” to have civil unions.

But, you may say, isn’t marriage something sacred?  Isn’t that why we refer to holy matrimony?  

Every church, mosque, synagogue and temple has the God given, and Constitutionally  guaranteed right to celebrate marriage as it sees fit.  Marriage in one faith community, may mean something different, and has the right to mean something different than it does in another.  We already acknowledge this where the Catholic Church may say, “We don’t recognize your divorce and you may not marry again,” and the state says, “Your divorce is legal, of course you may marry again.”

But it’s officiating at a marriage that crosses the line.  Marriage, we remind ourselves, has specific contractual and legal rights that are STATE and FEDERAL in nature. 

We are all acquainted, from movies if nowhere else, with the phrase, “With the power vested in me by the state of …. I now pronounce you man and wife.”  These days, many will say, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”  And one might also simply say, “I pronounce you married.”  Or one might say something else.  But the bottom line is that the state has “vested” clergy with the power to marry.  I can’t buy into that. 

As beautiful, as wonderful, as joyful as marriage is, or can be, I can’t buy into the state vesting clergy with that kind of power.  Proof of that power comes after the marriage ceremony where the clergy person signs a document, a legal document, acting as an agent of the state!  For me that blows a galaxy-sized hole into the idea of separating church from state.

And if you think I’m the first to propose this, you might be interested to know that countries like Italy and France, among others, allow only a Justice of the Peace to officially marry two people.  Celebrations can, and most often do, take place in churches, synagogues and mosques.  But the marriage contract itself is signed before a judge.