In the furor over Rich Warren being selected to give a prayer at the inauguration, what is ignored is that the country is moving towards the position of allowing gay marriage. Sometimes good things that happen get almost no notice, while there are endless threads spewing rage over something that likely means less. I suspect that the Obama team, feeling their base was securely and happily behind him did not fully realize the hurt that would be felt by many over this pick. They likely saw the prayer as a near costless olive branch to give an evangelical group still leery about Obama as President.
Recently, Newsweek had this cover story -
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653. The story makes the case that gay marriage is consistent with the values of Christianity. Now, many here will immediately say that religion has no place in defining civil rights. I agree, but this article is not for you - it is to make a case to people who have felt there is a conflict between the values their faith teaches them and gay marriage. To me, the significance is that the idea that a major newsweekly would not only write this, but have it as the cover story is something that I doubt even 4 years ago people thought likely.
Here is an excerpt:
"Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.
<snip>
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
There were also hundreds of threads - and there should have been - on prop8 in California, but I saw none on the shift in NJ.
In October, 2006, Governor Corzine preferred civil unions to gay marriage - like most Democratic politicians.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E1DE153FF934A15753C1A9609C8B63Now two years later, here is a December 20 2008, NYT op-ed on Governor Corzine's comments in favor of gay marriage. The op-ed starts with a stronger statement advocating for gay marriage than any I have ever seen in the NYT - I didn't see this posted on DU - though it would have been a bright oasis in the midst of the Warren threads.
"Civil unions are an inadequate substitute for marriage. Creating a separate, new legal structure to confer some benefits on same-sex couples neither honors American ideals of fairness, nor does it grant true equality. The results are clearly visible in New Jersey, which continues to deny same-sex couples some of the tangible civil benefits that come with marriage.
Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey has long said that he would sign a measure granting the right to marry to couples of the same sex. We are heartened that he has declared that that should happen sooner rather than later.
We hope Mr. Corzine intends to prod legislators into passing such a law early in the 2009 session. That would make New Jersey the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples through legislative action. Three other states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have done so through the courts. Unfortunately, California voters approved a ballot measure in November rescinding that right, at least for now.
Mr. Corzine made his statement after a state commission released its final report on New Jersey’s two-year-old civil union law. The commission noted the hurt and stigma inflicted by shutting out gay people from the institution of marriage. It also found that civil unions do not assure gay couples of the same protections, including the right to collect benefits under a partner’s health insurance program and to make medical decisions on behalf of a partner who is unable to do so. The panel concluded unanimously that the state should enact a law to remove the inequities. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/opinion/20sat4.html?scp=1&sq=Corzine%20gay%20marriage&st=cseJust as we need to step back and really see what we have won in getting Obama elected, we need to recognize the gains - rather than always giving more energy to the times we lose. This was the NYT and Newsweek - pillars of the establishment. There is change coming.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
