Ecclesial Implications of Marriage Equality

If, as I believe, the pendulum has swung in the direction of legalizing the marriages of gays and lesbians, the church will be forced to wrestle with its implications.  I've invited John, one of our frequent commentators and an attorney, to write a legal analysis of the Prop 8 decision.  From what I've been reading, its unlikely that the appellate courts will overturn the District Court ruling on legal grounds.  It is, therefore, likely that the case will go to the Supreme Court.  Should they hear it -- and generally that means that four justices agree to hear it -- then it will be interesting to see where this goes.  If things go as they generally do, the deciding vote will be Anthony Kennedy.  If this ruling stands, and it just might do so, then it has implications for the entire country.  If upheld, it could very well overturn gay marriage bans across the country.  Now there could be an effort to enshrine traditional marriage into the Constitution, but I don't think that this will fare well.  Amendments to the Constitution take a lot of time and effort, and the cultural trends are working against such an eventuality.

Therefore, I believe that the ball has been effectively placed in the court of the church (and other religious communities).  Although the legal ramifications could mean that the "state" could no longer refuse to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, and it could lead to the overturning of the "Defense of Marriage Act," which denies recognition to same sex couples on a statutory basis, this doesn't mean that churches have to recognize such marriages.  Clergy do act as agents of the state when they perform weddings, but they're not the only possible agents. 

So the question looms -- how will the church respond?  At least initially, I expect most ecclesial bodies will continue business as usual.  With few exceptions, most Christian denominations do not recognize gay unions of any kind, including marriage.  My own denomination, the Disciples of Christ, has taken no official position, so that really leaves it up to local congregations.  As for my congregation, we are only now beginning conversations about these issues (not just gay marriage, but homosexuality and the church in general).  We've not taken a position, and it is my stated view that I will not participate in such a marriage ceremony until the congregation has come to a consensus on the issue.  At this point, I simply don't know where the congregation will come out on this issue.  I know that there is openness, but traditions and cultural mores die very slowly, if at all.  Tradition may not be a useful argument in the court of law, but it is in the church. 

So, I'd like to open up the discussion as to what the implications for the church might be.  Let me put a caveat here -- I'd rather that we not reargue the question of whether or not Scripture casts homosexuality in a negative light -- we've had this discussion.  I'd rather not have this be about the legal aspects either -- hopefully John can shed light on that question.  What I'd like for us to do is have a "civil" conversation that wrestles with the implications for the church if Prop 8 is declared unconstitutional, which might make it legal across the vastness of this nation for people to marry same sex partners and receive all the rights and benefits currently accorded to heterosexual couples.   

Arizona, Immigration, and the Law

We heard just the other day that a Federal Court judge had put a stay on implementation of  much of the Arizona iimmigration law.  This stay is based upon the judge's belief that these aspects of the law overstepped constitutional boundaries, and intruded in federal jurisdictions.  It is a decision that is seemingly unpopular with many, one the Arizona governor Jan Brewer has appealed, and one the local sheriff apparently plans to flout.  But it is one applauded by many religious leaders, especially within the Roman Catholic Church.   

I recognize that the Arizona law is in part a reflection of frustration with the inability of the Federal Government to come to grips with immigration.  There have been attempts to rectify the situation, but there hasn't been the political will to accomplish reform, in part because there is no consensus on what  to do, as well as conflicting agendas.  There are business leaders who are largely Republican that want to broaden access for migrant workers, because they need these workers.  These are also the folks who are hiring undocumented workers.  On the other hand there are Democrats who are concerned about civil rights, and thus concerned about the civil rights issues involved, and yet they have constituents concerned about loss of jobs.  Then mix into this a growing nativism, and you have the foundations of a stalemate.

As for the law itself, it simply goes way to far.  Not only does it step on the toes of  the federal government, but it creates untold numbers of problems, including potential for abuse of civil rights.  Proponents of the law say they don't understand why there is all the fuss about producing documents.  But, most of these proponents are white and unlikely to ever be asked to produce such documents such as a birth certificate.  How many of us carry proof of citizenship?   Few if any.  But, if you're Latino, well that's different.  Why?  Because you fit the profile of someone who society believes might be here illegally.    Therefore, one could be a Brit living here illegally, probably having overstayed one's visa, or maybe even a Canadian, but no one would ask for documents, but one could be Latino, having lived here legally one's life, but be required to produce documents -- because they fit the profile.  Suspicions are based on profiles.  You can train the cops and mean well, but the pressure is on in Arizona to show results.  And so rights will be abused.     

Now, what would be best would be for Congress to get behind a reform measure that is realistic and that provides needed security.  I realize in today's political climate that's not likely, but this would be helpful.  It is also time for a broader discussion about immigration.  Why people have come here to the US, and why they continue to come.  Its time w reflect on the benefits that immigration provides to the nation.  After all we are a nation of immigrants.  Even Native Americans migrated here from Asia thousands of years ago.  We also need to recognize that migrants aren't the cause of drug related crimes.  Yes some are involved, but they're not the cause.  The cause is the insatiable appetite on the part of Americans for cocaine and other drugs, signs that the American "war on drugs" has been a failure.

My hope is that the Supreme Court will throw this law out so that we can get on with resolving the real problems.