Jessica

Vozel

Read Jessica's bio and previous columns here

December 15, 2008

The Strong Religious (And Even Better Non-Religious) Case for Gay Marriage

Last week, my North Star Writers Group colleague Bob Maistros wrote a column denouncing Lisa Miller’s Newsweek piece on “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” He called the piece, among other things, “snarky sophistry” and inferior to a freshman term paper. I teach freshman composition, so I know a bit about what makes an argument drivel and what makes it actually worth listening to. And while her argument has holes, Miller is worth listening to.

According to Maistros, for gay Americans and their supporters, “simply to have the argument is a victory.” Victory? Really? That Maistros equates a single, thoughtful biblical analysis of love and love relationships with “the other side” trying to usurp the religious gay marriage debate is ludicrous. The defeat of gay rights legislations in several states last month makes clear who is still in charge. In truth, the gay community doesn’t have much of a reason to celebrate. Sure, there’s a liberal administration about to take office, but not one that is willing to grant them the right to marry. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 in California took away the right to marry that had been granted to them. The “equal footing” that Maistros mentions is non-existent.   

On my way home for the holidays, I listened to a segment of Chicago Public Radio’s This American Life about former evangelical powerhouse Carlton Pearson, who was labeled a heretic by pentecostal bishops when he began teaching what he called The Gospel of Inclusion – that no one, not even homosexuals or Muslims, are going to hell, because there isn’t one. When Jesus saved us from our sins, says Pearson, he also saved us from eternal damnation. All of us. Pearson, once an adviser to the White House and head of a church of 5,000 members, told a story of preaching at a San Francisco church as a guest preacher after his fall from evangelical favor.  

In San Francisco, Pearson preached the Gospel of Inclusion to a diverse congregation led by his friend, a lesbian woman. Afterward, a gay man in the front row danced down the aisle and whispered to Pearson’s friend, “You saved my life today.” Meanwhile, Pearson was out of earshot but he had a strong feeling that the young man’s life had been saved by what happened that day. Shunned by his family and HIV-positive, the young man was thinking of ending his own suffering, but hearing that God accepted him changed everything. Would God denounce a life saved? Does the gospel of love and fairness trump the gospel that calls homosexuality an abomination? In terms of making the world a better place, it should. But since none of us are God, we can’t know. 

Maistros calls Miller’s piece “seductive” and he’s right. Miller is seductive because it’s nice to believe that, as she suggests, love could win out. Plus, she makes great – though not new – points: that, in the Bible, divorce is denounced at length, slavery is sanctioned and adultery is punishable by death. Why do we exalt some parts of scripture but call others archaic?

Both pieces, however, miss a middle ground. Both Miller and Maistros assume that gay marriage should be discussed in the language of religion. Not of human rights or of Constitutional rights, but of religion. What about those who aren’t religious and don’t form opinions or make decisions based on a deity? Not until the gay marriage debate is located outside of religion can real progress be made. This may seem impossible, but consider slavery. No one considers slavery a religious debate anymore.  

Regardless, the homosexual community is a long way from any sort of victory, and not because they don’t want a victory, as Maistros suggests, but because the discourse will have to change, and a lot of Americans will have to change their minds and, in some cases, their deeply held religious principles (or political agendas). 

Gay Americans are not looking to extend the debate to push the anti-gay proponents into “collapse and confusion” or “exhaustion and disarray.” They just want to be listened to, and eventually made equal. 

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # JV071. Request permission to publish here.