Our proposal for a new statute requiring private warnings and acknowledgements can also be applied at the individual level. Instead of just thinking of the duty to warn as a legislative mandate, we might start thinking of discrimination warnings as a personal moral duty of both the discriminatory organizations and their members.
Take for example my church . . .
I’m Episcopalian (and have been teaching Sunday school for the last three years). The Episcopalian Church still discriminates against same sex couples. I can religiously marry the woman I love, but my sister who is gay cannot religiously marry the woman that she loves.
[Now some readers do not accept the characterization of this marriage prohibition as being a type of discrimination. But imagine for moment that you did consider it to be a form of invidious discrimination. Or imagine for a moment that the church that you loved engaged in a form of invidious discrimination on some other dimension (such as gender).]
What should I do in response to this discrimination? Well, Jennifer and I worked hard in getting the vestry of our local parish, St. Thomas in New Haven, to pass a resolution requesting that the clergy of the parish consider same-sex candidates for marriage on the same basis as different-sex candidates. The movement for the resolution was spear-headed by a group of heterosexual couples who wanted their children to grow in a church that truly embraced equality.
But the Bishop in short order called us on the carpet saying that Canon law did not allow same-sex marriage. He forbade us from ending the discrimination by religiously marrying same-sex couples.
This is a point where the moral duty to warn kicks in. My parish was prohibited from marrying same-sex couples, but neither the bishop nor the cannon law prohibit us from warning potential members that the Episcopalian church treats same-sex couples differently than different sex couples. We might even require our current members to sign statements acknowledging that they are choosing to associate with an organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation with regard to marriage.
Isn’t there a moral duty to warn people about things that they might find repugnant — especially if you find it repugnant? Reasonable people can make different choices about whether it is appropriate to work for change inside or outside a discriminatory organization. But if you’re working for change inside, you should at least let a potential member know that he or she is making this kind of choice.
Just the act of private acknowledgement is a power force for change. Few organizations or people could distribute such warnings or make such acknowledgements without doing something more.
Indeed, it natural to move from acknowledgement to apology and action — the three A’s. A church in warning about its mandated policies of discrimination would have a powerful calling to go forward and apologize for the discrimination that it is for the moment saddled with. And ultimately acknowledgement and apology would be a powerful impetus for action to change the underlying discrimination itself. Acknowledgement and apology is not a stable equilibrium – something has to give.
It’s hard to acknowledge that you associate with a discriminatory organization. Here’s a personal exercise that you can complete right now in the privacy of your home or cubicle. Do you attend a church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation on whom it will marry? Can you bring yourself to literally sign your names to these words: “I acknowledge that I am choosing to associate with a church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation”?
Here’s a confession. Jennifer and I believed that we were doing this, but we couldn’t bring ourselves to put pen to paper.
We delivered from this dilemma by Rector. The bishop wouldn’t let us marry same sex couples. But Father Michael Ray ended discrimination another way. For now, St. Thomas will not marry either same- or different-sex couples.
One thing to consider – while you may consider such a declaration as a warning, others may look to it as a certification. “My church certifies that they won’t marry same-sex couples!”. This can be extrapolated into any dimension (social, business, governmental).
I’m not sure if that is a positive or negative spin on it. It could further serve to polarize our society, ensuring that people with certain opinions only mix with “their own kind” on many more levels.
Funny I was just thinking about a similar problem with regard to Military Recruiters on College campuses. Some schools have not given access comparable to Corporate recruiter to Military recruiters. Several of the school state that the Military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policys violate the schools non-discrimination policies, this puts the school in trouble because of the Soloman Amendment.
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i36/36a00101.htm
Now I believe that the Military should be able to effectively recruit on campus… And to be compliant with the Soloman amendment and the schools non-discrimination policies I think that the postings for interviews recruitment should force the employer (Military) to state “We discriminate based on sexual orientation (or whatever).”
Then I was thinking that this probably not the best marketing action for a discriminating organization. Maybe it would help solve two problems at once.
It’s hard to acknowledge that you associate with a discriminatory organization. Here’s a personal exercise that you can complete right now in the privacy of your home or cubicle. Do you attend a church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation on whom it will marry? Can you bring yourself to literally sign your names to these words: “I acknowledge that I am choosing to associate with a church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation”?
if you and your co-author cannot, how can you expect others less enlightened than yourselves to do so? with all due respect ian ayres extending equal rights to homosexuals is not a religious issue, it is purely a civil rights matter and should preferrably be discussed only in this context.
following the theme of labels… here is a little exericise that we three blind mice like to play. whenever the words “sexual orientation” are used, we simply replace them (as appropriate) with the word “race.” (john lennon wrote that “woman is the nigger of the world,” but he was getting ahead of himself. homosexuals are.)
try this on for size:
I acknowledge that I am choosing to associate with a church that discriminates on the basis of race.
that doesn’t sound very nice, does it?
here’s another from “the top 40 reasons to vote for george bush”:
number 6: George Bush is a strong supporter of a Federal Marriage Amendment which is the only way to stop liberal judges from imposing gay marriage on the states against the wishes of the voters and State Legislatures.
George Bush is a strong supporter of a Federal Marriage Amendment which is the only way to stop liberal judges from imposing racial equality on the states against the wishes of the voters and State Legislatures.
the nerve of him.
and one more, just for fun, in an earlier posting you wrote:
One point I should be up front about: Straightforward is unabashedly written for an audience that is already on board with the idea of equality for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The book does not attempt to marshal arguments against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
One point I should be up front about: Straightforward is unabashedly written for an audience that is already on board with the idea of racial equality. The book does not attempt to marshal arguments against discrimination on the basis of race.
such a book should not have to be written in 2005.
et cetera, ad nausea
this is a civil rights issue. nothing more, but certainly nothing less. taking the words of your opponents and changing just one label shows them to the bigots that they are. laws against homosexual marriage are jim crow laws.
now the question for you is this: you seem like a decent person, if your church discriminated on the basis of race, would you be teaching sunday school, or heading for the door?
Isn’t there a moral duty to warn people about things that they might find repugnant …?
No.
People aren’t themselves morally implicated in repugnant conduct they don’t know about, first of all. If I’m a member of a church that discriminates, and I support it in ignorance, there’s no stain on my soul (so to speak) for that ignorance. So I’m not harmed by the ignorance. Again, I’m free to leave once I find out.
I think part of the problem here is a salience one. All that research (noted by Professor Hanson all over the place for example) about cognitive biases seems to suggest that publicizing this sort of behavior specially would lead to over-weighting. So if I form an organization that feeds millions of hungry children in africa, and by the way is opposed to abortion rights, and I have to give our a disclosure saying “I oppose abortion rights” — even if I pair that with a statement about the millions of children fed — I promote the abortion issue to a position of equal importance with the feeding millions of people issue, and deter people from feeding the millions. This is just silly.
I really don’t see why current law is deficient except as to employers. Obviously, employers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation — but churches, etc? Why is current law failing to handle the problem? If a church discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, it eventually comes out — either by common knowledge, by scandal, or by activists exposing it. Why does the law need to help?
I want to second Paul Gowder’s opinon above. Most people when they join an organization do not agree with 100% of the organization’s beliefs/policies. There is not an infiinite variety of churches/organizations/etc to join, so a person must pick something that is the best fit of the given options, even if they are personally oposed to individual aspects of a group’s policies or beliefs.
For example, in the church I attend, members are asked to agree to certain core doctrines upon membership. While the church has beliefs on many other issues, a prospective member is not required to agree with them, and many members do not agree with all of them. It is recognized that within Christianity there are many sincere believers that, while agreeing on the basic tenents of the faith, may disagree over other points — including whether or not the Bible does or does not call homosexuality a sin!
Requiring a person to sign a statement, whether today it be about discrimanatory policies or tomorrow it be about abortion or patriotism, I think gives the prospective organization member the feeling that they must agree with this belief in order to join, even if that is not what the statement says.
People have the right to ask questions of any organization they join to find out about any policy or belief that interests them. If the organization won’t tell you, then don’t join! If you don’t like what they say, then don’t join. Some people may actually prefer to remain in the dark about what an organization believes. That should be their right as well if they want to be ignorant.
Good point, three blind mice… I’m shocked that no one’s thought of it before. If you equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with racial discrimination, then it’s an open-and-shut issue for everyone who’s not racist.
If, on the other hand, you think that the distinction means something, then it’s not.
Paul Gowder makes an excellent point. If you think that this is THE singular most important issue in our society, then this law makes sense. If not, it’s just another activist accusing institutions that disagree with her of hiding the ball.
And to make my own point, I don’t think this is a worthy cause for a statute. I sometimes wish that schools that admit students on the basis of demographic characteristics or athletic talent would be forced to say so explicitly, or that students admitted through affirmative action or athletic scholarships might sign statements that said that they were not academically on par with their classmates. But then I wonder if my moral indignation is worth forcing so many others to put up with that sort of headache. I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t
Paul Gowder makes an excellent point. If you think that this is THE singular most important issue in our society, then this law makes sense. If not, it’s just another activist accusing institutions that disagree with her of hiding the ball.
a “truth in discrimination” law makes no sense until there is a general acceptance that said discrimination is wrong. this is the whole problem with brown and ayers approach. they are starting from the wrong place. they assume that a general agreement exists when it most certainly does not.
the problem is not that discrimination against gays and lesbians exists, the problem is that it is wholly acceptable. the problem is that george bush can be a strong supporter of federal legisiation “to stop liberal judges from imposing gay marriage on the states against the wishes of the voters and State Legislatures” and get away with it.
it was liberal judges who imposed civil rights on the southern states against the wishes of the voters and the state legislatures. as an american this is something to be PROUD of, not something to hold in contempt.
there is no need for a fair employment mark. america already has the EOE mark: “company X is an equal opportunity employer.” it is ubiqutous and it should apply to all citizens. don’t re-invent the wheel.
a “fair employment mark” is redundant and perhaps counterproductive. why single out gays and lesbians when they are already singled out? civil rights are everyone’s rights.
frankly it would be better to set up water fountains that say “heterosexuals only” or put signs on rest room doors that say “straight only” or to press for legislation that requires gays and lesbians to wear the pink triangle of nazi germany. (to protect the childrens!) get focus on the family and the other right wing christian organizations to support these measures – or force them to argue against it.
in order to combat discrimination you first have to convince people that it is wrong. the best way to do this is by drawing parallels to other forms of discrimination that most reasonable people accept are wrong. let’s call a spade a spade.
until you get there, you are wasting your time.
I support the notion put forward by three blind mice that drawing parallels between sexual orientation and other personal characteristics (especially race) helps to reveal the impact of discriminatory laws and practices and the moral choices we make all the time. Ian and I try to draw these parallels at various points in our book, and will do so in a coming post on marriage.
Three blind mice says this is the “best” way to show people that sexual orientation discrimination is wrong; I agree it is one effective way, but it’s certainly not the only way. Personal stories about our friends, family members, and others we care about can also persuade. The point is not to bypass the moral conversation; we’re looking for new ways to start it and to get more heterosexuals involved in it.
We’re not trying to prescribe a single way to be an effective advocate for gay rights. What works best will depend upon the context, the audience, and the ally’s own personality and experience. Our attempt in Straightforward is to explore many, and varied, strategies for heterosexual allies who want to be involved the gay rights movement. What works for some will not work for all. The “nutty” ideas that we propose today might be refined or adapted by others tomorrow. The goal is to bring some new energy, even creativity, to a shared sense of purpose — promoting equality.
Um, this isn’t just an Episcopalian issue. (Or Catholic, or Southern Baptist, etc.) Nor is it merely a question of what the churches’ current policies. To the best of my knowledge, every Christian denomination in existence includes the writings of Leviticus and the Apostle Paul in its holy texts. These contain rather virulent anti-homosexual statements, as the fundamentalists are so fond of pointing out.
Even the most liberal/progressive denominations that welcome gays still have this stuff in their Bibles. Isn’t this rather like states that have anti-sodomy laws but say it doesn’t matter because they don’t enforce them?
Jens hits the nail on the head, perfectly.
Sexual acts (not attraction, but acts) have a moral significance. It is an essential role for a church to instruct and encourage its members to a moral life according to its tenets. “What must I do to attain eternal life?” is the question posed to Christ, who answers “Keep the commandments”. But the question of what those commandments are is central to the definition of a religious organization.
So a church cannot have it both ways without losing its relevance. If a church or denomination wishes to sanctify a union between two people, including the sexual acts that are to follow from that union, they must do so honestly, as a matter of Truth and God’s commandments. If there is something in the most sacred writings that conflicts with the actions of that church, the church must face the conflict and deal with it squarely and theologically. Otherwise, that church will lose its meaning — when members receive no answers to big questions, a church becomes just a club.
“What must I do to attain eternal life?” is the question posed to Christ, who answers “Keep the commandments”. But the question of what those commandments are is central to the definition of a religious organization.
rodander, christian churches routinely marry people who work on sunday, who use god’s name in vain, who covet their neighbor’s property, who are divorced, who have engaged in heterosexual sex outside of marriage, who eat shrimp and shellfish, etc, etc, etc.
and yet they won’t marry homosexuals because it goes against church teaching???
perhaps you can reconcile these sickening contradictions, we three blind mice cannot fail to see the hypocrisy.
if “eternal life” means spending eternity with people who think like you, then we will prefer hell.
ain’t nothing we would rather do.
going down, party time,
and our friends are gonna be there too….
Three, your question is easy.
The church sanctifies and blesses marriages, and the marriage relationship including its sexual aspects, when it carries out a marriage. In some denominations, marriage is sacramental.
We all sin, however. The church does not bless and sanctify our sins, saying they are a good thing and that we are to keep on sinnin’. Rather we contritely confess our sins and errors, and promise to sin no more, and we can receive forgiveness. And we go out and try to do good, but then we sin again and back we go.
So perfection is not required to be married. Nor does the church bless our sins that we will commit, even tho it knows we will sin again. But in the same way, the church cannot bless a marriage if the sexual acts that it knows will be a fruit of the union are (according to its teachings) sinful. And if it does, as you point out (sort of), it would be hypocritical.
But you don’t buy any of this anyway (given your eternal life comment). So why do you care what churches do? And really, since you would rather be in hell then spend time with “with people who think like [me]”, why do you care at all what the Boy Scouts or the more orthodox churches do or think or say? You apparently don’t want to join what I join anyway. Why make groups that you have no interest in go through the motions of having members sign “discrimination” oaths and post signs and fight lawsuits?
I have an answer in mind. I’ll just wait for yours to see if it is the same as what I am thinking.
Why make groups that you have no interest in go through the motions of having members sign “discrimination” oaths and post signs and fight lawsuits?
thank you for a very good answer rodander.
1. we do not all “sin.” speak for yourself please. sinning means offending god and that implies that god has something to do with humanity which is a notion we (with good conscience and complete serenity) soundly reject as a false premise.
2. we do not in principle support the notion of attaching warning labels to religion, or requiring members to sign an oath. churches do that well enough all by themselves.
3. what we want is for religious groups to keep their dangerous, medieval ideology away from civil laws. if your church does not wish to “sanctify” gay marriage, that is your perogative. when churches attempt to influence the state (as they have been doing) they cross the line into our territory. on this side of the line, churches should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes: dangerously addictive and harmful to health, liberty, and children.
Thanks, three. I am glad I answered the hypocrisy question you had. It was a fair question.
Your answer is candid, to be sure.
And you have now distinguished your point of view from the author of the original blog post, who wanted her church to either change to fit her way, or to travel her path of “acknowledge, apologize, and act”. I prefer yours to hers, to be honest. She would rather have her church be eviscerated of meaning (no marriages for anyone) than either accept its theology, or let the church theologically sort out the issue.
But I also fear that you want to keep me and those like me out of the politial process, in rather a totalitarian way. Let’s say my religion informs my views on civil law and politics (it does). Are my views disqualified because of that? May I not participate in civil politics? May I not lobby for a law that is consistent with my moral views, but that does not run afoul of the establishment clause? Or if I do, then I must be labeled as such and disqualified?
Civil laws are not “your” territory. They are mine, too. Convince me you are right, and I’ll go with you. But don’t fence me out of the discussion. You want my mind to be open, fine — it is. Just you do the same.
rodander describes me this way: “She would rather have her church be eviscerated of meaning (no marriages for anyone) than either accept its theology, or let the church theologically sort out the issue.” Wrong.
Even without marriages, my church has plenty of meaning. And this is not to denigrate the importance of marriage as a sacrament and spiritual experience for many people. But I just don’t see differences over who can be married as central to the faith. Please, someone, show me where Jesus says that homosexual sex is per se sinful. Seems he had other fish to fry (so to speak): making peace, caring for the poor, doing justice, being merciful, etc.
You know, the paradox is that I think our parish has been most meaningful, most alive, in our struggles — that is, when we’re not all in agreement but we’re trying hard to stay unified (that feels authentic — people are revealing some raw truth about themselves and we’re working through it all together).
I think Rodander misunderstands the purpose of the moritorium our rector declared, so let me say a bit more about it. Granted, it primarily served to reconcile the vestry’s call for equal treatment of same-sex and different sex couples with canon law’s requirement that marriage be celebrated only between a man and a woman. But the moritorium also gives our parish a kind of cooling off period in which to study, talk with one another, pray, and try to discern the right course. As Joni Mitchell so wisely said, “you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.” Why is marriage important to a faith community? Perhaps giving it up for a while clarifies that in helpful ways. If marriage is important for consecrating the love of couples as a sign of God’s love — couldn’t that be true of committed, monogamous couples whether they are same sex or different sex? The moritorium creates some space for asking these questions, for finding meaning, not eviscerating it. And in this sense the moritorium is part of letting the church “theologically sort out the issue.”
We can pretend that we have reached “the end of racism” and continue to ignore the question. But that’s just plain stupid. We can acknowledge that racism still exists and celebrate diversity, but avoid the political, economic, and social consequences of white supremacy. But, frankly, that’s just as stupid. The fact is that most of the white population of the United States has never really known what to do with those who aren’t white.