One more comment about election issues, then I am done. Last week I wrote about Prop 200, and its attempt to impose crushing debt loads on the poor.

This week I would like to say something about Prop 102, which is bound to get me more e-mails because it is about that favorite media topic, sex.

This proposition, the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" left me scratching my head. Doesn't Arizona law already define marriage as a union between a man and woman, and didn't voters already reject a similar initiative in the last election? Why are we going through this again?

I urge you to read the arguments on both sides, and you can find them at: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop102.htm. I did, and afterwards I was even more convinced that Prop 102 has nothing to do with upholding marriage and the family -- after all, everyone supports that. Rather it is a much more insidious attempt to exclude gay and lesbian partnerships from full protection under the law. Those who feel that homosexual unions are somehow a "threat" to the American family (Dad, Mom, 2.2 kids) seem determined to make sure that people who are in such unions will know that they are not welcomed in this state, even if their union is recognized elsewhere, hence the constitutional change. I suspect that as more states allow gay/lesbian marriage, the greater will be the perceived threat.

I do wish the supporters of Prop 102 would be honest about their goal instead of bombarding us with misleading ads showing happy family outings and children romping on the playground, implying that such things are somehow endangered by two people of the same sex being in love and wanting to spend their life together.

No matter what you might think about the acceptability of gay/lesbian unions, the way this issue is being presented is really a matter of equal protection under the law, and more important for some of us Christians, whether we are going to "respect the dignity of every human being," as we say in our baptismal vows.

I know that some of the faithful will disagree. The Roman Catholic leadership has come out in favor of the initiative. However, it surprises and disappoints me that after the courageous campaigning for the human rights of undocumented immigrants, that the Catholic leadership would turn their backs on oppressed people on their own doorstep.

Marriage is a complex topic. As the quote below shows, the concept of marriage has changed radically over the course of history. How we regard marriage has deep political, cultural, and religious foundations. I hope that we might look beyond our familiar assumptions and prejudices and do what is right for all God's people, even those who are different from us.

So, I am going join with the League of Women Voters, the mayors of both Phoenix and Tucson, and civil rights groups, and AGAIN say no to this effort to define the family and decide who is welcome in our state and who is not. In my church, all are welcome.

 

---

A Final Thought

 

Book report time: A propos of what was said above, I noticed this in the New York Times Book Review-as summarized by The Episcopal Café.

+Kirk

Susan Squire's new book, I Don't: A Contrarian History of Marriage, seems to be an aptly timed book for recent controversies in both the secular world and in the Anglican Communion:

"Various state supreme courts have been grappling with this conundrum as they try to determine whether to expand the definition of marriage to include gay couples, a question California voters are poised to answer in November. This has forced groups on both sides of the issue to struggle to define the essential purpose of marriage. Is it a religious sacrament or merely a civil allocation of property rights? Is marriage a way of optimizing the rearing of children or an ancient way of enforcing female chastity? In legalizing gay marriage in 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts insisted that marriage encourages "stable relationships over transient ones," "provides for the orderly distribution of property" and promotes "a stable setting for child rearing." The Washington State Supreme Court, in refusing to strike down that state's ban on gay marriage in 2006, rooted its logic in a view of marriage as an institution that exists to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families."

"It's a testament to our national confusion about the purpose of marriage that the courts can toggle this way between four or five rationales for such a union in a single judicial opinion, with little regard for any one coherent principle. In I Don't: A Contrarian History of Marriage, Susan Squire explains that this is because there is no single coherent principle behind modern marriage. As currently practiced, the institution is a hodgepodge of biblical, classical, courtly and Christian rules and mores. What we know as "marriage" is rooted in warring historical efforts at regulating procreation; tamping down sexual lust (especially female lust); and - only relatively recently - celebrating companionship and romantic love. Those of us who speak reverently about the sanctity of marriage must also acknowledge that modern matrimony is less a sacred vessel than a crazy quilt.

"It's not always easy to follow the hops and skips of Squire's logical structure, and at times her penchant for one-linery gets in the way of her argument as opposed to helping it along. But I Don't is a charming book and a wonderful resource for those who think they have a bead on why the church and everyone purporting to speak for the church got themselves so firmly entrenched in the marriage business in the first place. As we head into the presidential election, you may find yourself channeling Squire as you puzzle out your feelings about the Obama marriage (two parts Martin Luther, one part ancient Rome?) as well as that of the McCains (one part Eleanor of Aquitaine, two parts ancient Greece?).

"Marriage is one of the last manifestations of human optimism. And whether we aspire to perfect holiness or romance, the reality is almost certain to disappoint. As Oscar Wilde put it, "The only charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception necessary for both parties." I Don't reminds us we've been aspiring to such deceptions for thousands of years. That alone is reason to hope."