Freedom of religion and gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision certain to be blasted as an assault on freedom of religion, has ruled that county clerks may not refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of religious objections.

This is as it should be.

The decision should be the final word in an argument that has been brewing ever since the court issued its 5-4 ruling on June 26, 2015, that recognized the right of same-sex couples in America to marry. Particularly in the South, a number of Christian conservatives reacted with dismay to the decision. One, Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., county clerk, actually went to jail rather than issue marriage licenses to gay couples, on the grounds that Christianity forbids her from having anything to do with supporting gay marriage. 

The basis for this sort of opposition is handful of places in the Bible that mention homosexuality, including two verses in Leviticus, a passage in Romans, and another passage in 1 Corinthians. Because these writings unequivocally present homosexuality in a negative light, Davis and her defenders have argued that they should not sign off on marriage licenses, and that the First Amendment protects that right.

They are wrong. The Supreme Court got this one right.

Some of my fellow Christians may disagree; however, I would point out firstly that those whose consciences are deeply troubled by same-sex marriage are free to leave jobs that require officiating at them or that in some way assisting with their processing. If we believe that there is a fundamental conflict between their faith and their job, our faith instructs us to place our faith first and recognize that we cannot meet the requirements of the job. Freedom of religion does allow us to make that choice. A lack of religious freedom would require us to stay in those jobs and perform those tasks.

More fundamentally, though, this does not rise to the level that we should feel it requires civil disobedience, nor should we pretend it does. Don't approve of same-sex marriage? OK, don't approve. The First Amendment grants you that right. There is no punishment for having a religious position on anything.

But if you take the view that same-sex marriage offends the Almighty, the best you can argue is that it offends him morally and not because it is an issue of justice that requires a principled stand. Look at all the prophets in the Bible. They were angry about things like workers denied wages, exploitation of the poor and the immigrant, and acts of cruelty. When the prophets warned of God's coming judgment, it was never because of gay people or same-sex relationships. Not even once.

Those other issues, though? Number-one theme of the Bible, Genesis through Revelation.

If we can't affirm the dignity and right of same-sex couples to marry, then let's at least stop fighting it, and focus our energies on the things that actually matter to God.



Copyright ©2016 by David Learn. Used with permission.

Doing the math and getting the social nature of relationships

I never thought of it this way before, but love is actually pretty mathematical.

Picture the beginning where boy meets girl. We'll call this Point A. A little over the X-axis and a little farther up on the Y-axis is when they fall in love. We'll call this Point B. A little more to the right, a little farther up, they get serious and become a couple.

Once you calculate the slope, you can find other points on the line: the first time they kiss, when they meet one another's parents, when they marry and so on. It's so simple and so straightforward, it's a linear progression,

It was like that for me and my wife. We met Homecoming weekend at my alma mater in fall 1994, a little more than two years after I had graduated. Point A.

We bumped into each other a few more times over the course of the school year, mostly because I lived in the city where the college was located, and the following June our relationship had its proper beginning as a romantic one. Point B. Three years later we married, and now here we are.

Of course it's not that simple. I never realized just what into forming that linear progression until a friend of mine spelled it out recently, My friend Liadan is gay, and only recently found a romantic partner. Here are her observations:

Before all this happened, I had no idea that relationships between two people would involve so much strategy and networking on the part of so many other people. It struck me during all this how... social dating is. It's not just about the two people involved; all these social connections are intertwined based on who knows who and what their relation to each other is. It's hard for me to conceptualize, being someone who builds friendships one by one, but there it is in all its six-degrees-of-separation glory: society.

In this sense, gay marriage bans can be constructed as an attempt to exclude gay people and their relationships from the community, partly to delegitimize them, since relationships outside the general social network and the auspices of legal obligation can be seen as less "real", and partly to make it harder for them to exist at all-- I wouldn't have known Iris even existed were it not for the people I knew that did know her, and it wouldn't have gotten to even this tentative stage were it not for the encouragement and social support of my friends. (I was frequently threatened with bodily harm for being
waffly on sending the invitations.)

Read the entire piece

I didn't meet the woman who would be my wife until I was 24. During the long years before then, people reassured me I just hadn't met the right woman yet, and obviously that's true. I just never considered the social network that was required for meeting her.

Let's break this down. I didn't just happen to be at my alma mater that Homecoming weekend. I was there specifically because of social connections I had made in college that I was planning to draw on that evening. I was visiting a chapter meeting of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students because of a social network I had built in college. When none of the people I knew arrived, I stuck around because of a tenuous relationship I'd established with one student who was there.

Secondly, I continued to return to campus that academic year because of the ties I had there as an alumnus and as a former member of a social organization on campus. In fact it was because of Kirby House that I returned to campus as often as I did, and continued to come into contact with Natasha, who was friends with two of the new Kirbs I had met independently and hit it off with.

The third point of contact was an explicitly social event, organized by an acquaintance of mine who invited me. Her roommate was friends with Natasha, and invited her. And lastly of course a friend of mine pushed me to take the risk and ask her on a date.

It was this vast web of social contacts that made our relationship possible, a web where heterosexual relationships are accepted as the norm. We didn't just meet and become attached. We had a social network facilitating the relatonship at every step of the way, deliberately or not, and providing us with repeated opportunities to interact and then to pursue a romantic relationship with one another.

And realizing all the advantages that even I had at my disposal for finding a romantic life partner, I suddenly have a sense of what the absence of such a network would mean to a gay person like Liadan.

Liadan has a network of friends, but in networks where being gay is considered abnormal, immoral or weird, finding someone to be with can be a problem. People who assume that you're straight won't make a point of introducing you to their single gay friend whom they also assume is straight.

Thanks to hurtful stereotypes of gays, in fact, they might not introduce you to anyone, if they do find out that you're gay. They may even stop seeing you and either cut you out of their circle of friends, or encourage others to cut you out as well. The effect is to leave the gay person isolated and removed from the social networks that people rely on for regular day-to-day living and company.

The odds of finding a partner were in my favor just by the numbers. It's socially expected to be straight and it's also more common. Only about 6 percent of the population is gay, which means that of 100 hundred people I might have in my extended network, about 47 of them are going to be heterosexual women. In a population that same size, Liadan might have found three gay women, including the possibility that some or all of them remain in the closet.

That crowd will shrink a bit once we eliminate women who already are in relationships, but it still easily may end in the teens or twenties. Pairing off with one of them doesn't end the social network. If anything, it brings it together as two formerly separate groups grow increasingly intertwined as they interact with the new couple.

Liadan's potential matches easily could drop from three to zero. If she connects with someone and word gets out that they're a couple, their social network could grow closer. In more conservative areas, the trend is for it to get smaller as people cut off contact with them.

Now there are social networks and structures intended specifically for gays to meet one another and to socialize, but they exist as a subculture that the larger society often considers deviant and unhealthy. Until the 1970s they were illegal, and even now they may still be targeted for other social ills like drug use, depending on the biases of the police and the community.

The single gay or lesbian can look for a partner at gay bars, gay clubs or other establishments aimed at the LGBTQ community, but there are risks even without raids. If a single gay person is still in the closet, she can run afoul of her community's censure and disapproval once she is seen at a gay-friendly establishment. She could lose family, friends, social outlets like church and even her job, since many states offer no protection against wrongful termination for gay workers.

There's also an increased risk of abuse or being played. When I called Natasha and even when I first met her, there were other people around who knew her and who would watch out for her interests. Until she felt comfortable with me, there were a dozen people or more whom she could call and check with to see if I was safe or had a bad reputation. A person entering a gay bar, or visiting a club often is going to lack those resources.

In other words, not only do our social norms make it harder for gays and lesbians to find partners, we push them to find alternatives that aren't as safe, and then punish them heavily if they find a way to balance the scales. By getting together with someone they love, they risk losing social standing, good-paying jobs and the relationships they've had their whole lives with church, with family and with friends.

And the message from the churches that push this sort of ostracism is "We're doing it because we love you."

I don't know how we live with ourselves.



Copyright © 2006 by David Learn. Used with permission.


Tweet

Municipal pool denies family membership to same-sex couple

The temperatures will be in the 80s for much of the next week, but don't expect to see Patti Jaworski at the pool, no matter how hot it gets.

It's not that she didn't try to get a pool membership before they expired. She tried. It's just that Jaworski and her same-sex partner were denied a family membership because they don't fit the township's definition of "family."

Township Attorney Joseph Triarsi, who wrote Jaworski and her partner a letter informing them of the township's decision, could not be reached for comment.

At the Township Council meeting when the question arose of whether to grant the requested family membership, his immediate advice was to reject it based on the legal definition of "family" of a married man and woman.

"They're not a recognized family unit," he said at the time.

Calls to the state Attorney General's Office on whether that distinction could be considered discriminatory were not returned.

The decision does not ban either Jaworski or her partner — an untenured elementary school teacher in another county, she asked not to be identified for fear of anti-gay discrimination — from joining the pool at the more expensive rate for singles.

They are not joining anyway.

"I want no part of it," Jaworski said Monday afternoon. "I'll just go to the beach. I'll just spend my money there."

The experience differs sharply from the experiences Jaworski claims to have had elsewhere in Clark.

It becomes all the more difficult to digest because she grew up in Clark and knows some of her elected officials from their days at Arthur L. Johnson Regional High School, including Mayor Sal Bonaccorso and 4th Ward Councilman Brian Toal.

"It was very disheartening to get this response," said Jaworski. "It was kind of like a slap in the face."

Discussion at the council meeting was virtually nonexistent, but Tuesday night Toal said he personally would have no problem with the family membership if the council's legal counsel had not recommended otherwise.

"The pool committee should have given us a directive, 'We have no problem with it,'" he said. "They threw it at the council, and our attorney said the state doesn't recognize it. That's where it stops."

Jaworski and her partner have no children. They been together for eight years, and held a private commitment ceremony four years ago.

"I really think the township is missing the boat," Jaworski, a Middlesex County high school health and physical education teacher, said Monday afternoon. "I'm really disappointed in their answer."

The two of them live on Lefferts Lane, in the house Jaworski grew up in.

Jaworski's quest for a family membership began toward the end of June when she visited the Clark pool office at the Charles H. Brewer Municipal Building.

There, she said, Assistant Pool Director Rose Tomchak told her to make the request in a letter to the Township Council, which denied it during its July 8 meeting.

"It's a sleepy little town and I think it just needs a few more years before it wakes up and realizes we're not the only couple in this situation," said Jaworski.

Despite her severe disappointment in the township's decision, Jaworski said she has no desire to make her case in court.

"As an educator, I always tell my students, 'Ask any questions, but when you ask any question, there's a 50-50 chance the answer will be no,'" she said. "What kind of educator would I be if I don't do what I'm telling my students?"

With the stipulation that the family couple be married, the policy at the pool also would preclude unmarried couples with children from family membership. No information was available at presstime to say whether this actually was the case.

 At the moment, no states in the union confer same-sex unions the same status as marriages, although Vermont recently recognized them as civil unions, a classification one step short of marriage.

"It's the 21st century," said Toal simply. "It's something that should be looked in with a legal standpoint in the near future."