the latest “Sightings”

Here are a few thought from Martin Marty about the speed of change in our society and how the Church responds to one aspect of change: marriage equality.

Gay Marriage Tidewater
— Martin E. Marty

David Cole captures readers’ attention with the observation that “the gay rights movement has achieved more swiftly than any other individual rights movement in history, not merely the impossible but the unthinkable.” A few years ago, writes Cole, “those who fought for the right to marry. . . the partner of one’s choosing, regardless of gender—were called crazy and worse, by many.” As things have turned out and are turning out they “have proven not foolish romantics, but visionaries.” While the move toward acknowledging the rights of gays has elicited enormous backlash—that needs no chronicling here—Cole can quote Ellen Goodman: “In the glacial scheme of social change, attitudes –about gay marriage] are evolving at whitewater speed.”

Cole pictures that Supreme Court decisions could rule in ways which would slow that speed, but “it seems certain that in the not too distant future, we will look back on today’s opposition” on this subject, “the way we now view opposition to interracial marriage—as a blatant violation of basic constitutional commitments to equality and human dignity.” If so, how do religious institutions and leaders regard these options? Many are seen as being among the stronger forces and voices on the “anti-“ side, but others are often public supporters on the “pro-“ side.

Weekly I find on my desk piles of print-outs on this “public religion” debate, but rarely make use of them in Sightings. For once, before the tidewater sweeps all these evidences aside, let me summarize what I read and hear on many fronts among the “antis.” Advice given them: 1) Pretend this change is not occurring and ignore it; 2) since that doesn’t work, mount fierce opposition in state and church; 3) since that works less well each year, work out strategies for living in the face of changes one cannot welcome; that approach works at least temporarily for some, but the these resisting forces are themselves conflicted and convincing only to the convinced; 4) point to downsides in ecumenical relations with “poor world” churches where the tidewater does not yet rush; 5) reappraise your arguments, converse with the “other”, and make your case.

They will hear other counsel, such as: 1) It’s all over. The culture has changed. Among those of college age, and millions of others, most don’t even know what the dammers of the tidewater are talking about. 2) Notice that partners in gay couples in thousands of Christian gatherings, including in their pulpits, are often observed, even by the uneasy, as being among the most dedicated members. Exclude them now?

Where the pro- and anti- folk converse, one overhears: “Does not the gay marriage movement violate Scripture, the presumed norm in most churches?” Advocates of gay marriage come back: they recognize that a couple of verses in each biblical Testament rule out homosexual acts as sin. However advocates deal with that, expect to hear something like: “Why select this issue?” They will go on: “In our parish, perhaps in the pulpit or in our family are—against more explicit biblical witness—divorced-and-remarried-to-divorced persons who are honorable and honored members. Why are they not disciplined or criticized?” Fall-back position: “But gay marriage is against Natural Law, so it’s simply wrong.” That works for many Catholics and some Protestants, but most in church and world are wary of citing Natural Law: “its teachings, when invoked, tend to match  what people have already decided, on other grounds, is right or wrong.

The tides rush on.

References

David Cole, “Getting Nearer and Nearer,” New York Review of Books, January 10, 2013.

Michael J. Klarman, From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Oxford University Press, 2012).

The Federal Budget

I don’t know if you follow the debate about the Federal budget, but to not know something about it requires one to watch the Disney channel or TV Land most of the time.  I read a lot of “news” and “opinion” on the web so I get my updates on Congress and the Federal Gov though several media sources some of which are in Europe because I find it interesting what that part of the world thinks about our country.  Paul Krugman writes for the New York Times and always has an interesting idea and argument about budget matters and because he is an economists, his thoughts are well organized and he weighs many, many variables in his writings about all things dollar related.  When it comes to the federal budget and understanding the deficit vs. GDP vs. taxes vs. spending one of the best things I’ve heard and read recently was that thinking of the federal debt and solving the debt problem like one would their own personal indebtedness is the wrong way to think about and solve the debt of our nation.  Contrary to some thinking we cannot debt snowball our way out of our situation nor can we “budget cut” our way out of this crisis.  Now, there is a lot of talk about passing this debt on to our children and fear that our nation will end up like Greece without the recognition, or understanding, that our economy and their economy are based on a different system.  Ours is a consumption economy that is not consuming in the same way to reward those that bet on high levels of consumption.  One would think that in a consumption based economy business and government would make it easier for consumers to “consume” and one way to do that would be to, on the nation’s credit card, “give” the 98% money that would circulate into the economy again and drive the demand that consumption economies need.  What would you do with $10-$25 thousand dollars that were tax free?  We are, my companion and I, working to consume less which means we are not supporting the consumption economy at levels that would help it become healthy again.  We buy the things we need rather than the things we want.  As a side note, what is disappointing is the number of “Christians” that have forgotten God’s preference for the poor and that Jesus lived more as a socialists than a capitalists.  His was an argument with how culture was organized and how religion supported that unjust system.  It’s an argument that continues to be relevant today, but one would not know that by listening to the TV personalities of conservative, evangelical, and orthodox Christianity representing Protestants and Catholics today.

The debt this nation currently carries is rooted in former President George W. Bush waging war on the nations credit while lowering taxes more than President Obama’s stimulus package, which is improving the roads here in Oklahoma, or the Affordable Health Care Act.  Bush’s tax plan extracts money upward while the Republican party argues that wealthy people and corporations are “job creators” and those dollars will “trickle” down to the 98%.  That’s an over simplified explanation that I think rightly describes one point of view.  I would like a serious news organization to study what “wealthy” means in 21st century America?  I think it means an economic level where money is working for you more than you are doing physical work.  I think it means being in an economic position where no matter what the stock market does you will live comfortably out of your bank account.  Are you wealthy?

Paul Krugman is helpful in his latest article about the “fiscal cliff” and the impending battle of the debt ceiling and the federal budget.  For my part, I’m going to read a few notes from an MIT economics class and get better educated about micro and macro economics, GDP, and some history to help my understanding of our context.  That’s the only way I know to speak intelligently and be part of a solution that enables my mother-in-law and my parents to keep the social security and medicare benefits even it if means that it won’t be around when I become their age.  Honestly, I thought it would have imploded by now. Here is a paragraph or two and a link.

Battles of the Budget
Paul Krugman | The New York Times | January 3, 2013

For the reality is that our two major political parties are engaged in a fierce struggle over the future shape of American society. Democrats want to preserve the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and add to them what every other advanced country has: a more or less universal guarantee of essential health care. Republicans want to roll all of that back, making room for drastically lower taxes on the wealthy. Yes, it’s essentially a class war.

According to the normal rules of politics, Republicans should have very little bargaining power at this point. With Democrats holding the White House and the Senate, the G.O.P. can’t pass legislation; and since the biggest progressive policy priority of recent years, health reform, is already law, Republicans wouldn’t seem to have many bargaining chips.

But the G.O.P. retains the power to destroy, in particular by refusing to raise the debt limit — which could cause a financial crisis. And Republicans have made it clear that they plan to use their destructive power to extract major policy concessions.  Click here to read more.