In his much-discussed First Things article, Bearing Better Witness, Rev. Ron Sider offers his view of the same sex marraige debate. I submitted a letter to the editor of First Things, and chose not to participate in the on-line discussion, pending publication of the printed letter. I am pleased to say that my letter was the first of several in this issue of First Things. I am not so pleased to say that Rev. Sider did not answer the very pointed question I posed to him. The letters and his response are available on-line, only to subscribers. Here is the letter I sent:
Liberal Evangelical Ron Sider wrote a thoughtful article in First Things regarding the definition and redefinition of marriage.
He makes a strong case in favor of the ancient Christian and indeed natural understanding of marriage. He attempts to “balance” his article by simultaneously chiding Evangelicals for a) not being sufficiently supportive of the problems of gays and lesbians, and for b) not doing enough to strengthen the institution of marriage.
As a Roman Catholic, I was actually delighted to see both of these exhortations. The Catholic Church takes care of more HIV/AIDS victims than any non-governmental organization on the planet. The late Cardinal O’Conner of NY quietly but ultimately famously, visited AIDS patients in his hospitals. And the Catholic Church stands virtually alone in its forthright embrace of even the most difficult sayings of Jesus, and the whole of the ancient teaching on marriage, including the prohibitions on divorce, adultery and premarital sex.
Yet taking these counter-cultural positions has not protected the Catholic Church in the slightest from the condemnation of those determined to recreate marriage in their own image. On the contrary, the consistency of the Catholic position is considered further evidence of intransigence, insensitivity and all-around medievalism.
But it is Ron Sider’s last paragraph that really gives me pause.
I see no problem with a carefully written law that defines a number of rights as part of a legally recognized civil union. That does not mean that those rights should include everything but the name of marriage. Given the purpose of marriage law, some rights and benefits—specifically those designed to strengthen the likelihood that children grow up with both biological parents—belong only to those who are married and not to those in civil unions. That would be fair, and also a test. If the gay community’s real agenda is to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle, the community will reject civil unions. If the agenda is, as many now claim, to gain appropriate benefits and rights, the gay community will accept civil unions and not press for gay marriage.
Rev. Sider, I hate to break the news to you, but this “test” has already been conducted and the results are plainly in. The entire community of those seeking to recreate marriage rejects civil unions. This community includes not only the leading gay activist groups, but also the “feminist,” abortion and sex education advocates as well as the whole academic, legal and media infrastructure that sustain them.
In case you are not convinced, I offer two words: Proposition 8. The people of California created a comprehensive and ample system of domestic partnerships, with nary a peep of complaint from Evangelicals or anyone else. They were motivated by precisely the concerns Rev Sider cites, fairness and desire to support suffering brothers and sisters. But domestic partnerships were nowhere near enough to satisfy the sex radicals. It was they who brought the lawsuit decrying domestic partnerships as intrinsically discriminatory. That lawsuit stimulated the Proposition 8 campaign. And now, for their trouble, the voters of California are essentially on trial in the Ninth Circuit. The more than seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 face the charge that the largest grassroots campaign in history, was motivated by no legitimate concern and had no rational basis.
Sider’s test has been conducted. The “gay community” has categorically rejected civil unions. What further evidence do we need that, as Sider puts it, “the gay community’s real agenda is to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle? More to the point, now that we have that evidence, I do hope that I will see Rev Sider joining the rest of us, Catholic, Evangelicals, Mormons and Orthodox Jews, as we defendnatural marriage vigorously in the court of law and public opinion.
What say you, Regular Ruth Readers? Is Rev. Sider’s test a valid test of the motives of the same sex marriage advocates? If so, do you believe his proposition has been adequately tested? And if the answer to both these questions is yes, what demands does that place on Rev. Sider and the believers he is addressing?
Discuss.