I
Interesting piece by the novelist Edmund White in The Guardian, that takes on the argument, as put rather polemically here, that gay marriage is inherently conservative and shouldn’t be seen as such an object of progress:
“If the president has “evolved” in his affirmation of gay marriage, so have I. Originally I was opposed to gay assimilation and targeted gay marriage as just another effort on the part of gays to resemble their straight neighbours. When the president “came out” he was careful about mentioning the many gay couples he knew, even some in government, who had loving, “committed” relationships and who were parenting children. All pretty suburban, in my opinion. Must we be among the “good gays” in order to win our civil rights? If we’re too sexual, if we’re wearing drag or leather, if we have multiple partners, if we’re seropositive, will we be thrust beyond the pale? What if we don’t want to live with the same partner for many years or adopt a Korean daughter and join the parent-teacher association?
But I became pro-marriage equality once I realised how opposed to it the Christian right is in our country.Europeans forget that one-third of the American people have had a personal conversation with Jesus Christ and that the born-again are not just little old ladies in black but also CEOs and provosts of universities and candidates for office. The Republicans are the party of the rich, of the top 1% of the population. If they are going to command majorities, they must invent phony “moral” issues that will appeal to their middle-class constituents. The assault against women’s reproductive rights is one such issue; a similar struggle against gay marriage is the other leading issue in the culture wars.”
(Well, I’m a European and I’d like to know more about this claim. What exactly is a ‘personal conversation with Jesus Christ’ - isn’t that basically what prayer is supposed to be, or does conversation therefore imply that (you think) he answers back? Or is this the ‘coming to Jesus’ idea that makes Christianity in the US more of a vocational activity than the cultural religion that most people in Europe are born into and remain, mostly unaffected by? The statistic is either bizarre or spurious, and although it may be my (in)credulity, I’m leaning towards the latter - if it even exists, I doubt it comes from a nationally representative sample - an unfortunate overreach on an otherwise valid point. Or can anyone else enlighten me?)
II
Essentially, I think that as long as we have straight marriage we should have gay marriage too. Of course there are many other material or even violent inequalities in our world that need addressing, but as long as we pretend to be some kind of a consensual democracy then the need to allow consensual marriages speaks pretty deeply to our personal rights and responsibilities. The situation in Ireland is currently stuck pretty firmly in the (rapidly receding) US middle ground: we have, since just recently, civil partnerships and we don’t have any law against gay marriage, per se. What we do have is the following article (41.3.1) in the Constitution:
“The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
I’ve never really seen this discussed, but nowhere else in the document is ‘Marriage’ defined as solely between man and a woman, so for all the defence of marriage implied, it doesn’t actually preclude gay marriage. In fact, it may even make a case for it, as “guard with special care” could mean that by preserving marriage as a modern institution relevant to the contemporary Republic of Ireland, it should be opened up to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships rather than discriminate against the latter.
It may be stretching the influence of de Valera (and his long bony hand) a little too much to say this, but in drafting a constitution to protect the commonly-agreed social values of the time, he also produced a document that has proved flexible enough to adapt to changes in those values. Often, of course, that has had to be done by amendment - such as removing the Catholic Church’s ‘special position’, or amending the second part of this article to allow for divorce - but in this case the original is open to simple reinterpretation.
III
The problem is not with the civil law; instead it lies with the remaining influence of religion and religious doctrine. Unlike in America, where religious conservatism appears to be a potent political force, in Europe its influence is more marginal and indirect. Rather than a popular and potent issue, gay marriage is merely objected to by most people here from a basic level of conservatism - they don’t like it, but they’re not particularly exercised by it on an American scale. Essentially, the establishment churches in Ireland or Britain are facing a rearguard action, in flight from declining attendances and influence, to preserve an item of civil life thought to be under their control.
Gay marriage, in this view, threatens marriage as a religious sacrament - why can’t homosexuals, to the extent that they are already tolerated, be happy with a civil union and leave marriage to the churches, who claim a right to preserve their traditions and not lose them to a wholly secular society (whether such a thing exists or is acceptable depends on the conservatism of the church)? Well, since marriage has always been more than a purely religious institution, there is no good reason to deny it to those whom certain churches don’t find to be acceptable spouses. And consequently, I think that if they don’t recognise the basic rights of equality, we shouldn’t personally consider them to be acceptable churches.
Although in Ireland the predominant influence on religion is that of the Catholic Church, I was never brought up in that faith, so what that church says is really of very little concern to me. Instead, I’m what I like to think of as an atheist and a lapsed Anglican, in that I still have a good deal of respect for the cultural tradition of the Church of Ireland - including a relatively progress stance on, say, the ordination of women priests, or at times what seemed to be quite a moderate approach to homosexuality. However, the latest position - or, admittedly, reiteration of their existing position - on marriage and sexuality makes me determined not to go back for reasons beyond pure atheism.
According to Canon 31, marriage is and will remain “a holy mystery in which one man and one woman become one flesh”; and, to add insult to injury, “The Church of Ireland teaches therefore that faithfulness within marriage is the only normative context for sexual intercourse.” In other words, not only do we define marriage, but by defining marriage we exclude homosexual relationships from the “normative context for sexual relationships”. Whatever your opinion on premarital sex, I reckon it’s okay for the church to set a ‘normative context’ on the issue - they’re not all celibate men, for a start - but not if it excludes homosexuality from that context.
However, the following statement is more than crocodile tears, in my opinion:
“The Church of Ireland welcomes all people to be members of the Church. It is acknowledged, however, that members of the Church have at times hurt and wounded people by words and actions, in relation to human sexuality.
Therefore, in order that the Church of Ireland is experienced as a ‘safe place’ and enabled in its reflection, the Church of Ireland affirms:
A continuing commitment to love our neighbour, and opposition to all unbiblical and uncharitable actions and attitudes in respect of human sexuality from whatever perspective, including bigotry, hurtful words or actions, and demeaning or damaging language;
A willingness to increase our awareness of the complex issues regarding human sexuality;
A determination to welcome and make disciples of all people.”
This is pretty much what our President was talking about here; and it’s the civil side of the discussion that religion can contribute to, drawing on a long (if not unmixed) tradition of preaching, or promoting, tolerance between people. I can forgive, for now, their intransigence on the central point - for a naturally conservative body they’ve come a long way, and there are plenty of laypeople and clergy in the Church of Ireland you’re not going to push into accepting gay marriage any time soon - if it allows for a kinder and more honest dialogue on the issues in society generally. It’s no longer my church, but credit where it’s due…