David Hunter, a blogger at the Star’s INTake Weekly, has a good post entitled “Rejecting Radical Rhetoric on SJR-7.” SJR-7, as readers probably recall, is the proposed amendment to Indiana’s Constitution which would assert that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. But, that’s only half of it. It would also prohibit any incident of marriage, whatever that might be precisely, from being extended to unmarried couples.
Hunter reacts to an Expresso entry by Tim Swarens where Swarens asserts “It would be the height of arrogance to think that we could radically redefine an institution that has been the cornerstone not only of families but civilizations for millennia without suffering severe repercussions.” (The height of arrogance, mind you. Not just arrogant, but the most arrogant one can be.)
Responds Hunter:
My gut reaction asks for the next few lines of his argument. What are the “severe repercussions?†Give me a list; give me three repercussions. Mr. Swarens doesn’t list any. He gives nothing specific for his entire argument.
That’s always a good question to ask – “name 3.” I’d probably qualify the question by requiring that these be repercussions not already visited on the sacred institution by Brittany & K-Fed or by Newt serving his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the cancer ward (or requesting a divorce from his second wife over the phone.)
At the moment, I’m not sure family life couldn’t do with a little tweaking. As I was composing this post, I was called away to clean up a poopy diaper followed closely by the need to clean up some dog vomit on the stairs. And that’s probably not the worst of it. The worst of it is that I’ve become so desensitized to such things that I barely batted an eye.
Finally, I take issue with Swarens assertion that marriage, as currently defined, has formed the cornerstone of civilizations for millenia. Check out the brief history of marriage entry over at Wikipedia. Marriage has been redefined quite a bit across cultures and over time. Historically speaking, marriage hasn’t even been a religious matter for all that long. For the first half of Christianity’s history, it wasn’t even a sacrament. The Protestants did their own redefining when they came along. Swarens sweeping statements seem to demonstrate a disinterest in history in favor of an interest in merely arguing for his own personal preferences.
Perhaps redefining marriage does would have unintended consequences we would not like. But, that eventuality notwithstanding, SJR 7 paragraph (b) certainly will have unintended (or at least unadmitted) consequences that we (or at least I) won’t like. I advocate throwing out SJR-7, drafting something coherent, and debating the hell out of it. This is, after all, our Constitution we’re talking about.
[tags]SJR7-2007, culture wars[/tags]
YES!!!
But then Doug, you’d have to force the Senate and House Republicans (who vote like a bloc on this) to admit that their real goal is to get this on the ballot in 2008. In fact, the ONLY question asked by a Senate Republican at the hearing last week (on an amendment which would do exactly what you advocate) was whether “this would slow down the process”…
In other words, I don’t care how sloppy the second line is (or that the phrase “legal incidents of marriage” will impact ALL unmarried couples and will have to be repaired in hundreds of laws), I want to make sure this gets to the ballot. “Let the people decide..” of course they won’t KNOW the unintended consequences.
Pound it home… “READ THE FINE PRINT!”
The one obvious repercussion is that fundies would feel icky. Another is that it would allow random, freedom-loving citizens to engage in behavior that is an affront to the fundies’ personal religious beliefs. The third is that eventually people would see that it’s no big deal, and this would disappear as an effective wedge issue.
T:
I was immersed in Baptist fundamentalism the first 50 years of my life and would caution against underestimating the fundamentalist perspective.
At issue is the belief that we are engaged in a life-and-death struggle for the soul of our nation. To embrace the gay agenda is to bring the curse of God on America.
My view? I agree with Jesus when confronting one “caught in the act of adultery.”
1 – My responsibility: “Neither do I condemn thee.”
2 – His/her responsibility (not mine): “Go and sin no more.”
As much as I appreciate the concern of the religious right for our country’s moral climate, I can’t imagine Jesus traipsing about Judea demanding government intrusion into personal moral issues.
Rev Ted Haggerd was cured of his gayness in 3 weeks… medicine or miracle?
No, Lou– political. And now he can become the spokesman of the Ex-Gay Movement. I wonder if they have a “no-slush fund for massages from hot gay masseurs with drugs on the side” clause….