Whatsa motto with you?
CommentsYou’ll notice the site has a new quote on the front screen from our president-elect:
I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. (Dreams from my Father)
To me, Obama’s quote encapsulates my #1 (secular) reason for believing that marriage must be between a man and a woman - that it involves society “carving out a special place” for the best unit of child rearing. (I’ll have more to say on why in a future post.)
I didn’t vote for him, and I’m not a member of his party, but I’m impressed with Obama’s understanding and thoughtfulness when it comes to matters of religion and state. I wrote an essay about this situation for the New York Daily News last October. Here’s an excerpt:
Did you hear about the religious gathering two years ago at which John McCain’s future running mate, Sarah Palin, declared to the conference that “our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition?” Palin also told the faithful gathered that “my Bible tells me” a particular lesson and that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”
Further, at a televised forum as recently as August, Palin said she opposes same-sex marriage in part because “for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” She has also written two books that describe her Christian faith and its direct influence on her political views.
Pretty scary, huh?
But Palin didn’t say or do any of those things. Barack Obama did.
It has hardly been noticed, but Obama is the most articulate, most passionate defender of the right - perhaps the obligation - of religious voters, candidates and elected officials to mix their faiths, including those informed by the Bible, into their political lives….
Many of the most important causes in this nation’s history - from the abolition of slavery to African-American civil rights to conscientious objection during the Vietnam War - were motivated by the Bible and religious belief. Heck, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. quoted the Book of Isaiah during his “I Have a Dream” speech.
Obama’s stance is firmly within the American tradition, and especially African-American history going back to Frederick Douglass and beyond.
Of course, religious arguments also have supported bad things like slavery, segregation, denying women the vote and other ills. But the question is not whether Obama’s political views are correct. It’s whether people of faith are out of order to express these views as voters, candidates and elected officials. I think there is no question that a healthy democracy should respect people who select and promote positions based on anything from history books to family traditions to favorite opinion columnists and talk radio hosts to - yes - the Bible.
When people call the use of religious motivations for choosing a political stance “a violation of the separation of church and state,” they are factually incorrect. Church-state issues grow out of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Letting the Bible or any other religious text or belief influence a political actor’s stance has nothing to do with Congress passing laws about the establishment of religion. Pretending it does unfairly disenfranchises people who are more religious than oneself.
DB: “To me, Obama’s quote encapsulates my #1 (secular) reason for believing that marriage must be between a man and a woman - that it involves society “carving out a special place” for the best unit of child rearing. ”
No, you’re quoting it correctly but misrepresenting it in your paraphrase. It doesn’t say a special place for the _best_ unit of child-rearing, it says a special place for the unit of child rearing most _common_ to every culture. That’s not the same thing. In fact it’s close to the opposite: in context it’s a pointed refusal to make any defence of marriage relative to civil unions beyond an anemic one based on tradition of language (”that’s what the word has traditionally referred to, so we might as well keep using it for that”):
“For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex–nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”
Further to the above, there’s been a new development which I have to say I found a bit surprising, because the last time I looked I found nothing but strategic vagueness. It turns out Obama _did_ support gay marriage in 1996, and did say point blank in 2004 that he wasn’t then supporting gay marriage “primarily just as a strategic issue”: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20230 .
The WCT story is *very* interesting. I”m surprised it hasn’t gotten more play. Thanks for sharing it. Some reservations:
1. I spent eight years working in the gay press. Tracy Baim is not that highly respected. Her paper, though, has some good stuff in it.
2. I know as much as anyone the value of religious transformation. People can evolve on religious-related issues, and not only for political expediency.
3. I’m beginning to think Obama is the most skilled politician of the last 50 years. He’s got people thinkin he agrees with them on both sides on trade, education, the Middle East, and health care, just to name a few issues. This may just be one more example.
4. If Obama’s support for civil unions instead of marriage is strategic, and not real, he has done a great job of hiding it. Whether that makes him a great politician or a lousy one is completely arguable.
David, I think you are observing a politician without much of an actual record on the big national issues. His slate is larglely blank. So, yep, all sides hope he means what they want him to mean.
Obama: “nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount”.
That remark from the president-elect reveals his very thin understanding of both parts of the Bible that he mentioned. But it is hard to say with certainty because the quote does not reveal which line in Romans is supposedly “obscure”.