thomascwaters.com

In recent weeks, we have seen some in the Republican Party begin to soften on Gay Marriage and suggest the GOP is a welcoming place for the GLBTQ community. This can be understood in a few ways:

1. The GOP, since Reagan, was supposedly a “big tent” party with room for diverse opinions. However, the growth of the radical religious right has over time, forced many from the big tent. As the GOP attempts to redefine itself and regroup, some are calling for a return to the big tent, while those in power call for a cleansing of the party.
2. For some, it isn’t so much about “the big tent” as it is the recognition that the radical religious right has harmed the party irreparably, and this is an attempt to capture the reigns of the party. For them, its about power, not diversity. It isn’t hard to see that while the Democratic Party has claimed to be backing of change to support gay rights, Obama has shown us (so far) that it was all empty rhetoric. We got used to help get him elected, and we are again slipping into invisibility. Some in the GOP see this as an opportunity to exploit, and get GLBTQ people to jump ship and be a strong enough base to give them power over the radical religious right.
3. For some, it is simply a matter of believing that a more progressive stance on Gay Rights is needed. They recognize that the culture has changed and if the party is going to stay relevant, it must be at the fore front of the change. The GOP has always claimed to stand for a strict adherence to the Constitution and personal liberties, yet, we see in the Gay rights issue government encroaching upon the rights of people. It isn’t too hard of a stretch philosophically, to see the Gay Rights movement fitting well within a GOP framework, except that the party is so full of the radical religious, I think a snow ball has a better chance in hell, that Gays have in the GOP.

But this may be one of the first times, we are starting to see such major shifts within a religious denomination, especially one as strict as the Catholic Church. Of course, Kmiec, really isn’t inside the Church leadership. He is merely a member of the flock.

His suggestion to remove the government from marriage, and return it completely to the Church, is not so new.  Kmiec’s perspective is one of “religious liberty. In his editorial, he writes:

Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church.

How to accomplish this? The state would grant civil licenses to all couples same-sex or opposite sex. Then churches may perform marriages as each sees fit. If a faith accepts gay marriage it can marry a gay couple, but if a faith does not, it can marry only straight couples. A number of folks have suggested the same, but usually from the other side of the issue. All couples have the same legal rights this way.

Princeton University law professor Robert George, denounced his idea, telling CNN:

“Family is built on marriage, and government – the state – has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,”

Truly, one of the main reasons to push for Marriage Equality is to protect gay families, and if marriage is removed as a civil institution, it is unclear how this would impact laws and protections that are all about the family. Dissolving Marriage as a civil institution could make it harder for same-sex families in areas of adoption, second parent adoption.

My views on this are changing dramatically. At one time, I would have totally agreed with getting the government out of the marriage business and grant everyone a civil license, but as the debate continues, I am more inclined personally to believe that the better distinction to be drawn is between Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. All couples get married, but only religious marriages have the blessing of the church (and presumably God). I recognize for someone wishing to elevate the importance of Religion, this may seem inadequate. That is something writing more about.

So, I started this saying that there were several reasons why the GOP’s stance of Gays seems to be in flux. Are there potentially different reasons why the Church, or the religious (or some intersection of these) may be calling for a different stance? I’d say, yes, and while I think I have become to articulate some of that, it would be a good base for another blog post.

Both the linked article, and the linked editorial is a good read. Check them out, and then comment here in my blog about what you think.

Pro-Obama “Catholic” Jurist Douglas Kmiec Now Abandons Church Teaching on Homosexual Unions.

Kmiec’s Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle