Tennessee Republicans Proposing New Bill To Legally Recognize a New Marriage "Contract" that Will Be Limited to Heterosexual Unions.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/06/tennessee-marriage-bill-no-age-limit-sparks-backlash-over-child-bride-concerns/9479778002/

 

Basically the law, if passed, allows for a 2nd "marriage contract" independent of the already existing marriage license, and this new contract would only be able to be entered into by hetrosexual couples. 

The justification for this new law is that many Religious people believe that marriage should be between  1 man and 1 woman only. The Tennessee marriage license removed the "husband" and "wife" descriptors from the license and made it gender neutral. The supporters of this bill says that that "deprives" them of their right to get married  into a union specifically for hetrosexual couples and that this bill solves the "problem" of ministers and Christians who want to get married into a "contract" specifically designed for them and exclusively for man/woman partners. 

Here is an explanation from the Bill Sponsor the Family action Council of Tennessee.

Quote

Understanding the Mechanics of the Bill

The “Marital Contract Recording Act” or “MCRA” would restore to a man and woman their God-given right to marry as a husband and wife, not just as “spouses.”

Currently, that right has been barred by statutes that require a state license in order for there to be a legally recognized marriage and, according to Tennessee’s attorney general, our law now says male and female is irrelevant to the definition and meaning of a legal marriage.

This kind of sex-neutral marriage is the only kind a man and woman can now have in Tennessee unless they are allowed to marry under the definition of marriage under our nation’s common law tradition of recognizing relationships and rights related thereto that precede any kind of relationship or right created by legislative enactments or judicial pronouncements.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the “right to marry” is not a right conferred by government, and Obergefell did not repudiate that holding. This natural right is exactly the kind of right not expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution that was “retained by the people” by the Ninth Amendment.

Under MCRA, a man and a woman of legal age and sound mind would be treated as having a marital relationship if they can prove that they declared to each other their intention to be married and thereafter held themselves out to the public as married.

The bill would add provisions to the current marriage licensure statutes, and the new law  that would:
 

· Allow a man and woman only to file a document with their local county clerk noting for the public the existence of their marriage, but no document evidencing the fact of the marriage must be filed in order for the marriage to be valid if it is proved by other means. This filing mirrors the current practice with the county clerk, but for a different reason—giving notice of one’s marriage, not getting the state’s permission to marry.
· Require the county clerk to forward a record of all marriage documents filed with the clerk to the state’s office of vital records, again mirroring what happens now with the state’s certificates of marriage.
· NOT require any license or permission from the state in order for a man and woman to marry.
 

Ministers could still solemnize marriages, but as ministers, not as authorized agents of the state as is currently the case. Thus, ministers would not have to sign forms that state officials treat as though the law defines marriage as a relationship between any two people.

 
By solemnizing only these non-licensed kinds of marriage, there would never be any legal basis upon which a minister could be compelled by a court to solemnize a marriage between two people of the same sex, because the marriages they will be solemnizing under the new law are outside the government’s licensing scheme. They will not be bringing themselves under the existing license law.

 

I mean...this just looks like Christians and Conservatives who are still mad that legal gay marriage was "forced" upon them by the federal government and they want to again create a new, separate system just for them with the delusional justification that it violates their religious rights to have to be married into a system that also accommodates for gays and non-Christians. 

This new separate contract would of course carry with it the exact same privalidge and benefits that the current marriage license TN has, so they wouldn't be sacrificing in any way. 

Put plainly, this is another example of bigots trying to bend the laws of governance to accommodate their personal religion and exclude "others". The bills supporters don't expressly say this, but they heavily imply that they believe gay marriage should still be illegal...or at most left to state discretion, and this law is their workaround solution to it. This bill Is a waste of everyone's time and solves no problems...Hopefully the TN government will ultimately vote it down for the nonsense that it is...but I'm not super hopeful here.

Edited April 7, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[AUFightingSoldiers 685]

I fully believe that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman and that God takes marriage VERY seriously. But with that said, here's my thoughts on this directly:

1. I dont think the government should have any say in marriage at all.

2. The fact that they do means they must offer the same benefits and recognition to hetero and homosexual marriages.

3. This law won't stand, even if passed.

[DKW 86 7,426]

7 hours ago, AUFightingSoldiers said:

1. I dont think the government should have any say in marriage at all.

2. The fact that they do means they must offer the same benefits and recognition to hetero and homosexual marriages.

3. This law won't stand, even if passed.

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 hours ago, AUFightingSoldiers said:

I fully believe that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman and that God takes marriage VERY seriously. But with that said, here's my thoughts on this directly:

1. I dont think the government should have any say in marriage at all.

2. The fact that they do means they must offer the same benefits and recognition to hetero and homosexual marriages.

3. This law won't stand, even if passed.

This is how one adheres to one's beliefs without infringing upon others' liberties. Respect. 

[Leftfield 2,607]

I think the term "marriage" is the big hang-up, as many see it as a religious term. Honestly, I don't know the etymology of the word. I've tried to find out, but there seems to be some disagreement. Regardless, even it if is, the easiest solution is to simply call the wedding of two people a civil union, or other non-religious term, as far as governments are concerned. After that, if it's important to the couple that they be "married" and they can find a Church to certify it, have at 'er.

[McLoofus 35,182]

38 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I think the term "marriage" is the big hang-up, as many see it as a religious term. Honestly, I don't know the etymology of the word. I've tried to find out, but there seems to be some disagreement. Regardless, even it if is, the easiest solution is to simply call the wedding of two people a civil union, or other non-religious term, as far as governments are concerned. After that, if it's important to the couple that they be "married" and they can find a Church to certify it, have at 'er.

Agreed. It's an argument about semantics at this point. Practically, that is. Obviously this proposed legislation is an attempt at something more than semantics. I agree with @CoffeeTiger's summary of the intent. What sad, small, insecure people to think that this is a fire that the government needs to be putting out. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

 

40 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I think the term "marriage" is the big hang-up, as many see it as a religious term. Honestly, I don't know the etymology of the word. I've tried to find out, but there seems to be some disagreement. Regardless, even it if is, the easiest solution is to simply call the wedding of two people a civil union, or other non-religious term, as far as governments are concerned. After that, if it's important to the couple that they be "married" and they can find a Church to certify it, have at 'er.

 

Interesting perspective. I'm not sure how much that would satisfy people though. To my knowledge Catholics are the primary religious group that requires the church/priest to ordain or bless a marriage. 

In my protestant upbringing, while marrying in a Church and/or with a preacher is common practice for traditions sake, it's not a strict requirement for marriage, and I think many American denominations do consider filing a marriage or in your case a union license with the courthouse to be a fully binding marriage in a Biblical sense regardless of if a minister or church is involved.

I would expect many religious groups would be outraged if the government tried to take the word "marriage" out of the legal wording or off of the license. Like you said, Marriage is seen as a religious concept by many people, and They'd see its word removal from legal documents as  a possible form of persecutions. A 'forcing religion and religious concepts' out of the public eye kind of thing.

 

Would that particular change make this group (Family action Council of Tennessee) happy? I'm not sure. 

 

 

[AU9377 4,960]

As though they have nothing better to do.......  Any state issued or sanctioned document that excludes a segment of the population will be unconstitutional.  I haven't read the proposed law, but I can't think of any way to get around both the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Supreme Court having declared marriage to be a fundamental right.

Here is a novel thought...... instead of focusing on ways to divide people, use that time and energy to make the lives of the people they represent better.

This topic always reminds me of the clerk in Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people because of her belief of the sanctity of marriage.

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by AU9377

[Mims44 1,872]

On 4/7/2022 at 2:33 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/06/tennessee-marriage-bill-no-age-limit-sparks-backlash-over-child-bride-concerns/9479778002/

 

Basically the law, if passed, allows for a 2nd "marriage contract" independent of the already existing marriage license, and this new contract would only be able to be entered into by hetrosexual couples. 

The justification for this new law is that many Religious people believe that marriage should be between  1 man and 1 woman only. The Tennessee marriage license removed the "husband" and "wife" descriptors from the license and made it gender neutral. The supporters of this bill says that that "deprives" them of their right to get married  into a union specifically for hetrosexual couples and that this bill solves the "problem" of ministers and Christians who want to get married into a "contract" specifically designed for them and exclusively for man/woman partners. 

Here is an explanation from the Bill Sponsor the Family action Council of Tennessee.

 

I mean...this just looks like Christians and Conservatives who are still mad that legal gay marriage was "forced" upon them by the federal government and they want to again create a new, separate system just for them with the delusional justification that it violates their religious rights to have to be married into a system that also accommodates for gays and non-Christians. 

This new separate contract would of course carry with it the exact same privalidge and benefits that the current marriage license TN has, so they wouldn't be sacrificing in any way. 

Put plainly, this is another example of bigots trying to bend the laws of governance to accommodate their personal religion and exclude "others". The bills supporters don't expressly say this, but they heavily imply that they believe gay marriage should still be illegal...or at most left to state discretion, and this law is their workaround solution to it. This bill Is a waste of everyone's time and solves no problems...Hopefully the TN government will ultimately vote it down for the nonsense that it is...but I'm not super hopeful here.

I seriously need to hop on this whole homophobic train.... seems like a gold mine.

 

Gonna start selling cheap wedding bands, but they will have 'hetero only' written on the inside. I'll charge a huge mark up and tons of these people will still buy.

Maybe some t-shirts with cool hetero text like "I've so far managed to not enter another man" charge 100$ a pop maybe.

[homersapien 11,385]

On 4/7/2022 at 11:33 PM, AUFightingSoldiers said:

I fully believe that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman and that God takes marriage VERY seriously. But with that said, here's my thoughts on this directly:

1. I dont think the government should have any say in marriage at all.

2. The fact that they do means they must offer the same benefits and recognition to hetero and homosexual marriages.

3. This law won't stand, even if passed.

I agree in principle, but purely as a practical matter I don't think #1 is practical. 

There are just too many legal aspects associated with marriage. 

[homersapien 11,385]

5 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I seriously need to hop on this whole homophobic train.... seems like a gold mine.

 

Gonna start selling cheap wedding bands, but they will have 'hetero only' written on the inside. I'll charge a huge mark up and tons of these people will still buy.

Maybe some t-shirts with cool hetero text like "I've so far managed to not enter another man" charge 100$ a pop maybe.

Only advice I can offer is to engrave the "hetero only" on the outside of the ring.    And maybe offer bumper stickers with the same slogan?

[AU9377 4,960]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Only advice I can offer is to engrave the "hetero only" on the outside of the ring.    And maybe offer bumper stickers with the same slogan?

...but... If it's on the outside of the ring, won't that be inconvenient when they give someone a reach around?  Asking for a friend...... LOL

[DKW 86 7,426]

Just an observation, during my 60 years on the planet, those that are so obsessed with homophobia, they are usually the ones making headlines later on at a gay bar or with a same sex partner. 

[homersapien 11,385]

Well, fwiw, my wife and I eloped and were married by a judge in Opelika. (I'd say that was sufficient since it was 48 years ago.)

My three sisters all had a church wedding and all got divorced.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Cards on the table, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and anything outside of that arrangement may be a lot of things - a committed partnership, a civil union, etc, but it's not "marriage."  That said...

I've read and re-read this bill and articles explaining it, but I'm still unclear on it other than it offering a semantic change where a hetero couple can have their legal documentation of their marriage say "husband" and "wife" rather than the generic, gender neutral "spouse."  I have two competing issues/questions with it:

1.  It does seem like it's semantics and little more.  Given that Tennessee ministers don't have to sign marriage licenses, I'm not sure what problem it's really solving.

2.  Even though it is semantics, and I understand it's distasteful or silly to some, I also don't really see what rights it removes from gay couples. Are they not still able to get married without restriction?

So I'm kind of in the position of feeling sort of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about the whole thing.  Maybe it's dumb.  Maybe it's a waste of legislators' time.  Maybe some don't like even a semantic difference given to people they deem to be bigots or homophobes or whatever.  But in the end I'm not sure it really makes a difference in anyone's life that chooses to just use the conventional marriage license process.

What am I missing?

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Cards on the table, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and anything outside of that arrangement may be a lot of things - a committed partnership, a civil union, etc, but it's not "marriage."  That said...

I've read and re-read this bill and articles explaining it, but I'm still unclear on it other than it offering a semantic change where a hetero couple can have their legal documentation of their marriage say "husband" and "wife" rather than the generic, gender neutral "spouse."  I have two competing issues/questions with it:

1.  It does seem like it's semantics and little more.  Given that Tennessee ministers don't have to sign marriage licenses, I'm not sure what problem it's really solving.

2.  Even though it is semantics, and I understand it's distasteful or silly to some, I also don't really see what rights it removes from gay couples. Are they not still able to get married without restriction?

So I'm kind of in the position of feeling sort of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about the whole thing.  Maybe it's dumb.  Maybe it's a waste of legislators' time.  Maybe some don't like even a semantic difference given to people they deem to be bigots or homophobes or whatever.  But in the end I'm not sure it really makes a difference in anyone's life that chooses to just use the conventional marriage license process.

What am I missing?

Good response, though I will disagree that this law is ultimately meaningless because of it's supporters ultimate aims and the precedence this sets. 

Make no mistake about it. The supporters of this deal believe gay marriage should still be illegal and would take away gay peoples rights to marry in a heartbeat if they could. The Constitution of Tennessee still to this day states that ANY type of gay marriage or union or civil contract is illegal and unrecognized in Tennessee ...and part of the argument for supporters of this bill is that the Federal Government trampled on their individual and state rights when they forced gay marriage on the States. They believe the constitution of the state of Tennessee should take precedence, and so they are wanting to create a completely separate marriage contract that complies with their religious beliefs. This creates a precedence where we see states say "ok, we are forced to treat people equally by the Federal government...how can we fight this...how can we get around this...how can we cater specifically to our religious and conservative citizens and make sure they are provided specials treatment while still not overtly discriminating against other people? 

You are correct in that this law solves no real problem...creates more paperwork...and judicial headache for the courts, and doesn't strip away the rights of gay people....but this law is being considered specifically BECAUSE they can't legally strip away gay marriage from Gay people....so they are choosing to go this route. Additionally, This law is also going to inevitable be challenged in court. The taxpayers of Tennessee have already spent a huge amount of money in court costs and legal fees trying to keep gay marriage illegal in the first place and now they are setting themselves up for continued costs to the taxpayers dime. It's not good policy. 

 

This would be similar to a state passing a law that institutes a new separate marriage license that only Black people can apply for and get. If you were white...couldn't get it...would have to apply for the regular license this new one is only for Black people. I bet that would make your ears perk up and say ...

"wait a minute. I don't like the precedence this is setting and what all this could lead to." It doesn't directly affect me now...but what if this type of law expands to other areas of life and really starts to affect my rights later on?" 

 

 

 

[gr82be 14,433]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:10 PM, AU9377 said:

As though they have nothing better to do.......  Any state issued or sanctioned document that excludes a segment of the population will be unconstitutional.  I haven't read the proposed law, but I can't think of any way to get around both the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Supreme Court having declared marriage to be a fundamental right.

Here is a novel thought...... instead of focusing on ways to divide people, use that time and energy to make the lives of the people they represent better.

This topic always reminds me of the clerk in Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people because of her belief of the sanctity of marriage.

 

Whether this is factual or not, and it very well may be, if Christians and for that matter, non-Christians, would put the same spotlight on all acts that are sinful according to the word of God, then they'd have so much to clean up in their own lives they wouldn't have time to worry about what others are doing. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.) I include myself in this because I have plenty to work on. 

[AU9377 4,960]

11 hours ago, gr82be said:

Whether this is factual or not, and it very well may be, if Christians and for that matter, non-Christians, would put the same spotlight on all acts that are sinful according to the word of God, then they'd have so much to clean up in their own lives they wouldn't have time to worry about what others are doing. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.) I include myself in this because I have plenty to work on. 

I agree.

[homersapien 11,385]

On 4/12/2022 at 12:28 PM, TitanTiger said:

Cards on the table, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and anything outside of that arrangement may be a lot of things - a committed partnership, a civil union, etc, but it's not "marriage."  That said...

I've read and re-read this bill and articles explaining it, but I'm still unclear on it other than it offering a semantic change where a hetero couple can have their legal documentation of their marriage say "husband" and "wife" rather than the generic, gender neutral "spouse."  I have two competing issues/questions with it:

1.  It does seem like it's semantics and little more.  Given that Tennessee ministers don't have to sign marriage licenses, I'm not sure what problem it's really solving.

2.  Even though it is semantics, and I understand it's distasteful or silly to some, I also don't really see what rights it removes from gay couples. Are they not still able to get married without restriction?

So I'm kind of in the position of feeling sort of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about the whole thing.  Maybe it's dumb.  Maybe it's a waste of legislators' time.  Maybe some don't like even a semantic difference given to people they deem to be bigots or homophobes or whatever.  But in the end I'm not sure it really makes a difference in anyone's life that chooses to just use the conventional marriage license process.

What am I missing?

Well, assuming the term "marriage"  - as these people see it - is ultimately religious-based  and assuming this qualifies as "legislation", then it's literally unconstitutional.

Otherwise, you are correct on all accounts.

Practically, it's a ridiculous waste of time.  The idea that gays getting "married" deprived them of their "rights" to have a religiously defined "marriage" is absurd. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by homersapien

[McLoofus 35,182]

Great conversation.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

anyone remember Sally Ride?

On 4/12/2022 at 10:25 PM, gr82be said:

Whether this is factual or not, and it very well may be, if Christians and for that matter, non-Christians, would put the same spotlight on all acts that are sinful according to the word of God, then they'd have so much to clean up in their own lives they wouldn't have time to worry about what others are doing. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.) I include myself in this because I have plenty to work on. 

but not everyone is you. people turn a blind eye and people will do stuff to hurt others and this includes church folks as well. many times if you are not legally married you are not allowed to collect a pension unless they have changed the law. some same sex couples have children and this hurts them and families as well. isit  the same way with insurance?

 

On 4/12/2022 at 11:28 AM, TitanTiger said:

Cards on the table, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and anything outside of that arrangement may be a lot of things - a committed partnership, a civil union, etc, but it's not "marriage."  That said...

I've read and re-read this bill and articles explaining it, but I'm still unclear on it other than it offering a semantic change where a hetero couple can have their legal documentation of their marriage say "husband" and "wife" rather than the generic, gender neutral "spouse."  I have two competing issues/questions with it:

1.  It does seem like it's semantics and little more.  Given that Tennessee ministers don't have to sign marriage licenses, I'm not sure what problem it's really solving.

2.  Even though it is semantics, and I understand it's distasteful or silly to some, I also don't really see what rights it removes from gay couples. Are they not still able to get married without restriction?

So I'm kind of in the position of feeling sort of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about the whole thing.  Maybe it's dumb.  Maybe it's a waste of legislators' time.  Maybe some don't like even a semantic difference given to people they deem to be bigots or homophobes or whatever.  But in the end I'm not sure it really makes a difference in anyone's life that chooses to just use the conventional marriage license process.

What am I missing?

i know gay couples that would love to be married before the eyes of god. many use the old term handfasting which from my understanding was around way before marriage became a thing. the DIFFERENCE is the folks that are ok with handfasting do not try to stop couples of same sex marriage. if you have a partner and one of you dies the other at one time could not collect on their spouses social security or pension. this was a huge reason and unless it has changed it still is. also some folks do not think they deserve the hate because of who they love and choose to spend their life with. and it should not be anyone's business. they also do not believe jesus would hate them or turn away from them. they fear the hate many of the christian followers have in their hearts and not so much the church. but they are leery of the church as well. and to be honest and this is my own personal belief......... folks in the church would not hire a certain person for a job. how many gays are working in your churchs folks? and another personal view is i believe god made gays just like he made everyone else and who are we to look down upon them and or offer them anything but camps where they basically try to change who you really are. and here is my biggie and many in the church will not care for this. and this is why i love this country altho we have a long way to go.

 

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the unalienable rights which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

so many gays have been murdered or mistreated because of who they love by church doctrine as much as anything else. this is my opinion and i am sure it will not go over very well. and i find it odd the ten commanments does not list being gay.

i found this and i agree with most of what is said:

americanprogress.org

 

What Are Religious Texts Really Saying About Gay and Transgender Rights?

Claire Markham, Tracy Wolf

20-25 minutes

---

Listen to the interview (mp3)

Jeff Krehely: The Washington Post asked you to write a series of columns about the way biblical passages have been used to characterize homosexuality and gay rights. Why did The Post ask you to write on this particular topic?

Bishop Gene Robinson: The Post ran a guest piece by Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. Readers were horrified that they would print something so backward and critical of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. In that article, as the religious right is wont to do, he quoted scripture—the story of the woman supposedly caught in adultery. Jesus ultimately says to her, “Go and sin no more.” Perkins claims the Bible sees homosexuality as a sin and suggests that Jesus would also tell gays and lesbians to “sin no more.”

Sally Quinn [editor of The Post’s On Faith columns] was very interested in having someone counter that argument, so I wrote a piece refuting the use of that particular scripture. She then said, “We really should take a look at what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality.” So that led to this series.

J: You write about selected passages and refer to them as “texts of terror.” They were written thousands of years ago. Why do they still have power today? And why are they such a core part of the debate around LGBT rights?

G: I should say first of all that that phrase, “texts of terror,” comes from Phyllis Trible’s work about those portions of scripture that have been used to denigrate and subjugate women over the years. But it is a wonderful phrase and clearly LGBT people have felt certain texts—there are seven—condemn homosexuality. In some sense they are our “texts of terror.”

Whether you are a religious person or not, these texts and their supposed meaning are literally in the air we breathe. A number of years ago I helped start a group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning teens in New Hampshire. One night I was sitting with five or six of them. Not a single one of them came from a household of faith. So they had never been in a Sunday school, never been in a church, and never heard a sermon. But they all knew the word “abomination” from Leviticus. You know, “a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination. They should both be put to death.”

Everyone thought that was what God thought of them. Now, they couldn’t have found the book of Leviticus if you had a loaded gun to their heads. But they knew that word, and they thought that is what God thought of them.

Before we became a post-Christian nation, those teachings became part of our culture. Even nonreligious people are infected by these words. As we see issues like the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or gay marriage play out, those words are still buried in people. Sometimes well-meaning people don’t realize that those words have a kind of power and are the source of their resistance to LGBT issues. I think that 90 percent of the pain and struggle we have experienced as the LGBT community can be laid at the feet of religious people.

Sally Steenland: Some of that resistance comes from people who say, “We are just reading what the Bible tells us.” You explain what an interpretation of the Bible would actually look like if all its texts were read literally. And you show the importance of reading the Bible in context.

G: This is the discussion that one should have before tackling any of the passages. When people are confronted by someone who says, “I am just reading what is there,” I would encourage them to stop and call them on that because no one does that. Even if you are only trying to deal with the words as they are written, even your choice of which words you are going to deal with—which passages—requires interpretation.

I can’t ever recall Jerry Falwell or Pat Robinson quoting the verse in Luke where Jesus says, “If you want to be a follower of mine, you must give up all of your possessions.” That doesn’t fit in too well with their appeal to little old ladies on Social Security to send in their five dollars to support the ministry.

In the series, I point to a story that Dan Helminiak shares in one of his books where he posits a time in the future where the game of baseball has been lost. It’s not played anymore, and no one knows about it. You pick up a novel written in the year 2000, and it describes one of the characters as being “out in left field.” The reader in the future believes they understand what that means because they know what “left” is, and they know what a “field” is.

But unless you know the game of baseball you don’t know that most people bat right handed and that they bat to the left field in order to catch the fly balls. You don’t know that the left fielder backs way up, and that it has become a metaphor for being out of the loop, isolated, out of the mainstream. So you might think you know what “out in left field” means, but unless you know the game of baseball you would miss the whole meaning.

Most biblical scholarship of the last 50 years has been about the culture in which biblical texts were written and the surrounding cultures to which they were an answer. The ancient Hebrews—in what we would call the Old Testament—were surrounded by hostile pagan cultures that wanted to get rid of the Jews. Much of what we read in the Old Testament is about this struggle with those cultures. We now know a lot more about those struggles and the culture, and therefore, in some sense, we know the game of baseball they were playing. We have a context in which to sort through those words.

Once we know what was meant by the author and what was heard by the people for whom it was written, we can ask the question, “Is this eternally binding or something culturally determined that applies only for that time?”

Is this eternally binding or something culturally determined that applies only for that time? Bishop Gene Robinson

If you don’t have that conversation first, you have already lost the conversation because you are arguing from two different planets. Certainly the mainstream religious way of doing scripture is to ask the questions: “What did it mean for the people back then? Has anything changed since to make it less binding on us?” None of us would doubt the eternally binding nature of “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” But some of the other things that we read in scripture have to be taken in context, and we have to say, maybe then but not now.

J: One of the stories that so-called biblical experts use when fighting LGBT equality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. How do you set that story in the context in which it was originally written versus how it is used today?

G: This is a really important story because it’s where we get the word “sodomite” used to describe homosexuals, and nothing could be further from the truth. This story is about a very wealthy city. Perhaps it was the prototype of the gated community. Because they wanted to protect their wealth they canceled a very important tradition throughout the Middle East: welcoming the stranger. That kind of hospitality makes life possible in a desert culture. Travel was very difficult, and you would offer hospitality to anyone because not to do so might mean death.

Some men in Sodom didn’t want strangers coming into city because they feared they would see the wealth and return with an army. Lot, the central figure in the story, welcomes two men into his home who turn out to be angels of God. The men want Lot to send the men out to them so that they can rape them. And Lot refuses to do so.

When the Bible talks about the sin of Sodom, people have mistakenly thought that the sin was men having sex with men. The story goes on to say that Lot would not turn over his guests but was happy to send his virgin daughter out to them so they could rape her instead. This is not a story about two men who fall in love and pledge themselves to a monogamous, faithful, lifelong intentioned relationship. This is about homosexual rape. No one is arguing for homosexual rape—or any kind of rape—because it is an act of violence.

With Sodom and Gomorrah, we have internal commentary on the story elsewhere in scripture. Ezekiel has virtually the same story, and the prophets talk about the sin of Sodom as being that of greed and lack of care for the poor. Cancellation of the law of hospitality was a sin against the poorest and most vulnerable. That is the same conclusion that Jesus himself draws in citing Sodom when he talks about the disciples going into a town and not being received. He says, “Shake the dust off your feet and go on into the next town. It will be worse for those folks who did not receive you, welcome you, offer you hospitality than for the people of Sodom.”

Within the scriptures themselves, homosexual rape is not the right interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah—yet those who argue against homosexuality keep using it.

I would say one more probably outrageous thing, which is if the sin of Sodom is greed and not taking care of the poor, then it would seem like the sodomites in our culture are those who do things to keep the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. If we want to talk about sodomites, let’s talk about that.

S: One of the things you write about is that God continues to talk to us and reveal truths. You say that God didn’t just close the book and say, “Now you are on your own.” God still wants to be in a relationship with us, and the evidence is that truths that seem obvious now, people struggled with a long time ago.

G: You know, this may be one of the great divides between fundamentalist Christians and other Christians. I think that most of our brothers and sisters in the religious right would say that God said everything that God needed to say by the end of the first century when the canon of scripture—the books that were put together and called the Bible—was closed.

But I don’t believe that God finished talking to us at the end of the first century. I believe God continues to interact with us and reveal God’s self to us on an ongoing basis. My scriptural text for this is an amazing passage in John’s gospel, much of which is the dialogue at the Last Supper. Jesus says to his disciples, “There is much that I would teach you, but you cannot bear it right now. So I will send the Holy Spirit that will lead you into all truth.”

I don’t believe that God finished talking to us at the end of the first century. Bishop Gene Robinson

It is a remarkable window into Jesus’s revelation of God. I think he was saying: For a bunch of uneducated fishermen you haven’t done too badly. There were some days I didn’t think you were the sharpest knives in the drawer, but you have done a pretty good job. And you will go on to do amazing things, but don’t for a minute think that God is done with you. God has much more to teach you. But honestly, given your historical and cultural context, you can’t handle it right now. So I will send the Holy Spirit who will lead you over time into a greater fullness of your understanding of God.

Closer to our own time, our understanding of people of color and their full inclusion in the reign of God and in our culture, society, and government is a great example of changed understanding. We used scripture for 18 and a half centuries following Jesus’s death to justify slavery. Now we look back and think, “My god, what were we thinking?” A year after the Emancipation Proclamation, the Episcopal Bishop of Vermont wrote a whole book justifying slavery using scripture.

Similarly, women were kept in a secondary role and status using scripture. Many women remember wearing hats to church because St. Paul said that a woman’s place in church is with her head covered and her mouth shut. There are denominations today that still exclude women from leadership positions because of that scripture. Yet many of us think, “What were we thinking?”

This is a very exciting time because we are now asking that question about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Could this be yet another time when the church got it wrong about what God’s will is? Could this be a time when we admit that we got it wrong—not that God got it wrong but that we got God wrong? And that God, through the Holy Spirit, is leading us to the truth about God’s gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender children? I think so.

J: Can you talk a little more about how faith communities are changing regarding LGBT issues?

G: I am 63 years old, and when I was growing up in the 50s, we didn’t talk about this. First of all, the word gay just meant a nice party. We didn’t use it to describe homosexual people. And homosexuality, if spoken about at all, was spoken about in whispers. I think the British phrase is a “love that dare not speak its name.” Clearly we have come a long way, and the reason is that so many of us came out.

Twenty years ago most people would say they didn’t know a gay or lesbian person. They might have felt a little uncomfortable around Uncle Harry or referred to those two wonderful ladies who live down the street and take such nice care of their lawn. But what they meant was that they didn’t know anyone who was self-affirming and proud of who they were. Now, is there anyone in America who doesn’t know some family member or co-worker or neighbor? Or as often happens, someone goes back to a class reunion. My husband Mark and I went back to his 20th reunion at Middlebury College. He introduced me to one of his best buddies in college and said, “This is my partner, Gene.” And the guy said, “Oh, what business are you in?” So we had to start at the beginning. Not that kind of partner. We are talking about a life partner.

Everyone knows someone gay. That has changed institutional religion because we are sitting in churches, synagogues, and mosques and letting ourselves be known as LGBT people. That causes dissonance. People can’t know and love us and at the same time hold on to traditional understanding of scripture. Something’s got to give. They have either got to give us up or give up traditional understandings.

When push comes to shove, people will mostly choose people over something they have been told. Parents have chosen the love of their children. Mainline denominations are taking a hard look and asking, “Have we gotten this wrong?” I think you see more and more religious people answering yes to that.

There are some denominations where it’s a very tough go. Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Roman Catholics—at least in terms of the official teachings of the church—are pretty rigid in sticking to original understandings. But even people within those ranks are facing this. Remember, there are just as many gay kids growing up in the Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, or Mormon churches as anywhere else—and the parents of those kids are presented with dissonance between the kid they love and what the church is telling them.

S: Let’s talk about kids and some recent headlines about the tragic suicides of gay teens who’d been bullied. You did a video for a project called “It Gets Better” that went viral. What did you say and why do you think it was so powerful?

G: I did this video for the kid in nowhere Idaho and Georgia for whom the Internet may be the only place to get some good news for who they are. They are bombarded by the culture and most likely by the church saying they are despicable in the eyes of God.

It is important for someone like me to use my position as a bishop of the church to have another voice coming from the institutional church and a place of authority, saying, “I know you have been told these things, and I am telling you they are flat-out wrong.” I wanted them to know that there are legitimate leaders in the mainline churches who read the Bible differently, who know a God that loves and accepts them just the way they are.

Having that said by a bishop who happens to be an openly gay man can pack an even greater wallop because they know I have gone through what they are going through. I can say, “I promise you, it gets better. You know those people telling you that God doesn’t love you? They are flat-out wrong. Don’t take your own life. Hang around long enough for those of us who know differently to convince you otherwise. For God’s sake, don’t hurt yourself. Hang in there long enough to hear voices like mine, and others that will join mine, to let you know that you are absolutely beloved by God and absolutely nothing can come between you and that love.”

J: Moving from this place in time and thinking ahead—knowing that predictions are tricky—what do you see for LGBT people both here in the United States and around the globe?

G: I believe that we are well on our way to bringing LGBT people into the promise of America, which is equal treatment for all our citizens. We will keep on working until that is a reality. It matters who is elected to Congress and who is elected president. There is no question in my mind that we have been able to do things because of who is president right now.

I believe that we are well on our way to bringing LGBT people into the promise of America. Bishop Gene Robinson

I think progress in that realm is inevitable. We are not arguing if it’s going to happen, just when. We would like it to happen faster. We would like it to happen tomorrow, but it won’t, so we have to be in this for the long haul. On a longer trajectory, I would like to see our movement mature. We have been concerned with our own issues, and we have every right to be. But we also need to move ever outward.

First of all, I think we will see our community becoming more concerned with the plight of LGBT people around the world. The “kill the gays bill” in Uganda was the first time in my recollection that the LGBT community in America got exercised over something going on outside America. That is all to the good. It is going to take activism on our part to change life for LGBT people in the rest of the world.

Two years ago I met a young woman in Africa. When she came out to her parents, they took her to the local police station where all the policemen gang-raped her to cure her of her lesbianism. That’s what is going on in some countries. It’s my great hope that we will make enough progress on our own issues to be able to expand our concern to include people around the world.

The other expansion I want to see in our community is a greater understanding of the connections between heterosexism, which oppresses us, and racism, sexism, ableism—all of the isms. While the specifics may be different, the dynamics are the same. The way one group oppresses another works out the same. And yet we have been rather siloed in our concerns.

I am horrified to hear someone in the gay community speak about women in a sexist way, or be racist. I sometimes grab these people by the shoulder and say, “Haven’t you learned anything from your own experience?” But people don’t always make those connections.

When I talk to young LGBT people they talk about these intersections. Intersectionality is the new buzzword in the younger gay community, and I think that is exactly right. I would like to see us becoming activists in antiracism and antisexism. I would like to see us learn from our own experience, and use it as a tiny window into what it is like to be a person living in a wheelchair or a person who is female or a person of color.

One of the great gifts that comes from being gay is you get the experience of being on the receiving end of oppression. We don’t have to compete with one another as to whose oppression is worse. A way for the oppressor to get away with murder is to keep us fighting with each other rather than fighting the oppressor. In the future, I would like to see us expand our vision of what it means to work for justice—for all people, not just ourselves.

A sidebar to that: I think the reason Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was seen as dangerous is because he began to think in broad terms. He began to put together race and poverty and militarism. He started talking about the Vietnam War and who was being used as cannon fodder—partly because they were black and poor. When he started doing that, he became hugely dangerous to the status quo. I hope the gay community can become courageous enough to begin to put things together and call the world to become a more just place.

J: Inspiring and insightful as always, Bishop Robinson. We are so delighted to have you here at CAP.

G: I am excited to be here. It has been a wonderful association, and I hope it continues for a long time.

Listen to the interview (mp3)

Bishop Gene Robinson is a visiting Senior Fellow, Jeff Krehely is Director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project, and Sally Steenland is Senior Policy Advisor for Faith and Progressive Policy at American Progress.

 

[aubiefifty 16,803]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:10 PM, AU9377 said:

As though they have nothing better to do.......  Any state issued or sanctioned document that excludes a segment of the population will be unconstitutional.  I haven't read the proposed law, but I can't think of any way to get around both the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Supreme Court having declared marriage to be a fundamental right.

Here is a novel thought...... instead of focusing on ways to divide people, use that time and energy to make the lives of the people they represent better.

This topic always reminds me of the clerk in Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people because of her belief of the sanctity of marriage.

 

i also believe this is the sort of thing that hurts many churches. idiots like her wanting to ban yoga and keep it out of schools. wanting to remove books like tom sawyer and huckleberry finn and to kill a mocking bird.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

well i am beginning to believe i shut down more threads than titan. good grief...............

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

well i am beginning to believe i shut down more threads than titan. good grief...............

You are underestimating the value you bring to these discussions. 

It's impossible to refute, even for non-believers.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Marriage in America cannot be a "Religious" observance. Everyday agnostics and Atheists get married. Everyday Buddhists, Hindus, BaHai's, Muslims, Shinto get married and they all observe a religion out of American Cultural/Christian Norms. The government cannot use a religious background in marriage in any way, that would be tantamount to recognizing a national religion and would be blatantly unConstitutional. I have no problems with Gay Marriage at all. Anything that builds more monogamous, longterm, happy, stable, wealth building families should be encouraged by every facet of government.