The problem with the gay marriage debate raging on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the country is that it’s not one debate but many. And the motives of the people involved are even harder to sort out.
The Jewish community is far from united on homosexual rights, but it has generally avoided the gay baiting and the cynical use of the issue as a political distraction that define the election-year effort to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Advocates of an amendment banning gay marriage say their case is an open and shut one: “traditional” families are under siege, and the only way to hold back the tide is to outlaw different kinds of families.
But the harsh rhetoric of some leaders of this movement who insist that gays seeking marriage licenses are schemers determined to foist an immoral lifestyle on the nation, not ordinary people seeking equal rights, suggests motives like political distraction and a cynical appeal to bigotry.
One indicator of that: many of the groups that vehemently oppose gay marriage also oppose hate crimes laws intended to protect gays and lesbians from hate violence. It’s much harder to make the argument that hate crimes laws undermine families.
Supporters of gay “marriage” really want very different things, and the confusion is hurting their cause.
Some want nothing more than the civil benefits of marriage — the right to make medical decisions for sick partners, equality in survivor benefits, pensions, child custody matters and insurance claims.
Others want something closer to marriage, with all the symbolism and practical benefits that convey when the state acknowledges the special nature of the marriage bond.
In the gay community, there is conflict between the factions. Many advocates of civil benefits are infuriated at gay rights organizations that are seeking full marriage rights because they fear it will jeopardize chances for the equal treatment they desire.
But they agree on one point: if a gay marriage measure passes, it will be the first time amending the Constitution has been used to limit rights, not expand them.
And they agree that it’s hard to imagine how that will not translate into increased discrimination in other areas and even hate violence.
Political cannon fodder
Complicating things is the fact that marriage is at once a civil institution and a religious one in a nation that is at war with itself over the role of religion in public policy.
A big segment in this country, including many supporters of the marriage amendment, believes the nation has been secularized, much to its detriment; passing a gay marriage amendment ban would be one step toward restoring the proper balance.
But for many opponents, the issue is their fear that one group is trying to chisel its own religious views into the Constitution.
All of those conflicts are reflected in the Jewish world, but generally without the stridency and outright demagoguery the issue has produced nationally.
For most of the Orthodox, Jewish law trumps other factors; homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage must be prohibited, but few have demonized the homosexual rights movement in the way many televangelists and their followers have.
For many Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and a growing segment of the Conservative movement, the issue is less about Jewish law than about civil rights and separation of church and state.
But again, there are internal differences. Some support only civil unions; others support marriage in both the civil and religious realms.
Some Jews are torn between their traditional commitment to civil rights and their growing observance of Jewish law and tradition. And to many, the anti-gay marriage crusade looks a lot like a deliberate effort to play on visceral prejudices to advance their own careers.
That brings us to the politicians on Capitol Hill and their cousins in statehouses across the country. Some may be genuinely concerned about families, although their concern seems selective; they don’t worry much about their own high divorce rate, and they don’t care much about poor families who may find it harder to stay together because of harsh social welfare policies.
But for many, the issue seems to be a welcome distraction from other issues that require tougher answers than just “it’s their fault.”
Even many Jewish activists who have qualms about same-sex unions are also disturbed that the issue has been turned into political cannon fodder that will distract Congress and the electorate from much more pressing problems.
The Jewish community’s thoughtful ambivalence on the subject is actually a constructive model for the nation.
Mainstream Jews understand the civil rights consequences of sanctioning bigotry, but they also understand the importance of strong families. They understand that religious norms can be an important plus in society, but that they can be misused by cynical leaders eager to expand their power and remake the nation in their theological mold.
The Jewish community doesn’t have answers, but it seems to be asking many of the right questions — which is more than the front-line troops in the “defense of marriage” push seem to be doing.
Former Madisonian James D. Besser has been Washington correspondent for the New York Jewish Week, the Cleveland Jewish News and other leading Anglo-Jewish newspapers for 15 years.
Loading ...