Same-Sex Marriage Bans and Spiritual Separation

There is a perspective that perhaps we have lost in the public arena about law, namely, that it has a spiritual dimension. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminds us about this in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." He writes,

Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality....Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?

Dr. King's position that laws enforcing separation of peoples denigrate human personality and dehumanize us all. He believes that these laws are rooted in our fallen and sinful natures and mirror the tragic separation of man and the divine. In King's view, just laws point toward brotherhood, and even though they may be created by a majority, the minority will find them suitable.

Are not same-sex marriage bans and laws denying equal rights to LGBTQ people laws that are rooted in separation that diminish human personality? Certainly the gay community does not willingly live under anti-gay laws that deny us visitation rights to see partners in hospitals or custody rights to our children. Certainly our personalities are not enhanced by living without the same life options and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy. Laws such as these enforce marginalization and damage our human community for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

You may argue that I am taking Dr. King's words out of context and using them to advocate a cause that he would not support. It is important to note that in "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. King uses the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence to support his case for civil rights. While Jefferson himself likely would not have been marching with Dr. King in Selma due to his personal racism and fear that giving freedom to African-Americans would cause civil unrest, Jefferson's words were still liberating and prophetic. I do not know if Dr. King would support gay rights if he were alive today. While he rooted his faith in strict biblical interpretation, he also considered himself like Jesus, who was, as he argues, "an extremist for love."

Even though the laws denying equality to LGBTQ people are not as far reaching and debilitating as Jim Crow segregation, they are unjust laws rooted in the principle of separation nonetheless. To let these laws stand would be a great spiritual mistake.

YouTube Debates, Marriage, and Why I Want More

I did not watch the entire YouTube/CNN Democratic presidential debate, but I was struck by the responses of select candidates concerning the issues of gay marriage and the Darfur crisis, primarily because of how the issue of religion was (or was not) treated in both cases.

Concerning gay marriage, Rev. Longcrier of Hickory, NC asked the important question to John Edwards why it was still acceptable to justify excluding gays from the right to marriage on grounds of religious belief. He alluded to the fact that in previous comments, Edwards has expressed opposition to gay marriage based on his Southern Baptist convictions. Edwards admitted to having a great personal struggle with the issue, not believing in gay marriage on one hand, but feeling that as President it would be wrong to use religious belief to deny anyone fundamental rights. Senator Barak Obama argued that the term "marriage" is a non-state issue: all people should have the legal privleges of civil unions, and individual denominations should decide whether to call those unions "marriage."

While I prefer both perspectives to anti-gay marriage bans, I am unhappy with the responses. Both candidates relegated religion to the private realm without challenging the notion that religion can actually be used to liberate rather than oppress, which Rev. Longcrier began to argue before being cut off by Anderson Cooper. While I agree with Edwards that religion should not be used to deny individuals of rights, I would argue that there is an alternative perspective in our political heritage (as promoted during the civil rights movement) of embracing a spiritually progressive stance on political issues and reclaiming religion from the narrow interpretation defined by conservatives.

It is notable that none of the four candidates (Richardson, Gravel, Biden, Clinton) who answered the question about what is America going to do in Darfur expressed a perspective influenced by religious belief. While the Reform Jewish community, Unitarian and other progressive faith groups have spearheaded raising awareness about the Darfur crisis in this country, Darfur, like many other topics of spiritual and ethical dimension, such as immigration, poverty, war, etc, remains a religious non-issue in the high-stakes political arena.

But there is hope, and the field is changing. While there appears to be a growing chorus of voices across the political spectrum supporting protecting the environment, spiritually progressive voices such as the Reverend Dr. William J. Barber II, President of the NC NAACP and Rev. Ched Myers are speaking out about poverty and promoting a program of "Sabbath Economics," rooted in a Hebraic understanding about economic justice.

It would be nice to have a Presidential candidate who would be comfortable and effective in challenging the notion that God does not speak with the wagging tongue of the Religious Right nor watch the human crises of the world with the corporate eyes of indifference. Is that too much to ask?