The advent of Douthat comma Ross (that's my nick for him. I hope he likes it, 'cause it's gonna stick) on Andrew's blog has provided me with a much needed lull to catch up on the state of the debate over gay marriage.
JUST REMEMBER THIS, A KISS IS NOT A KISS
I had just been wondering aloud about the merits of grassrooting (via the blogosphere) the LGBT grassroots organizations; and, maybe it’s time to grassroots the “gay-marriage” debate, too, after my preliminary read of the easily available materials.
I’m going to try to post on this topic more insightfully. I’ve debated whether to create another blog for this, but so far, decided not to. E-mail me if you have a strong preference.
George Chauncey has put together a very approachable and readable short-history, that, unlike other “Why Marriage?” books, traces the historical development of the proposition of gay marriage. As he himself notes, it is outside the scope of his book, however, to trace the history of ideas, which is what serious sidebar citizens would desire (I’m betting). Based on its date of publication, 2005, I presume that Chauncey’s book was written for non-gays, some who didn’t even understand how marriage had made it onto the ‘gay agenda’. Yet, it is a compelling backgrounder, even if it is a little uncritical.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEBATE
Information lock-up and obscurity: if you are a motivated, but casual observer, wanting to 'catch-up' on the topic, you probably have to pay money to unlock the information in someone's book, on both sides of the debate, right now. Local libraries across the country probably aren’t stocked up or current. If you didn’t know they existed, you’d have no easy way of finding John Corvino’s essays on the morality of homosexuality. If you wanted to find out if someone had written essays about gay marriage within various faith-traditions, from whatever perspective, you are on your own and this information is “obscure”. If you wanted to read over research on gay families or gay theology issues, you are also on your own, both to source and obtain it.
Shout it out: if any quietly deliberative forums exist, in which to exchange views with the other side, I don't know them at this time. My estimation is that the time hasn't passed for this. However, as more and more people put their public face to hardened views, the path for the true seekers narrows. The number of people who do not even want to bother with exchange may be non-trivial, on both sides of the “debate”.
Thought leadership: Those opposed to marrying gays have prolific, fully funded think-tank writers. They have established platforms, live and virtual, for holding seminars and discussions among themselves. Where they are backed by Catholic doctrine, they have a consistent message (their “popular” arguments, the status quo), even if the analytical defense of it is low quality, typically. When they engage on putatively non-religious terms, they have a general, but not immutable, set of concerns with some legitimacy. For these, the analytical defense is sometimes more robust, but (just as often?) the general presentation is too frequently propagandistic.
Those in favor of marrying gay couples do not have the backing of big think-tanks or the luxury that implies. There appear to be no active forums, live or virtual, for holding seminars and discussions among themselves. The thought leaders do not have the consistency of a settled doctrine from which to marshal their arguments, which run a gamut, sometimes complimentary and, in a few ways, contrary. They do not enjoy a full throated community support or participation, for any number of reasons. The legalistic groups have a well researched framework of “rights and responsibilities” but have limited their refutation and rebuttals of their main opponents to some general comments on how to interpret the Bible. The rest of the argument has to pull a lot of weight, therefore. The primacy is on how courts might deliberate on the issues.
The dynamic: It is hard for me to tell whether there has been much cumulative learning, an abandonment of the crude and ignorant parts of the debate as a broader consciousness arrives. It is also hard for me to tell whether the debate is less highly partisan than in prior periods or more so. [There is much more to be said on this, but I’m going to leave it as is for now.]
WIDELY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHAT IS INVOLVED STILL
One illustration of how far apart the two sides are is to compare the level of scholarship that both sides are demanding. Those opposed, no matter how one might judge their motives, are intent to “figure out” how marriage rites for gays fit in with *everything* else (when they haven’t already prejudged, that is). Accordingly, they want to look at history and philosophy and the law and sociology, psychology, literature and economics. Although they sometimes take pains to cut-out theology, it’s transparent that they have not. In other words, to some of them, these are Great Moral Truths that are being dealt with, and they are struggling to ground that sense of things, either anew or with new propaganda.
One prominent, pro-gay advocacy website, on the other hand, shows a resources page that links some articles that appeared in the popular press and some quick-and-dirty Q&A. To them, these are the Great Benefits of Civil Society that they are cut out of.
I haven’t seen any concerted effort to introduce bridging principles into this gap (although Jon Rauch’s book comes the closest, that I’ve read). There is little consensus on what marriage is for and why.
WHAT’S NEXT? MAYBE A ‘LIBERAL CASE’ FOR GAY MARRIAGE
For me, I’ve found all kinds of little places where things could be improved, by dropping an friendly comment or two. I might indulge in some brief posts to do this.
ErasmusAS has a talent for calling things ‘conservative’ that aren’t really, e.g. a “Conservative Soul”. All the same, it makes me want to write a ‘liberal case’, even though there is really just one case for marriage, neither liberal or conservative.
Last, it’s even more plain to me than before that developing a gay theology or gay theologies might greatly extend the debate, which is timid and flatfooted about the elephant in the room. I know that some work has been done on this, that I have not reviewed. Still, the general places one might think to look to find something like this are notably silent.
To create such theologies might require someone suitably motivated outside the various traditions who can write to the level of scholarship that is done inside the various traditions. For obvious reasons, this may be a very limited set.
I’m doubtful that part of the debate lends itself to ‘netroots’, but clearly, there are related topics, like improving the understanding of the role of marriage in civil society, historically and conceptually, because this is not being handled deftly by either side of the debate, so far as I can tell from my preliminary investigations. (I emphasize that these are preliminary characterizations. As always, there is more reading to do and not enough time).
