Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Head Scarves and Gay Marriage
I was reading today about the struggles in Europe concerning women wearing the traditional Muslim hijab, and I must say that I'm having second thoughts in this debate.
As an American, I have a strong bias toward individual rights, especially rights of expression and religion. The more I read, however, I see that this case hinges on the fact that, as Bob Weir used to sing, "there's freedom from and freedom to."
From about 1500 to 1700 or so Europe pretty much reeled from one bloody conflict to another over the issue of religion. The rise of nationalistic systems that came after these conflicts tried, not always easily, to keep religion out of the public sphere. Despite a secular revolution in 1789, it was only in the last century that crucifixes, symbol of France's dominant Catholic Church, were removed from secular French schools, according to this fine article by Elaine Ganley examing the hijab controversy. While doing some more background folks may also want to read this piece from The Guardian.
Europe's answer to religious conflict in the modern era has typically been to strongly secularize the state and notions of national identity. As these articles discussed, such efforts are under attack again, this time by Muslim fundamentalists.
The US chose an opposite tack--we embraced much religious display and self expression. Of course, until recently (and even now in many parts of the country) that meant Christian display of a certain Protestant leaning, so we shouldn't pat our own backs too hard in this regard. Nevertheless, its clear that these ties go back to our nation's founding, and were part of our own history and tradition. America's tradition of manifest destiny embraces a religious fervor, and our secular institutions have engaged in an alliance with religion from the beginning. The religion clause notwithstanding, the US has had (and Americans generally favor) far less of a church-state separation than Civics 101 would have us believe. Good or ill, it's a simple fact.
Here's the gay marriage part. We do something unique from most Western European countries that have tried hard to separate the religious from the secular--we put government in the business of religious marriage. I'm sure a part of this can, like the endangered common-law marriage, be traced to the uneven development of our nation's vast frontiers. Preachers, let alone judges, were scarce in many samll communities, so we took the step of linking their duties with regard to unions. Everyone in America knows the phrase, "by the power vested in me by the State of X"--yet that would sound quite out of place to many Europeans. Alternately, in most Western countries there is both a civil marriage and, if you choose, a religious one. The church service might keep you from the fires of eternal damnation, if that's your belief, but if you want benefits, legal rights of marriage, and a chance at alimony down the road should things go bad, you'll need that civil ceremony.
We've co-joined the two for so long in our own minds that I think folks forget this key point. Even GW Bush has said many times that, "marriage is a sacrament." Well, yes and no. Marriage is both a secular and religious event. There are right now a number of faiths that are willing to conduct same-sex marriages--it is the state that doesn't recognize those unions. Likewise, there are some faiths that will take centuries before they will join same-sex partners. (And even some that won't ordain 50% of their members--sorry, wrong posting!) That struggle is one in which members of that particular faith community should be engaged. I don't believe the state should force gay marriage on religious institutions, but I also don't believe they ever would. Civil marriages, however, could give committed gay couples all of the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails. In fact, given the state of straight marriages today among both the religiously-inclined and avowedly-secular, having a new cohort of committed people modelling the long-term benefits of marriage would ultimately strengthen, not weaken, the institution.
I was reading today about the struggles in Europe concerning women wearing the traditional Muslim hijab, and I must say that I'm having second thoughts in this debate.
As an American, I have a strong bias toward individual rights, especially rights of expression and religion. The more I read, however, I see that this case hinges on the fact that, as Bob Weir used to sing, "there's freedom from and freedom to."
From about 1500 to 1700 or so Europe pretty much reeled from one bloody conflict to another over the issue of religion. The rise of nationalistic systems that came after these conflicts tried, not always easily, to keep religion out of the public sphere. Despite a secular revolution in 1789, it was only in the last century that crucifixes, symbol of France's dominant Catholic Church, were removed from secular French schools, according to this fine article by Elaine Ganley examing the hijab controversy. While doing some more background folks may also want to read this piece from The Guardian.
Europe's answer to religious conflict in the modern era has typically been to strongly secularize the state and notions of national identity. As these articles discussed, such efforts are under attack again, this time by Muslim fundamentalists.
The US chose an opposite tack--we embraced much religious display and self expression. Of course, until recently (and even now in many parts of the country) that meant Christian display of a certain Protestant leaning, so we shouldn't pat our own backs too hard in this regard. Nevertheless, its clear that these ties go back to our nation's founding, and were part of our own history and tradition. America's tradition of manifest destiny embraces a religious fervor, and our secular institutions have engaged in an alliance with religion from the beginning. The religion clause notwithstanding, the US has had (and Americans generally favor) far less of a church-state separation than Civics 101 would have us believe. Good or ill, it's a simple fact.
Here's the gay marriage part. We do something unique from most Western European countries that have tried hard to separate the religious from the secular--we put government in the business of religious marriage. I'm sure a part of this can, like the endangered common-law marriage, be traced to the uneven development of our nation's vast frontiers. Preachers, let alone judges, were scarce in many samll communities, so we took the step of linking their duties with regard to unions. Everyone in America knows the phrase, "by the power vested in me by the State of X"--yet that would sound quite out of place to many Europeans. Alternately, in most Western countries there is both a civil marriage and, if you choose, a religious one. The church service might keep you from the fires of eternal damnation, if that's your belief, but if you want benefits, legal rights of marriage, and a chance at alimony down the road should things go bad, you'll need that civil ceremony.
We've co-joined the two for so long in our own minds that I think folks forget this key point. Even GW Bush has said many times that, "marriage is a sacrament." Well, yes and no. Marriage is both a secular and religious event. There are right now a number of faiths that are willing to conduct same-sex marriages--it is the state that doesn't recognize those unions. Likewise, there are some faiths that will take centuries before they will join same-sex partners. (And even some that won't ordain 50% of their members--sorry, wrong posting!) That struggle is one in which members of that particular faith community should be engaged. I don't believe the state should force gay marriage on religious institutions, but I also don't believe they ever would. Civil marriages, however, could give committed gay couples all of the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails. In fact, given the state of straight marriages today among both the religiously-inclined and avowedly-secular, having a new cohort of committed people modelling the long-term benefits of marriage would ultimately strengthen, not weaken, the institution.
Comments:
Post a Comment
