Friday, May 11, 2012

And NOW a word from Sojourners


Here's the statement posted over on God's Politics yesterday in response to President Obama's Evolution on Marriage Equality:
"Sojourners supports equal protection under the law and full legal rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation. We affirm the right of faith communities, congregations, and religious organizations to define marriage in accordance with their own traditions and interpretation of Scripture.
"We hope that the president will work to find common ground with those who do not agree with his position on same-sex marriage and believe that open, respectful, and civil discourse on these issues is very important. For all of us, our relationships with friends and family, and our faith convictions will influence our views on these matters. We believe the best path forward is a legal system that respects the rights and responsibilities of all couples, gay or straight, and also respects the religious liberty of faith communities to define marriage consistent with their theology and scriptural understanding."
Seriously? After years of bobbing and weaving around the issue of marriage equality, Sojourners' official position is:
We believe the best path forward is a legal system that respects the rights and responsibilities of all couples, gay or straight, and also respects the religious liberty of faith communities to define marriage consistent with their theology and scriptural understanding.
As I commented over on their blog:
So if I'm reading this correctly, so long as the First Amendment continues to protect the free exercise of religious conscience, you guys are good with civil marriage equality? Or am I missing something? Because I'd be real happy to be happy about that!
Because here's a news flash: "The legal system" already respects the religious liberty of faith communities to define marriage consistent with their theology and scriptural understanding. It's called The First Amendment and it works just swell.  Nobody's making Roman Catholic priests marry divorced couples -- or Orthodox Rabbis marry interfaith couples. And nobody is going to make anybody marry same-sex couples. We've got that covered.

So if Sojourners actually "supports equal protection under the law and full legal rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation" then I'm having a hard time imagining how equal protection equally protects same-sex couples unless we dump DOMA and their marriages are equally protected by the 1138 federally protected rights now guaranteed to opposite-sex couples but denied to same-sex couples.

Seriously ... am I missing something here? Or is this kind of breaking news from Sojourners? Inquiring minds would LOVE to know!

PS -- for the commenter unfamiliar with SOJOURNERS. From their website:
Sojourners ministries grew out of the Sojourners Community, located in Southern Columbia Heights, an inner-city neighborhood in Washington, D.C. The community began in the early 1970s when a handful of students began meeting to discuss the relationship between their faith and political issues, particularly the Vietnam War. In 1971, the group decided to create a publication that would express their convictions and test whether other people of faith had similar beliefs. What emerged was a publication committed to social justice and peace: The Post-American.

In the fall of 1975, the fledgling community moved to Washington, D.C., where both the community and the magazine took the name Sojourners. The biblical metaphor "sojourners" identifies God's people as pilgrims—fully present in the world but committed to a different order. The community lived together in common households, had a common purse, formed a worshipping community, got involved in neighborhood issues, organized national events on behalf of peace and justice.
Suffice to say, Sojourners -- and spokesperson Jim Wallis -- have provided an influential and prophetic voice on a whole variety of issues of peace and justice through the years. Sadly, for many of us, LGBT equality has not been one of them. I believe they, too, have been "evolving" ... and my hope is that the President's willingness to "come out' for equality is going to give Sojourners -- and many other -- the "nudge" they need to crack open that closet door and put themselves on the right side of history.

7 comments:

JCF said...

I used to be a big fan of Sojourners back in the 80s and 90s, but I think they've really jumped the shark.

"I spit you out, because you are neither cold nor hot."

Carolyn Woodall said...

It has been my experience that even though the law as it exists already protects the right of religious communities to define marriage for their own purposes, it doesn't do a lot to quell paranoia. Just before the 2008 election I wrote a column in my local paper about Prop. 8. It turns out the the opposing view was written by the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Stockton.

He expressed fears that he and other ministers would be forced to perform same sex marriages even thought they were against their beliefs. Really, he should have known better. The Roman Catholic Church is very picky about who can and can not get married in their church, so he should have been fully aware that churches can discriminate respecting the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Not only that, the California Supreme Court said specifically in In Re Marriage Cases, that clergy would not be forced to perform same sex marriages if it were against their beliefs or doctrine.

This concern has been addressed in very plain and uncertain language, not requiring any interpretation, yet it still didn't satisfy some folk (a lot of them, actually). What will it take to satisfy Sojourners when their expressed desire is, in fact, already the state of the law?

John B. Chilton said...

What's the difference between Obama's position and Sojourners'?

Isn't it just that Obama *personally* favors gay marriage? The president has not said that separate is not equal -- he has not said civil unions aren't functionally equivalent for legal purposes to civil marriage. It's not even clear he will do more than (his words) "use the bully pulpit" to promote even civil unions -- it's a state issue, _he_ says.

What Sojourners regrettably doesn't "get" is that Obama is right about what faith teaches us about the position the faithful should take on marriage equality.

What Obama hasn't said he gets is that separate is not equal.

Bill said...

Hi, Susan. It would make things a bit more clear if you had a description or link about this group in this blog. Just a thought. Bill

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

@John ... The difference is President Obama's actions over the last three years have spoken louder than his words of the last three days. His administration has systematically supported and defended LGBT in equality across the board on everything from immigration to DADT … and the elephant in the living room was that he was on record saying “equality but not marriage.” Now he’s “said the magic words” and if that doesn’t mobilize the base we deserve what we get.

I'm venturing beyond my paygrade here but it also seems to me that in saying marriage is a state issue – which is historically has been – he’s setting up the knockdown of DOMA which inserts federal restrictions into marital benefits.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

@Carolyn … IMHO it’s because we’re dealing with homophobia – and we know the definition of phobia is “irrational fear” so reason doesn’t work to overcome it. We’ll hear plenty of this in Indianapolis – clergy and bishops will be FORCED to marry same-sex couples against their conscience. And we’ll have to bend over again and again to say “no you won’t” – never mind how dehumanizing to LGBT people and pandering to paranoia it sounds – and it will be what we have to do to get the work done. So we will do it. And we will win this battle. And we’ll keep fighting the war against the phobias that keep both our church and our nation from what they could, can and (God willing) WILL be. (Exit soapbox.  )

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

@JCF … to quote the brilliant, faithful and fabulous Byron Rushing: In the body politic there are no permanent allies and no permanent enemies.