Archbishop Dolan’s “Timmy One-Note” Afterthoughts on Marriage

I have to say it: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan is no John the Baptist. If he were, he’d be telling his superiors in the Vatican hierarchy the truth about marriage, and he’d likely lose his job, but not his head.

Instead, he continues to play it safe in his quest for his cardinal’s red hat.

In his July 7, 2011 blog essay, entitled Some Afterthoughts, he refers to the historic passage of the Marriage Equality Act as New York State having “sadly attempted a re-definition of marriage.” But the Act was no attempt to “redefine” marriage, but rather involved an extension of connubium, which is “the right to marry” so that it is applied on a gender-neutral basis, in addition to the enactment of certain “religious protections” to insure that it is clear on the face of the legislation that those religions with faiths based in misogyny, patriarchy, and heterosexist supremacy, may continue to limit the marriages they sacramentalize and celebrate to those that they do allow.

It is interesting that he says, “the Church neither has nor wants political ‘clout.’” That is actually refreshing, since it is likely to be an indication that Archbishop Dolan does not plan to order priests in the archdiocese to refuse communion to Governor Cuomo and Catholic legislators who voted for the bill as retribution for their not following the Church’s party line.

The archbishop expressed concern about the religious protections, referring to, but not citing any, “editorials already call(ing) for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty.” I’d really like some credible evidence of this.

Dolan goes on to accuse pro-marriage equality forces of religious intolerance – the case where the bully accuses his victim!

He refers to his side as “those protecting traditional marriage” as if the proponents of the gender-neutral connubium are in some way against traditional marriage. We are not.

There are many LGBT people who have suffered persecution at the hands of the Church and other so-called “Christian” Christianist organizations. I do not blame them for their issues with the opponents of marriage equality, or their form of expression of their reaction to having been bullied by people like Dolan.

I myself will point out that Archbishop Dolan is a heresiarch, and that he really is not a Christian but is rather a Christianist, as is the rest of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. In a credal sense, the RCC hierarchy is nearly as true Christian as the Orthodox Christians who did not add a filioque to the original Nicene Creed. But in a doctrinal sense, as it pertains to moral theology, the Roman Catholic Magisterium is deeply in error because of its teachings in opposition to true natural law (as opposed to the Aristotelian conception of nature brought in by Aquinas), and because of the many Church Fathers whose writings were misogynistic and heterosexist. The Church’s interpretations of biblical passages related to LGBT people is rooted in misogynistic heterosexism, and are among the things that are the cause of error. (I won’t get into matters of faith, since I have evolved theologically since the Catholic Church threw me out in 1999, to the extent that I am now Unitarian/Universalist – so I am not Christian myself, in a credal sense, any more).

Archbishop Dolan apologizes, and I will share that apology here:

“. . . if we did hurt anybody in our defense of marriage, I apologize. We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never anti-gay. But, I’m afraid some within the gay community were offended. As I replied recently to a reporter who asked if I had any message to the gay community, ‘Yes: I love you. Each morning I pray with and for you and your true happiness and well-being. I am honored that so many of you are at home within our Catholic family, where, like the rest of us, we try, with the help of God’s grace and mercy, to conform our lives to Jesus and His message. If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.”

I will accept that the apology is sincerely intended, but if only Dolan understood what it is that he, and the Church, are doing, I think he would want to rethink his position. (Certainly, casting his position as a “defense of marriage” is still an error.)

I could start with the schizophrenic passages in the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which homosexual “activity” can never be “condoned” while homosexual people are to be “respected” and that there should be no discrimination against them. While Dolan is not responsible for the schizophrenia, he should interpret it in a more humane manner.

The tension between respect and condonation is thick – and the Church hierarchy often steers a course that can only be understood within the context of this tension – it is what allows Catholic organization leaders to refuse to allow a student group that has the word “gay” in it, but to permit the group without the name. I often find myself explaining (but not justifying) such actions on the basis of this.

From what I can tell, the Church Magisterium’s vehement opposition to even civil marriage rights is rooted in the “condonation” thing, even though I think that is a very wrong interpretation. The Church should be outside the civil marriage loop – it should be concerned solely with the sacrament of matrimony for Catholics. The opposition to civil marriage smacks of discrimination, and should be seen as against the Catechism. The problem is that the insane ravings from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the topic ties Dolan’s hands, so that in order to come across with the official party line of the Vatican, he has to make himself seem to be a fool (But, I am sure he might rejoin with, “but only a Fool for Christ!” or at least “only a fool in a quest for the red hat!” were he to read this essay)

Archbishop Dolan does not understand that we who support civil marriage rights being legally extended on a gender-neutral basis know that this does not have a single negative effect on the traditional marriage. There is a difference between connubium and matrimonium; while conjugal aspects of human reproduction through heterosexual sex acts are integral to many traditional marriages, they are not integral to all of them, and there are children integral to many same-sex couples’ lives.

Archbishop Dolan was in New York when New York adopted a no-fault divorce law just last year. He refers to the Church opposing no-fault divorce “sixty years ago.” Where was he last year, when the National Organization for Women was fighting valiantly in a losing effort to prevent New York from being the last state to adopt no fault divorce? I see nothing in his blog essays from 2010 that indicate that he was railing to stop the no-fault divorce law at that time.

There are many areas of the marriage “fight” where I could join with Archbishop Dolan. There are aspects of my 45 years as a practicing Catholic that still remain important to me, and aspects of Catholic morality that are not evil. The principles of monogamy and fidelity within marriage are sound. The idea that divorce should be limited to adultery and spousal abuse is one that I could support – I never understood the idea of “until death do us part” as meaning “or until we get tired of each other.”

I wonder what Archbishop Dolan would do about the thing that damaged marriage the most in the past century – the abolition of the common law regarding “bastardy and filiation.” This single legal change meant that women who would refuse a man carnal knowledge until “the ring is on the finger” because of the consequences to he and to any child, are now allowed to scheme on how to get celebrities and sports figures to get them pregnant out of wedlock so they can bring on the paternity suit. (One change I would make to the common law, though, is that it should not be the child who should be labeled as a “bastard,” but the man who was the “carnal sperm donor.”)

To my knowledge, while Republican Catholic and other Christianist legislators in New York State fought hard to include “religious protections” against gender-neutral connubium, there has never been any attempt by the Catholic Church or other Christianists to exempt Catholic marriages, or marriages performed in Christianist churches, from “no fault” divorce laws. While it is true that the Church maintains rigorous control over the granting of Church annulments, the canon law has been changed in such a way as to make it possible for just about any Catholic marriage to be annulled on the grounds that the parties were not really ready to be married at the time they were wed.

In addition to the above, there is much else to give the lie to how “the Church has always stood up for (its understanding of) marriage.” Yes, within the confines of spiritually guiding Catholics, but not to interfere with the civil laws – except for this time.

Where are the religious protections in the civil law against civil divorce involving Catholic marriages? I am sure that the LDS would join in to protect one of their forms of marriage, and the fundamentalist Christianists would support a civil “covenant marriage” concept that would be more difficult to end than the usual, run of the mill, marriage.

Here’s a quote that has me in partial agreement:

“And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called ‘nonmonogamy.’ Apparently, ‘nonmonogamy’ is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!”

I think the Archbishop is referring to the New York Times Magazine article on infidelity that prominently featured Dan Savage, which caused some interesting conversation over at the Joe.My.God. blog, entitled "Homoquotable - Dan Savage" (Is this the "editorial" he was writing about earlier? - if so, it's not an editorial, but is rather a magazine article, and Dan Savage was perhaps tryig to be practical rather than theological.)

Marital infidelity  is something that should not be legally condoned, or condoned by the Church. However, I would not push my moral position beyond that. The law against adultery and the adultery ground for divorce already contains defenses for both condonation and procurement. So, in the situation where both parties to the marriage enter into the marriage with the agreed intention of condonation or even procurement, I’d hesitate to be a moral judge. (With the "no fault divorce" law, they could get divorced anyway, but what if that were to change and divorce became more difficult to get without a legitimate reason?)

To speak against the practice, to advise against it, yes. To forbid it, no. People should be allowed make their own personal moral choices, though there should be guidance available for those who want it.  I would not change the law with regard to marriage to eliminate adultery as a ground for divorce, or to remove the defenses.

On the issue of multiparty marriages, that, too, is one that requires more examination. The state should provide a legal structure for various kinds of multiparty marriages (much as it allows various different kinds of business entities), all of which would require the up-front consent of all parties in advance, and all parties would have to be competent adults who freely and willingly enter into the arrangement with full knowledge and understanding and without any coercion. Ideally, each party should be required to be represented by an independent attorney as well, since it is not likely that most people would fully understand the various ramifications of such a marriage.

As I have pointed out in the past, the Catholic Church itself has examples of forms of multiparty marriage, albeit marriage-like family structures that do not require sexual congress among the parties – these are the various religious orders of priests, nuns, monks, lay brothers and sisters, particularly evident in those who live in religious communities, such as monasteries or convents.  In some ways, these are marriage-like structures modeled on the natural law relating to certain insect colonies and other creatures.

If Archbishop Dolan were pro-marriage, he’d be for both gender-neutral connubium and a framework for multiparty civil marriage that would protect all parties.  But he isn't - he is just pro one kind of marriage, and against other kinds.

Dolan’s blog post shills a bit for Robbie George. I have demolished some of Robbie’s writings in earlier blog essays –it would be a pleasure to do it again.

Dolan frustratingly holds “fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality.”

It’s interesting that in this, Dolan himself, like his mentor Robbie George, is retreating from reality in his inability to understand gender-neutral connubium as not affecting traditional marriage at all. He is retreating from morality by what I would call an institutionalized heterosexist blindness. It’s sad, really, that he does not understand that the misogynistic, heterosexist supremacist position of the Church is one which has no basis in Truth.  Heterosexist supremacism can be understood by an analogy to white racist supremacism - which I would assume is a concept the archbishop can readily grasp.  The idea that opposite-sex couples are superior to same sex couples, and that their legally sanctioned relationships should be better than those of same sex couples, that opposite sex couples have a relief valve for their natural sexual urges by way of a sanctioned moral marriage right, but that no same sex couple can have such a legal or moral outlet, is rooted in the same sort of thinking that led white supremacists to believe in the moral superiorityof the white race, that it is the pinnacle of evolution, and that the black race is destined by the Bible to be the chattel slaves of the white race, because they are the descendants of Canaan, and all the other arrant nonsense that goes witth the racial  bigotry of white supremacists.

Archbishop Dolan would have to be blind to be unable to make the connection.  He could try to rationalize the different kinds of -isms as having some sort of moral difference - but it would be just like turning to the Bible and retelling the story of the children of Ham to justify slavery.

Even so - he really likes his job, and he really wants that cardinal's hat.  Even if we could provoke a crisis of personal conscience in him, he would likely push it deep below his conscious thought, lest he run off the rails on his trajectory to a princedom in the Catholic hierarchy.

He started his essay with John the Baptist, and ended his article with Thomas More, both of whom quite literally lost their heads, while Dolan himself only loses his rationality and moral compass on the subject of marriage (to be fair, he does it on women's reproductive rights as well - but that's the misogyny again).

Thomas More was a brilliant man, but he was also a creature of his times. Neither the admittedly erudite but misguided Robbie George nor Archbishop Dolan can hide behind that fig leaf.  They live in a world where they have access to sufficient rational knowledge to change their views - unfortunately, the availability of Rational Truth may well not be efficacious in their cases.

Responding to Archbishop Dolan on Marriage

With all the hoopla about marriage equality finally getting close to a vote in the New York State Senate, New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan writes (or rather, lies) in his blog about “The True Meaning of Marriage” as a last-ditch effort to try to stop the law from being enacted – and as has been typical and usual with Roman Catholic hierarchs in the United States, he advocates for moral injustice, using lies and misrepresentations as his methodology.
http://blog.archny.org/?p=1247

He commences his diatribe with:

“The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state’s presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.”

Hmmm. “Redefine Marriage” is a stock phrase used by the opponents of the New York marriage bill. The impression is that marriage has lasted for thousands of years without change, and now some people want to “redefine” it so that men and women can’t marry each other.

The fact is that passing the marriage bill will not change a single thing about opposite-sex marriages and the families of people in opposite-sex marriages. Their marriages will not be redefined.

Not only that, but civil marriage gets “redefined” all the time. In ancient Rome, there were several different forms of marriage, and marriage has historically included various forms of polygamy, including both polygyny and (sometimes) polyandry. The Bible indicates that polygyny was one of the earlier forms of marriage – one husband with more than one wife. Indeed, even same-sex marriage was allowed, in some cases. In 1 Samuel 18:3 we see King Saul’s son Jonathan marrying the future King David, and then later in the chapter we see David also marryins Saul’s daughter Michal, thus becoming Saul’s “son-in-law a second time.” (See Darby or ASV, not the Vulgate or translations based on the Vulgate, because Jerome intentionally fudged the applicable verse). In Rome, the Emperor Nero, after killing his pregnant wife Poppaea, later married Sporus, a young man who resembled his dead wife.

In the early Christian Church, as Boswell points out, same-sex unions were actually blessed by Christians. (Indeed, in Christ Jesus, according to Paul, we are “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.”)


Also, according to Paul, marriage for Christians has nothing to do with procreation, but is for the sole purpose of allowing those with a strong libido an opportunity to have licit sex. See 1 Cor. 7:8-9.

But let’s look at the law as it evolved in New York – not an unchanging tradition spanning thousands of years – but a matter of civil law that has evolved over time.

After the English took over from the Dutch, New York was subject to the English common law, which developed over centuries. Marriage under the common law created a single legal person – “the two shall become one” – and then, as Blackstone (or Lord Coke) notes in a corollary, the married woman essentially suffers from a disability that is the equivalent of civil death for a prison inmate – “and that one is the husband.”

This was the barbaric traditional form of marriage for enough hundreds of years to be part of the common law that was the common law of New York State as well.

In 1836, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine Rose started petitioning for a “Married Women’s Property Act” that would allow married women the right to inheritances – until then, being that “the two are one, and that one is the husband,” the husband had control of inheritances – and would often enough spend it on liquor in taverns while leaving his wife and children destitute.

The religious leaders of the day, like Archbishop Dolan, were appalled – to change the civil law relating to marriage would destroy the institution! And the state senate took 12 years, until 1848, to actually pass the law – and then only because some senators realized that the inheritances that should go to their daughters and grandchildren were likely to end up in a tavernkeeper’s hands if they did not pass the bill.

It took another twelve years to push a bill through the legislature in 1860 “redefining marriage” again, to allow working women the right to their own wages – until then, husbands had control over those as well, and they were just as likely to spend their wife’s wages on strong drink as they were to spend their inheritances.

So many other changes have been made in the years since 1848 and 1860 – “redefining” marriage again and again . . .and again.

So, what’s all the ruckus from Archbishop Dolan about this particular proposed change?

The answer is a combination of moral error and conflict in the Church’s catechism that leads to a nearly schizophrenic response whenever the idea of “gay” is broached.

Archbishop Dolan continues:

“The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don’t see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.”

Tamper? No. The arc of history bends toward justice, and the proposed amendment to make marriage laws gender-neutral is just, fair, and right. Tamperis a loaded word – improve would be better and more accurate.

As we have already noted, the “definition as old as human reason” is a fiction invented by Archbishop Dolan to cover his apparent ignorance of the fact that the definition of marriage has been amended many times in the past couple hundred years, and has changed over time as humanity has become more civilized.

Those “in defense of traditional marriage” should be honored to vote for the marriage bill – it makes no changes whatsoever to traditional marriage. All it does is expand the definition to include marriages that are gender neutral as well as those between opposite-sex individuals.

Dolan continues:

“But, really, shouldn’t we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?”

The archbishop apparently has little knowledge or understanding of civil law – and even of the law of his own Church. My own Roman Catholic marriage was ended by civil divorce more than 10 years ago (I didn’t start the proceedings), and then annulled by a Church tribunal of his diocese (though I admit it precedes his elevation to the archbishopric in New York). Is Dolan even aware that New York “tampered” with the whole “lifelong” thing a long time ago? That the grounds for civil divorce have changed many times, most recently when New York began allowing “no-fault” divorce? Isn’t he aware that his own Church’s Canon Law has changed many times with regard to marriage and annulment – with the most recent annulment rules being so liberalized that one prominent canon lawyer was quoted as stating that there was not a Catholic marriage in America that could not be annulled under the current rules?

Does the archbishop realize that procreation is not the sole reason for marriage – sure, the Roman idea of “matrimonium” involves procreation, but “connubium” does not. Perhaps he should brush up on his Latin.

Then the Archbishop gets cutesy:

“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

“But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.”

Um – with his geographical references, Archbishop Dolan seems to imply that changing the law is something that only happens under “godless communism.”

But the Archbishop is just being silly here and making false analogies.

Indeed, he is so wrong that it would actually be funny if he weren’t attempting to be so serious.

In the United States, we have representative government, legislative bodies that are charged with making and amending laws and administrative bodies making and interpreting regulations, and courts watching over it all – on the federal, state and local levels. For most purposes, marriage is viewed as being among the laws that is defined at the state level, except to the extent that the state presumes to violate an individual federal constitutional right.

To that end, the United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia is most instructive, and the Archbishop should consider reading it one of these days.

And then you notice, he sneaks in something in the list of things godless Communists like to redefine – “natural law.” I can’t help but laugh at his ineptitude. It is the Catholic Church whose ideas and concepts of “natural law” have nothing at all to do with nature, and everything to do with Aristotle’s interpretation of nature. We’re lucky that the Church got as far as Aristotle – but Dolan is as wrong here as some of his predecessors in the hierarchy were when they condemned Galileo.

Let’s move on just a little. We know that in the United States, rights, relationships, laws, regulations, etc. are constantly being changed, interpreted and reinterpreted, by legislative and administrative bodies and courts. Yes, there are constitutional limits, but in many ways, the laws and regulations change as the society changes. This is how democratically elected republican government works, unlike the way the Vatican works, which is strictly top-down, and woe to the priest of bishop who steps out of line - so, which is more like North Korea – the Roman Catholic Church, or the New York State legislature?

Continuing with his misstatements, the Archbishop writes: “Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

I understand the difference between freedom and licentious behavior, having spent some time in a Roman Catholic seminary in my pre-transition youth. However, Archbishop Dolan is misusing the concept here. He might make sense if he was describing sexual promiscuity as licentious behavior – but even that, if engaged among consenting adults is legally permitted, regardless of whether it is moral liberty or licentiousness. Lawrence v. Texas clarified the unconstitutionality of laws prohibiting adult consensual sexual behavior other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. These laws were generally enforced only against gay people, even though a great deal of heterosexual sexual activity, within and outside of marriage, involves activity other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Morality is an individual matter, while legality is based on constitutional grounds. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to the higher authority – of the Constitution, and not on the laws of a Church imposed on the basis of arbitrary and capricious interpretations of ancient religious writings.

Incredibly, Dolan continues:

“Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people.”

That is a bald-faced lie, told with a straight face. Discrimination against the LGBT community is found in nearly everything the Roman Catholic hierarchy writes about marriage, or about transgender human rights. It is as if we are all less than human in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.

Dolan continues:

“The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights.”

It is *all* about denying rights, Archbishop. And denying it is futile.

He continues:

“It is about upholding a truth about the human condition. Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children. Please don’t vote to change that. If you do, you are claiming the power to change what is not into what is, simply because you say so. This is false, it is wrong, and it defies logic and common sense.”

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not change, by the amendment of the law- it will also mean the union of a man and a man, and a woman with a woman, and of a transgender or intersex person with a man, woman or other transgender or intersex person. The Church will still allow infertile octogenarians to marry despite the lack of any possibility of creating children. The church will bless the marriage of a man to a woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.

For that matter, the Church will not be forced to marry any non-Catholics, or even Catholics who want a same-sex wedding. The right to discriminate on that level will be preserved – just as a church that would not sanctify an interracial marriage can licitly deny the right to such a wedding in its sanctuary.

Dolan begins his conclusion:

“Yes, I admit, I come at this as a believer, who, along with other citizens of a diversity of creeds believe that God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

Again, Dolan does not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between civil marriage and the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony. To the extent that Dolan is referring to Holy Matrimony as a sacrament – “an outward sign, instituted by God, to give grace” – he is on solid Catholic theological ground, right from the Baltimore Catechism – but once he presumes to step into the legislative process for civil marriage, his particular religious prejudices should hold no sway.

He wraps up with:

“We believers worry not only about what this new intrusion will do to our common good, but also that we will be coerced to violate our deepest beliefs to accommodate the newest state decree. (If you think this paranoia, just ask believers in Canada and England what’s going on there to justify our apprehensions.) But I also come at this as an American citizen, who reads our formative principles as limiting government, not unleashing it to tamper with life’s most basic values.”

Canada and England do not have the constitutional protection of not having established churches, and do not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious expression. So yes, Archbishop, it’s paranoia – you’re not a “state religion” like the Church of England, and the U.S. has a strong aversion to establishing a religion, and a strong constitutional provision in favor of “free exercise” of religion.

If by “violating our deepest beliefs” he means that providing spousal benefits to married gay employees is somehow wrong, then he’s likely to have his deepest beliefs violated, just as the courts will require a blood transfusion for a Jehovah Witness’ baby over the objections of parents, or a court would convict someone who decides that their “deepest” religious beliefs require them to kill Wiccans, or stone gays to death, or otherwise not respect the rights of others.

This is where we should have a discussion about the difference between “freedom” and “license” – your freedom to exercise a Catholic faith does not give you the license to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights. Your freedom to be Catholic does not give you the license to disrespect my Unitarian marriage, or to treat my marriage in any way under the law as different from any other marriage. Just because the Catholic Church teaches that transsexual people cannot marry anyone, male, female, or other, does not give the Church the right to deny me any civil benefit, even though the Church does not have to provide me with a sacrament.

Dolan violates my deepest beliefs with every word he has written in this blog essay – but that does not give me the right to censor him – he has the right of free speech even if he is lying, as long as he’s not committing defamation. His calumnious column is evidence of his deep official and possibly personal bigotry – I had hoped that he would at least try to keep himself to Church business rather than meddling – but they haven’t given him his cardinal’s hat yet, so he must feel that he has to cater to the irrational ravings from the Vatican on the subject. Would that he were brave enough to stand up and speak truth to power and risk his position. But he’s typical of the corporate middle-management about to break into the upper echelon – don’t rock the boat.

There is no intrusion, just a fairer, more decent law that will provide legal protection to families in need. Poor black and latina lesbians with children,( often children from prior relationships in which they tried to maintain a straight marriage against their natures because of societal expectations) are likely to have the biggest benefit from the broadening of the marriage law. They and their children will benefit.

Society will benefit from the New York legislature’s enactment of marriage equality – and I sincerely hope the legislature does do the right thing, despite pressure from Dolan and the other foes of freedom.
-

Separating Christ from Caesar: An Open Letter to Floyd Flake, Ruben Diaz, Sr., and Malcolm Smith

Monday, April 27, 2009

Reverend Pastor Floyd H. Flake, D. Min.
The Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral of New York
110-31 Merrick Boulevard
Jamaica, New York 11433

Hon. "Reverend" State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.
307 Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247

Hon. State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith
250 Broadway, Suite 1930
New York, NY 10007


Re: Separating Christ from Caesar

Recently I published an open letter in my blog addressed to New York’s new Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan, in which I was critical of some misstatements he made in an interview made just prior to his installation.

On this eve of tomorrow’s Equality and Justice Day in New York, I think it’s appropriate to respond to the report in the April 26, 2009 Sunday New York Times about Reverend Floyd Flake’s negative preaching from the pulpit about the marriage issue (“Marriage Bill Poses A Test Of Loyalties: Church vs. State” by Jeremy W. Peters), and “Reverend” State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr.’s macho negative fixation on this issue that spills over from his church to his politics. I am also writing to commend State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith for his understanding of the line between his commitment to equal rights for all, and his personal religious beliefs.

I would only wish that Reverend Floyd Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz would be able to learn to separate their religious beliefs from their understanding of equal rights.

Unlike the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that only the Church hierarchy has the right to interpret sacred scripture for the benefit of Roman Catholics, it has always been a cardinal rule of Protestants that each person can understand and interpret scripture on their own, with the grace of God. And various Protestant traditions do exactly that, disagreeing on many different doctrinal issues. So, unlike the situation with Archbishop Dolan, I don’t need to go so far as to consider Reverend Flake or “Reverend” State Senator Diaz to be apostates or heretics for having biblical interpretations on the issue of marriage rights that diverge from mine. All I need do is disagree with their interpretation of Scripture.

Among the founding principles of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are the two provisions in the First Amendment that deal, first with the relationship between the government and religion, and then with the rights of individual people. The first, called the “establishment clause,” prohibits the government from imposing particular religious beliefs on the people. The second, called the “free exercise clause” guarantees every American the right to freely exercise their own religious beliefs.

That free exercise clause is not totally untrammeled, however. Just because there are verses in sacred scripture that authorize believers to stone adulterers or gays to death, does not mean that the “free exercise clause” provides for the right to have such public stonings.

I am familiar with this particular aspect of the free exercise clause, because in my law practice some years ago, I was with a firm that represented a local hospital, and we had several “Jehovah Witness Baby Transfusion” cases. Jehovah Witnesses believe that a biblical verse that prohibits the eating of blood also forbids blood transfusions. Adults are free to refuse life-saving medical treatment for themselves on a religious basis, but there is a conflict when it comes to the rights of their infant children, in whom the state has a legitimate interest. Thus, in cases where an infant is born with a serious bilirubin issue that requires a blood transfusion for the child to live, and the parents cannot consent because of their religion, the physician and the hospital must obtain an immediate court order authorizing the transfusion.

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, Reverend Flake, “Reverend” State Senator Diaz and other religious leaders interpret the Bible in such a way so as to see a prohibition of same sex marriage, does not mean that the government should impose their particular religious interpretation on everyone who does not share that belief.

First, from a purely religious point of view, there is the same sex marriage of David and Jonathan that is found in 1 Samuel 18, confirmed in the latter part of the chapter as an actual marriage when King Saul declares that when David also married Saul’s daughter Michal, David became Saul’s son-in-law a second time. (Look to Darby or ASV for this translation of original Aramaic and Greek sources – St. Jerome fudged this in the Latin Vulgate, leading Douay-Rheims, King James and other Vulgate-based translations to have an error in this.)

Reverend Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz can choose to interpret scripture differently – but they cannot claim that their interpretation is any better than Darby’s, or mine, or that of some ministers of the United Church of Christ, Quakers or Unitarians and others who wish to sacramentally recognize same sex marriages in the same way they recognize opposite-sex unions. This willingness to endorse marriage equality by some Christians and members of other religions is a free exercise issue that is not like stonings, baby blood transfusions or even handling poisonous snakes.

Reverend Flake, especially, should be mindful of the preachings of many earnest white Protestant ministers in the 19th century who railed from the pulpit that the involuntary servitude of African Americans was biblically justified, referring to the slaves as “Children of Ham” and referring to the Genesis 9:20-27 story in which Ham’s descendants (Canaan and his children) are punished by God – to be the servants of the children of Shem and Japeth.

Yes, those white ministers of religion believed that Christianity endorses slavery - and it was not limited to the teaching of St. Paul abjuring slaves to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5, Titus 2:9).

In the 1830’s and 1840’s and beyond, many ministers of religion opposed basic human rights for women, particularly married women, because altering the laws relating to marriage by giving women control over their own inheritances, or wages, or allowing women to vote, would destroy the sacred institution of marriage. After all, just as slaves were told by St. Paul to be obedient to their masters (see Ephesians and Titus citations above), wives were told to be obedient to their husbands (Titus 2:5).

The Times article closes with the following paragraph:

Ultimately, Mr. Flake said, the decision to support same-sex marriage and the consequences that decision may produce belong to Mr. Smith. “I told him he has to live with his conscience,” Mr. Flake said.

I really think that Reverend Flake should consider his own advice, and learn from his protégé State Senate Majority Leader Smith – while Reverend Flake has every right to interpret sacred scripture in the way that he does, and to decide to not perform a same-sex wedding in his church, he must live with his own conscience over his preaching from the pulpit that his belief must be imposed legally on everyone who doesn’t agree with his interpretation of the Bible, or, for that matter, whose religion or non-religion doesn’t recognize the Bible as the source of their beliefs.

Reverend Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz really should be American enough to be able to separate their own personal religious beliefs from their political views.

After all, if they are not willing to speak up in favor of oppressed minorities like LGBT people, who will speak up for them when right wing Christianists and neo-cons seek to roll back the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the 1870’s when the Supreme Court held it applied only to the federal government and not to the states. If equal rights for all are not cherished on the secular level in support of the bedrock principles under which the nation was founded and as they have evolved to improve over the years, how long will it be before African-American men are once again counted for census purposes as 3/5ths of a man, and women of any race are not counted at all. How long will it be before women are denied control over their own reproductive rights, and how soon will secular marriage be restored to the sort of thing it was in America before 1848 – a union in which the two become one, and that one is the husband – relegating the wife to the equivalent of the civil death imposed on convicted felons with life terms.

It is one thing to teach the members of one’s own congregation your interpretation of scripture for their religious education, and quite another when you use the pulpit to preach politically that your interpretation of a religious writing must serve as the source for the law that applies to everyone.

I am joining with over 2,000 New Yorkers tomorrow in Albany – our voices will be heard in favor of passage of the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA), the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), and the Marriage Equality bill. I would like nothing better than for Reverend Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz to have a revelation to see the light and support civil rights under the secular law, even if they continue to interpret scripture the way they do. I invite both of you to join with us tomorrow.

In peace and with a deep regard to both human rights, I remain,

Sincerely,

Joann Marie Prinzivalli
Serva Servarum Deae