There will inevitably be a gay marriage amendment on the Wisconsin ballot, most likely in the fall of 2006.
An editorial page editor’s dream, right?
The battle lines are drawn. The issues are clear. The stances stand in stark contrast to one another. And, most importantly, there are looming public policy changes about which editorial pages can inform readers.
So, why this sinking feeling in my gut?
Simple. Religion will likely be involved at some point.
This isn’t another way of admitting to cowardice. It isn’t about wanting to avoid the possibility of clergy saying nasty things about the newspaper from the pulpit on a given Sunday and having subscriptions canceled as a result.
We’ve already expressed our opposition editorially to a constitutional amendment on this topic. But as the electioneering gains steam, the stakes will get higher for all interested parties. And so will the bombast.
No, the trepidation I feel is about the timidity inspired when the issue is religion, or topics of importance to the faithful. The fear is that because of the lofty position religion holds in U.S. public life for a vocal segment, editorial pages in the state will pull their punches. They will fear appearing disrespectful and will avoid tackling altogether the theological underpinnings of one side of the argument.
Witness how we write about abortion.
We very appropriately write about the science, about whether privacy is, or isn’t, in the Constitution. We stump about a woman’s right to have control over her own body. But we generally skirt religion altogether, unless you count asides about the dreaded “Religious Right.”
Yes, not all opposition to abortion stems from religious belief. But it is simply unrealistic to ignore that faith informs much of the opposition here. Yes, anti-gay sentiment is rampant even outside churches. But, even here, religion, I’m convinced, drives the argument for many.
I wonder if this skirting of discussing religion is altogether necessary. I’m not talking about arguing scripture, tit for tat, with readers. That’s something to be avoided. But how about writing intelligently about religion’s role in a secular society, even when the topic isn’t precisely religion?
We do this — sort of — when the issues of church-state separation come before the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress or our state legislatures. We generally eschew this, however, with other topics driven by religion, though we’ve come closest to honest comment when writing about intelligent design.
Even here, however, we fall short, in part because we know some people believe fervently in creationism based on faith in the bible, and we don’t want to judge a position some consider simply loony.
I’m not saying we should feel free to call one another names. But I am saying that we should feel free to say that a bad idea is bad — even if biblical authority seemingly buttresses it.
Instead, we tiptoe around this.
For instance, I suspect many an editorial board believes gay rights to be a matter of civil rights. And while these boards would have no hesitancy to label as bigotry any measure that would, for instance, say the state could discriminate against someone for their race, ethnicity or gender, there will likely be no such pronouncements in this case.
But is it any less bigotry because religion may be involved? The answer for many editorial boards will be that this is different somehow. But we won’t bother to explain why.
I suspect a good many editorial page editors, and editorial writers, out there are saying that avoiding religion is totally appropriate. That it is unnecessary to go there if the arguments can be crafted from purely secular talking points.
Why pick unnecessary fights?
In other words, ignore what is for many the moral authority of their views.
This is indeed tempting. But perhaps there is a way to discuss these religious underpinnings without disrespect. We could, for instance, note that some who call themselves religious have no problem with gays in their churches, or in their pulpits. And they can cite their own biblical scriptures and interpretations. We could, in other words, more comprehensively cover the fact that the jury in many respects is still out on gays in many churches.
Some will counter, of course, that these believers simply have it wrong. But in giving some attention to this debate, we will in fact be demonstrating that there are a variety of opinions on the topic in religious circles.
Instead, I suspect that many of us will simply cling to familiar turf. Civil unions vs. marriage (what’s the difference aside from semantics?). And why, if it’s right to disallow discrimination in certain sectors against gays (housing and employment), it is wrong to make it allowable in others? We might note that religion has little role in the debate inasmuch as marriage technically is a civil institution, requiring a marriage license from government.
The Catholic Church recently generated much controversy with a new policy on gay priests. Our news pages were full of the debate. I noticed, however, that our editorial pages were not, with some notable exceptions.
I know that editorial boards reasoned that this is purely an internal argument within a religious institution. And that secular editorial boards had no standing to comment.
Commendably, the Los Angeles Times didn’t take that approach. In an editorial on Dec. 4, it demonstrated how such a topic could be respectfully discussed:
If its purpose is to underline the church’s stance that homosexuality is immoral, then the Vatican’s policy barring many gays from the priesthood counts as a success. But if its aims also are to stem sexual abuse and make priests more effective chaplains, as it implies, then the directive is both illogical and ill-informed.
In other words, the Los Angeles Times recognized that religious arguments often have secular consequences.
I’m not arguing for a secular jihad against public policy motivated by religious belief. But I am calling for an honest discussion when such is the case in the interest of full disclosure.
This can, I’m certain, be done rationally and respectfully. Timidity in the press, as has been demonstrated of late on any number of issues, is simply too unbecoming.
