[Dialogue] Spong on theNJ case

[KroegerD at aol.com]

November 1, 2006 
Three Cheers for the New Jersey  Supreme Court 
The Supreme Court of my beloved state of New Jersey, in its historic  
decision handed down on October 25, 2006, has defined the battle over gay  marriage 
for the entire nation. I am convinced that many will look back on this  4-3 
decision as the signal that the end of this debate has now finally arrived  in 
the public consciousness. That is not an expression of naïve optimism on the  
part of someone who rejoices in this decision, it is a clear conviction based on 
 a study of the way change has always occurred in human history. Let me share 
the  reasoning that leads me to this conclusion.  
People do not seem to recognize that when a prejudice begins to be debated  
publicly, it is already on its deathbed. Prejudices become mortally wounded 
when  the irrational definitions on which they are based are challenged by new  
learning. First, the designated minority refuses to be bound by the challenged  
definition any longer. The emerging generation, never bound by yesterday's  
definitions anyway, then enters the battle by refusing to salute or cooperate  
with the patterns of the past. Next, cultural outlets begin to display the  
former victims in a positive light in novels, plays and on television.  
Ultimately the politics, the laws and the practices of the social order are  directed 
to accommodate the new definitions. At that moment death has all but  arrived 
for the challenged prejudice. That was the signal New Jersey's Court  sent to 
the citizens of this state, nation and world in its recent decision.  
This does not mean that there will now be a universal acceptance, but it does 
 mean that there will be no turning back and that the victory of the new  
definition is assured. Victory was even signaled in the way both critics and  
advocates responded to the Court's decision. Culture warring politicians  
immediately moved to mine this emotional terrain for political gain. That is  what 
always happens. A brief look at the way people, deeply infected with  racism, 
responded to the Supreme Court's decision making segregation illegal is  
instructive. Their first line of defense was to predict 'dire consequences,'  while 
attacking those who forced this new consciousness on them.  
When the anti-segregation decision in 1954 disturbed the power base of the  
ruling oligarchy in the South, the response was predictable. In Virginia, led 
by  Harry Flood Byrd and Mills Godwin, America's Supreme Court Justices were  
subjected to witheringly negative oratory. To keep the predicted "rape and  
miscegenation" from happening, the public schools in Virginia were closed rather  
than be forced to comply with the Court's ruling. In North Carolina 
senatorial  candidate Jesse Helms adopted this tactic and was elected five times by 
keeping  the fear level high. In South Carolina it was J. Strom Thurmond, who 
despite  having a child by an underage black servant in his father's household, 
kept in  power by campaigning against 'race-mixing.' In Georgia ax 
handle-wielding  restaurateur Lester Maddox rode the tide of negativity into the 
governor's  mansion. In Alabama, George C. Wallace stood defiantly in the school-house 
door,  and in Mississippi race baiting James Eastland took the Theodore Bilbo 
heritage  to new lows. Any judge who favored equal rights for 
African-Americans had to be  in the eyes of these politicians a "liberal activist' judge. 
Indeed in that day  they threw the "communist" word around pretty freely.  
Over the years the campaign to discredit "liberal, activist judges" slowly  
repressed its racist origins, entering national politics in a perfumed way as  
the "Southern Strategy" adopted by Barry Goldwater in his losing campaign in  
1964 and by Richard Nixon in his victorious runs for the presidency in 1968 
and  1972. None of this activity, however, stopped the rising tide within the 
nation  as it moved inexorably toward its destiny as an equal and inclusive 
society.  When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 opened the ballot box to African 
American  citizens of the South, the more grotesque forms of racism had to be 
abandoned,  since political opinion is always tempered by political reality. 
Governor  Wallace of Alabama articulated this reality best when asked why it was 
that he  had stopped campaigning against "Negroes" and had begun campaigning 
against "  Communists," he observed "there are not 250,000 registered communists 
in  Alabama." The outcome will not be different over the issue of full 
acceptance of  gay and lesbian people.  
Now look at the responses that greeted the New Jersey decision.  
Armageddon-like predictions of the dire consequences that were destined to  follow this 
ruling were heard. It was viewed as an attack on the sanctity of  marriage, 
although it is hard to imagine how people, eager to be included inside  the 
institution of marriage could be in favor of bringing about its demise. The  
institution of the family itself was said to be under attack by those whose only  
crime appears to be that they too want to be recognized as families. Next we  
began to awaken to the fact that less than half of America's households today  
include a married man and woman. Within twenty-four hours of this decision,  
President Bush was using the New Jersey Court to fire up his sagging political  
base in the mid-term elections. Right on cue he took out the "red flag" of  
"activist, liberal judges" and began waving it before the people. Of the seven  
New Jersey Judges who handed down this decision four were appointed by  
Republican Governors and three by Democratic governors. That claim had the same  
level of rationality that it possessed when Majority leaders, Tom Delay of the  
House and Bill Frist of the Senate, attacked the Supreme Court Justices in the  
Terri Schaivo case as "liberal activists." Seven of the nine justices of the  
Supreme Court are the appointees of conservative Republican presidents.  
A unique twist to the New Jersey Court decision was that it was also attacked 
 by gay rights activists. These long oppressed citizens, smelling victory, 
felt  the court had not gone far enough since it did not prescribe that the word 
 "marriage" be expanded to cover both kinds of now legal partnerships. What to
  call it was left to the legislative process and the court gave the State  
Legislature 180 days to address this issue. So the battle lines are drawn for a 
 fight to name the guarantees that the Court has mandated. It is strange but  
understandable politics, so let me speak to this concern of its advocates.  
I had filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of the seven gay and  
lesbian couples who brought this case into the legal process and have,  
therefore, followed this case closely. I rejoice at the decision, applaud the  
justices and believe that the magnitude of this victory for our gay and lesbian  
brothers and sisters needs to be acknowledged.  
That magnitude is seen first in the fact that the four to three decision did  
not represent a split or a narrow vote, as people reading the court's 
decision  might be tempted to suggest. On the major issue of equality for gay couples 
the  court issued a 7-0 decision. All seven justices were in agreement that 
the State  of New Jersey can no longer discriminate in any way against gay and 
lesbian  people by granting benefits and privileges to married couples that 
are not  available to same sex couples. That was the core issue in the 
litigation and  citizens across the state and the nation need to embrace the fact that 
the court  was unanimous on that issue. Every legally recognized New Jersey 
couple must now  receive equality under the law as guaranteed by the equal 
treatment provisions  of the state and national constitutions.  
The 4-3 vote was on whether it was the Court's right or the responsibility of 
 the legislature to define these legal partnerships as marriages. They 
decided  that the Court had the responsibility to mandate equality, but that the  
legislature had the responsibility to name it. It is a very narrow playing field 
 onto which the legislature has been invited. Gay advocates should never give 
up  but they do need to embrace the totality of this victory. The legislature 
has  little room in which to operate. The questions are: Can marriage and 
civil  unions ever be equal if they are kept separate? Was not the concept of 
"separate  but equal" dismissed long ago as producing a situation that was always 
separate  but never equal? Can the legislature withhold the name "marriage" 
from "civil  unions" and still maintain that the two are equal? Mandating the 
same benefits  will be the easy part. The benefits that the state must now give 
to same sex  couples that married couples already possess are the following:  
    *   The right to change surnames without petitioning the court and paying 
the  required legal fees.  
    *   Joint ownership of property with the privilege of conveying that 
property  automatically at death.  
    *   Survivor benefits under the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act.  
    *   Back wages owed a deceased spouse.  
    *   Equitable distribution in a divorce, of property acquired during the  
course of the marriage/union.  
    *   State tax deductions for spousal medical expenses.  
    *   Exemption from realty transfer fee for transfers of property between  
spouses.  
    *   The privilege not to testify if one's spouse is accused in criminal  
action. 
If the legislature incorporates these privileges and others  that may appear 
after further study into domestic partnerships and still decides  not to call 
civil unions a marriage would that satisfy the court? Ultimately I  do not 
think so. I believe, and the Court will surely have to acknowledge, that  there 
is some cultural recognition, dignity and honor attached to the term  marriage 
that cannot finally be conveyed to something that claims to be separate  from 
but equal to marriage. So I do not believe that the legislature will be  able 
to meet the court's mandate if they try to dodge the word "marriage." I'm  
sure the legislators will, in the service of their own political survival, try.  
I am equally sure that they will fail.  
There are only two ways then to proceed and the legislature of this state,  
and ultimately the decision-making bodies of this entire nation will finally be 
 driven to a choice between these two. One is to drop the pretense and to 
declare  that a state-issued marriage license is open to all couples and that 
when that  state-issued license is activated it means the couple is married.  
The other is to separate the legal function in civil unions from the  
religious function of "Holy Matrimony." That means that clergy, priests, pastors  and 
rabbis no longer would function as agents of the state when performing  
marriages. All couples would have civil unions. Churches, synagogues and mosques  
would then be free to convey their blessing on that relationship that met their 
 requirements to be called marriage. No religious leader is even now under 
any  obligation to perform a ceremony that he or she does not approve. Church 
and  State would be divided so that state law could not corrupt religious belief 
and  religious belief could not be used to compromise state-guaranteed 
equality for  all its citizens. Marriage would be defined by religious groups, but 
all unions  would, in the eyes of the state, be not only legal but equal. Then 
the mandate  of the court would be met. In time the couples themselves, by 
common consent,  would decide what words best defined their relationship after 
publicly pledging  to be faithfully committed to one another 'til death us do 
part.' If the  legislature cannot bring itself to call all sacred commitments 
'marriages,' then  I commend this plan to them.  
John Shelby Spong  
_Note from  the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores everywhere  and by clicking here!_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060762055/agoramedia-20)   
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Margaret Loehr, via the Internet, writes:  
I've decided to read the Bible this year - taking notes. So far I am nearly  
finished with Exodus. I find this revealing - the stories I've known since  
childhood but with additional points of which I was unaware. (Pharaoh did not  
respond because the Lord "hardened his heart" what is that all about?)  
I'm reading the King James Version but I do find it a little tough going and  
have been tempted to change to the New International Version or the Revised  
Standard Edition. Which of these versions do you think I would be wise to 
devote  my time to? Thank you.  
P. S. I have heard you speak twice. As a "Christian Alumnus" I didn't feel  
anything could rekindle my interest in religion. But you give hope to a world  
desperate for mature guidance.  
Dear Margaret,  
I think that the more people who actually read the Bible, the less people  
will be fundamentalists. But, you are right, it is hard sledding. Most people  
who decide to read the bible from cover to cover stop somewhere after Exodus 
20.  That is the chapter in which the stories stop and the recitation of the 
laws  governing worship and life begin. If you get through that then Leviticus 
awaits  you, where narratives cease and religious rules abut how to worship, 
what to eat  and how to act follow in concentrated doses. If you make it through 
the entire  Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), you 
might make it.  Though other tough places will be Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and 
some parts of the  prophets. Revelation is also tough but if you get that far, 
the fact that it is  the last book of the Bible and you can see the finish 
line, usually provides the  energy to finish.  
You ask about the various versions of the Bible. The King James Version is  
beautiful but Elizabethan English is quite difficult to read for words and  
styles have changed dramatically since 1611.  
My favorite is the Revised Standard Version because it was the work of a  
community of scholars who challenged each other constantly and kept most  
personal agenda out of the translation. Bible translations are so often in the  
service of the ones translating. For example, the Jerusalem Bible goes to great  
lengths to protect Roman Catholic doctrine, particularly in regard to the Virgin 
 Mary but on other issues as well. The New International Version (NIV) is the 
 favorite of the Protestant Evangelicals and fundamentalists because it goes 
to  great lengths to protect traditional ideas. It is also NOT given the time 
of day  in academic circles. One can be folksy and accurate. However, the NIV 
does not  manage to accomplish that.  
I would love to hear from you when your journey through the Bible is over.  
Tell me what was really new, what surprised you and what you found 
unbelievable.  My readers might like to share your learning.  
John Shelby Spong 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061101/89cd90ef/attachment-0001.html