davidleong.info

It’s interesting to me that in a place as “progressive” and “free-thinking” as Seattle, there is still a considerable amount of controversy and indecision over Washington State’s Referendum 71, which would re-confirm the expansion of domestic partnership rights to equal those of marriage.

You know you’ve caught the nation’s attention when Colbert Nation starts making fun of Washington state.  Though predictable in his sarcasm, Colbert is hilarious, and in the spirit of the Daily Show, his observations are both comedic and cutting.  This is news satire at its best.

In a random conversation the other day, someone asked me if there was a “Christian way to vote” on Referendum 71.  I responded with something that was surely confusing, but I more or less said “no, but yes.”  No, there’s not a singularly definitive way that either scripture, historic orthodoxy, or the traditions of the church could say with absolute certainty that “this is a clear cut Christian understanding of Referendum 71.”  Is anything in Christianity that binary?

But the answer is also “yes,” in that Christianity should and does in fact inform our understanding of the complex ethics involved with legislation, sexuality, and justice.  And though there is always a personal and communal act of discernment in that process, I also think that there are some fundamentally Christian considerations that should shape our understanding as we seek to “engage the culture” as (hopefully) thoughtful, gracious, compassionate people.

First, Christians need to table their assumptions that we live in a theologically-oriented culture.  Propositions about God, sin, the bible, and so on have no weight or relevance in a pluralistic, post-Christendom society (and that’s mostly the Church’s own fault by the way).  This doesn’t mean that Christians should abandon all attempts to “vote their values,” but it does mean that Christians need to learn to translate their values into a language that is actually meaningful in a post-Christian culture.  Learning to develop a constructive, conciliatory lexicon for meaningful cultural engagement is so basic, but so crucial.  We hardly ever get there.

Second, once people are equipped to actually engage in civil discourse, Christians are desperately in need of a more robust and nuanced theology of sexual identity, and perhaps more importantly, sexual ethics.  Does granting basic civil rights to domestic partnerships really damage a societal institution like marriage, or does it merely offend the theological sensibilities of traditionalists?  Do the benefits afforded to marginalized people groups (LGBTs, seniors, etc.) actually have positive implications, and could it be construed as a reflection of our cultural priorities to grant equality in basic privileges like filing joint tax returns, sharing insurance policies, and allowing hospital visitation?

At a very basic level, we also need to ask who “owns” the definition of “marriage.”  In a society governed by constitutional separation of church and state, and one that further grants marriages legal status through the recognition of state governments, is the church “within its rights” to stake a claim on defining marriage?  These are complex questions, and they deserve thoughtful consideration and constructive conversations, not polarizing mischaracterizations of conservatives and liberals.