Rick Warren & Me
I guess I’m on the fence about what to think of the symbolic role Obama has given “Pastor Rick” in his inauguration ceremony. Rick Warren doesn’t differentiate between gay marriage, polygamy, incest and pedophilia when it comes to marriage. But he’s vaguely amenable to equal rights for everyone, presumably as long as we use different language. From a recent interview with Warren:
The issue to me, I’m not opposed to [partnership benefits or hospital visitation rights] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman.
Some form of his argument seems to me the most pragmatic solution to current gay rights infringements. Instead of focusing on the legal definition of the word “marriage”, we should use whatever vocabulary necessary to make sure that we do not discriminate. Wouldn’t this accomplish the equality we’re really looking for?
But I hesitate to give up on “marriage” in favor of different language for exactly the reasons Rick Warren lays out. That marriage has had a consistent definition across many religions does not seem to me a reason it should receive special treatment in our laws. The religious history and underpinnings of marriage are exactly the reason why our government shouldn’t be involved in defining its scope and meaning. For government, gay rights needs to be seen as a subset of civil rights. If it is defined as a subset of religious rights, both will suffer. Government should have no role in defining my religion, nor should it restrain me based on my identity.
