DOMA and the Tale of Two Mainlines

Whenever I hand a test back to a class, I invoke the "Lantzer 24 hour Rule" which states that no matter what grade they got, I will not talk to them about their tests until the next day.  This allows them to re-read their answers not just in light of their grade but also my comments and to actually stop and think about what it is they've just gotten back.  I think that is a good rule in life, not just because I often make snap judgements myself, but because a little reflection usually isn't a bad thing.

As its been over a day since the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, I've had some time to reflect on what it means when it comes to the Mainline.  In large part, I've been thinking about a question one of my students asked of me in my American Religious History class this past spring, right after SCOTUS heard arguments in the case:  He asked if the High Court overturned DOMA, did that signal the demise of the Religious Right and the ascent of the Religious Left?  As I've thought about it, my answer then was fairly accurate, so I thought I'd expand on it, and share it here.

To begin with, I said, there is much more (despite what some will tell you) to this debate than just religion and morality (as important as it is to some of those involved).  Yes, Religious conservatives support DOMA and the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.  And yes, many Religious liberals are arguing against it (more often than not talking about God's love for all humanity and how homosexual marriages can be a reflection of that divine love).  But that being said, there are two other areas that are much more significant.  The first is politics.  Here, we aren't talking about national trends in culture or the make up of Congress, rather the political make up of the High Court.  While there is a 5-4 split in Republican/Democratic appointees; on any given issue a coalition of justices can form that can alter that balance (longtime court watchers have long ago concluded that Justice Kennedy enjoys that title and the power that comes with it, see here for example).  The other area is law.  Not only DOMA itself (a bipartisan law, crafted when Bill Clinton was president), but also complications that have, can, and do arise when non-married partners either break up or have something catastrophic happen (a health care emergency for example) -- legal issues that aren't confined to just homosexual relationships, but have become increasingly prominent in cases over the past decade or so. 

Thinking about that first part of my answer now, I should have gone on and done something "political sciencey" and just predicted that DOMA would be overturned.  But I'm an historian, so I didn't.  But that wasn't the end of my student's question, he had also asked about the ramifications of a DOMA ruling for religious Americans.  Already, within that first 24 hours, articles have already appeared from the conservative end of the spectrum (see Christianity Today's excellent editorial here) about what comes next, as well as messages of joy and triumph from those more on the liberal end of the religious (and dare I say probably political) end of the spectrum (see here for what one UCC/Congregational Church did, and here for what the Episcopal Church has said).

But, was the ruling a "victory" for the Religious Left?  While it might be spun as such, I would say it was more of a political victory than it was a religious triumph.  My reason for saying so boils down to the fact that if we are looking for the origins of this issue as a reform, it did not originate within either the UCC or Episcopal denominations.  Was it reflected in those (and other old Seven Sisters Mainline) denominations?  Absolutely.  But it was just that, a reflection of something that was going on within the wider culture.  It is a case of denominations being influenced by culture, not one of denominational influence on that culture.  For conservatives (political and religious alike) the ruling is more apt to be seen as further proof of secularization in American society and within (at least some) of America's churches.  What does it mean for the new Mainline that I talk about in the last chapter of my book?  Well, for that, we will have to wait and see!

That is my thinking some 24 hours on.  At the time of the student question though, I raised another point.  And that is about marriage itself.  Conservatives (religious and political) were defending DOMA.  But why?  Why were religious people so invested in how the State defined marriage?  Perhaps we should be asking why/how the State got that power to begin with.  What, historically, had been the difference between "holy matrimony" and "civil marriage" and when/how had those two things been conflated.  If, I asked, the Church had (whether by its own will or by the passage of time) allowed the State to take the lead on dealing with the legality of unions, did we have then or now a Church/State issue on our hands?  In that same vein, what were to make of divorce (both within the Church, and in the laws of the State)?  Was the Church (writ large, and taking into account it is made up individuals who are imperfect) doing a good job when it came to marriage teaching/counseling in general -- considering the oft cited statistic that half of all marriages (between heterosexuals) end in divorce?  If DOMA was repealed I asked, and a given church/denomination refused to perform a wedding ceremony for religious reasons (even if the State approved) because the couple in question was homosexual, could that couple then sue for discrimination?  Conservatives argued that repealing DOMA would be a slippery slope, that might lead to calls for legalizing polygamy (for example).  Were they right? Can we be sure that they are wrong?

My student didn't have any answers to those questions.  Neither did, nor do, I.  And quite frankly, neither does anyone else.  Despite the joyous bell ringing in some circles and the lamentations (or even conviction that the U.S. is now headed to Hell in a hand basket) in others that the DOMA decision prompted, we mere mortals don't know what the future holds.  Nor should any of us, Right or Left, old or new Mainline, assume that this decision is the end all be all.  As the aforementioned Christianity Today editorial points out, Supreme Court decisions rarely settle any cultural issue (the debate over abortion hasn't exactly ended).  And as my fellow NYU author, Prof. Suzanna Danuta Walters, notes here, there are other issues out there that are bigger and even more important thatn marriage equality (she points out HIV/AIDS as one example).  Indeed, I'd put the on going IRS audit story and growing NSA leak story as bigger domestic issues (both for the near and long term) than   the DOMA decision this summer (the IRS audit of conservative groups has much larger implications both politically and in potential religious liberty issues than does the demise of DOMA I think).  At least so far.  In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with reflections and asking questions, and we will see where these and other issues take the Mainline -- both old and new.

On Religious Liberty

I was first introduced to the great British philosopher John Stuart Mill in an undergrad political science class.  We had to read his On Liberty, and his notions about rights -- whether I always agreed with him or not -- have stuck with me ever since as one of the best examples of classical liberal thought on the subject.

What does that have to do with The Mainline?  Well, Mill also wrote on the topic of religion (probably the best example being his essay "Theism") in which he explored the arguments for and against belief in God/the divine.  Mill's eventual claim, despite admitting early on that he was not religious and never really had been, is interesting chiefly because unlike some of his contemporaries in late Victorian Britain, Mill was unwilling to reject the idea of God.  For him, while he could not advocate belief, neither could he put forward a notion of unbelief either.  Rather, for some he argued, there was enough evidence to hope that religion, that God, might be.  And that was enough for Mill.

I got to thinking about Mill, liberty, and belief/unbelief a bit more in the past few days.  There have been some wonderful essays done by R.R. Reno (editor of  First Things) about religious liberty in America today (Reno argues in part that its definition is being altered by secular humanists to mean freedom from religion in the public square/religion is fine so long as it is private and kept that way) as well as by John C. Pinheiro (of Aquinas College) about the need to study Religious History (noting that the world's atheist population is estimated to be only 3 percent, meaning that 97 percent of humanity has some form of religious belief system, and so academia needs to take the study of religion seriously). In short, both these pieces reinforce arguments that I (hope I) made in The Mainline, about the importance of religious belief (both privately and in the public square) in American History, and why secular humanists were not only going against the tide of our history but also missing out on the ways in which religion and faith have (and will continue to) shape us.  The question really is not will religion/faith be a factor but which religion/faith will be influencing us in the twenty-first century (and I agree with these authors that secular humanism, even if at times given greater influence than it actually has, is a faith).

And those ruminations have also got me thinking about what it means for Christians (as that is the faith I write about in The Mainline) to accept a concept of religious liberty.  Not just in the spirit of toleration, but also internally.  How should those outside a particular denomination feel about the efforts of some denominational leaders to transform historic doctrines within their faith tradition (I talk about an earlier dust up in The Mainline, but for the latest from the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, take a look at this)?  How should people within that denomination feel/react?  What does it mean for the future?  Should we treat them with Christian charity, extend to them religious liberty if you will, or do they present a threat to the faith that should be cast out?  For 97% of the world's population such issues matter.  For academics, beyond just being interesting things to study it matter as well, because such a discussion would help us not only make the case that religious history should be studied, but also force us to think in new ways about old concepts and investigate what it means to believe or not (whether in God or in a point of doctrine).

I'm not sure what Mill would say about all this.  But there is always hope.  Hope that we can disagree, without being disagreeable.  And hope that we can be honest enough to say that faith matters.