It’s Knight’s Initiative That Appears Unnatural

Some of California’s church leaders are beginning to ask their congregations to support state Sen. William “Pete” Knight’s “definition of marriage” initiative on the March 2000 ballot. I adamantly oppose it. The initiative, which would confirm that California only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman, is unnecessary and divisive.

We all think that we know what marriage is and that we therefore are being asked in this deceptively simple initiative to affirm what the majority of human beings believe. However, nothing in politics is simple. Underlying this initiative is fear, ignorance and prejudice.

Even simple words like “marriage” and “family” get us into trouble. Beneath them are the thornier issues of what is sex, what the Bible says about sex, who is in control of one’s life and sexuality, what is nature, what is natural--and that’s just to name a few.

Let’s look at “nature” and/or “natural.” In a major study in 1989 by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, respondents were asked to choose among three definitions of “family.” Slightly more than one-fifth defined it as “a group of people related by blood, marriage or adoption.” Three percent said it was “a group of people living in one household.” Almost three-quarters said it was “a group of people who love and care for one another.” Under the latter definition, one certainly could include “families” of all kinds.

That same survey found that 61% of the respondents said family was the most important thing in their lives. Diversity in the definition of family obviously does not mean its demise.

This study is 10 years old. Imagine what the results would be now.

“Natural law” or “the law of nature” has often been invoked to keep people in line. The Christian church, sadly, has found itself time and time again behind the times in its view of natural laws. Just think of Galileo and how long it took the Roman Catholic Church to apologize. There were exceptions, of course--people of heroic faith who led their communities into a more just view of the world. Yet a great deal of violence has been done to bodies and souls in the name of the supposed laws of nature that later turn out to be false.

Or consider this: Is war natural? Is slavery natural? Is cruelty natural? My mother used to say, “It’s only human nature, dear” when she read about something ghastly in the newspaper. The fact is, we have to be very careful when we appeal to nature. There’s a low view and a high view. What we call the law of nature is often used to disguise prejudice and ignorance about race, gender and class.

Along these same lines, the current appeal to “nature” is a way of attacking homosexuality. It is part of a long history of injustice to gays. Roman Catholic Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco recently appealed to the law of nature in suggesting that society is in jeopardy if we do not support the Knight initiative. In March, he wrote in an archdiocesan newsletter, Catholic San Francisco, “I suggest the good order of society itself requires us to draw a line to protect the institution of marriage and the family.”

This is where a dose of history is useful. Human beings have tended to defend the status quo, claiming that it is in accord with what is natural. Slavery was once thought to be of the natural order and sanctioned by Scripture; so was racism and the subjugation of women (it was “unnatural” for women to want the vote). The wasting of the planet was justified because our domination of nature was our right. The maintenance of the class system also was thought part of the divine plan. There is a verse of an old Anglican hymn that read, “The rich man in his castle/the poor man at his gate/God made them high and lowly/and ordered their estate.”

It is dangerous, therefore, to make claims of what is natural with regard to human beings. “Human nature” is inextricably bound up with politics, power and social structures. Those who take issue with the word “marriage’ when applied to people of the same sex need to discern the subtext of this divisive and polarizing definition.

I know of gay couples who have had to resort to one adopting the other as a means of ensuring civil and legal protection of their committed relationships. It’s a disgrace when people have to resort to a legal trick in order to be able to do the simply human thing.

What then is at issue here? Civil rights, plain and simple. Marriage needs neither defense nor definition. My gay friends and colleagues should be able to enjoy the same civil rights concerning property, access and decency as those of us who society says can be married under the law.