This will be my column in Monday’s Gazette:
A couple lessons I did not learn easily in my youth were how to pick my fights and when to accept defeat gracefully.
Iowans who oppose same-sex marriage would do well to remember those lessons. Or to learn them.
Sincere Iowans who care deeply about our state can continue to disagree about whether the Iowa Supreme Court was right to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. If you supported the ban, you now need to decide whether this is the fight you want to pick or whether to accept defeat gracefully and turn your attention and energy to more important matters.
Our state’s Constitution wisely makes it difficult to amend swiftly on a whim. If you want to ban same-sex marriage, the soonest you can finish that job is 2012. That means you won’t just be deciding whether to keep trying to get your way. You will be deciding whether to bog down state politics in an ugly battle for three years.
That’s a fight this state should not pick.
Our state needs to strengthen our economy. We need to rebuild our infrastructure. We need to rebuild communities recovering from disaster. We need to protect communities against future floods. We need to decide how to pay for all that. We have more important fights.
I have seen up close how ugly disagreements over gay rights can get. I spent two years covering religion for the Des Moines Register from 1998 to 2000 and no issue caused more conflict within more churches during that period. Then I moved to the Omaha World-Herald and covered a state election over a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.
Opponents of same-sex marriage invariably claim to be defending traditional marriage. But the truth is that marriage has a tradition of evolution and adaptation to changing culture.
Our culture has rejected polygamy, which was practiced by such religious leaders as Abraham and David and remains common in other cultures. Arranged marriages and marriages of young girls used to be the norm and still are in some cultures. In our nation, women were once regarded as property of their husbands and not long ago, husbands could rape their wives with no legal consequences. Bans on interracial marriage persisted into the 1960s.
In 2007, Iowa had 7,622 divorces, 38 percent of the number of weddings. So if marriage needs defending, it faces threats more serious than loving couples of the same sex.
Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from certain segments of Christianity. But that opposition reflects the political and cultural views of religious leaders more than it reflects any priorities that Jesus set in his teachings. Nothing is recorded in any of the Gospels about Jesus condemning same-sex relationships. He did refer to a man and a woman when uniting in marriage, but not in a context of excluding other marriage commitments.
In other places, the Bible does forcefully condemn same-sex relationships. The same Biblical writers, often in nearby passages, also condemn eating pork and shrimp and condone polygamy and owning slaves. Many of the same Christians hoping to embroil our state in a three-year battle over same-sex marriage have no qualms about eating shellfish and pork.
Jesus did frequently address other issues that are timely today: He blessed peacemakers, encouraged charity to the poor, halted a legal execution and told people not to judge one another and not to fuss about paying taxes.
I don’t begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. If you believe your faith teaches that same-sex relations are wrong, go ahead and lament last week’s decision. But don’t bog this state down in this divisive issue for the next three years. Jesus had more important things to focus on. And so does Iowa.
Final note: Thanks to all who responded to last week’s column. If you’d like to read some thoughtful advice on places to visit in Eastern Iowa, check out the 28 comments to that post on my blog.
I agree with you 100%. This world is filled with hipocrisy. Thank you Steve.
LikeLike
[…] Iowa has more important fights than marriage rules « Transforming … […]
LikeLike
Nice column. I hope you’re right and the cooler heads prevail. I’m a gay man in Cedar Rapids and will soon marry my partner of 12 years. I just want the same rights as any other tax paying married Iowan. I don’t expect every church to recognize my marriage…I only want to be treated the same under state law. I hate the fact that the opponents of gay marriage are framing this as an “us against them” war on Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth from my point of view.
LikeLike
[…] there are also blogs and columns pointing out how reasonable and just this decision is. The religious community is […]
LikeLike
This is one of the most thoughtful responses I’ve read since the ruling. You have expressed what others have wanted to (myself included), but couldn’t quite convey in such a consise and eloquent manner. My hope is that Iowans avoid the harsh feelings caused by the passage of Prop 8 in CA, last fall. I am still disappointed with my fellow Califorians who took away civil rights from my gay brothers and sisters. I am so proud of my home state of Iowa! This ruling will have a powerful effect across our great nation. Good luck and thank you sir, for your wonderful response!
LikeLike
Thank you for your throughtful post. I wish more people would react in the same way!
LikeLike
Wow! Somebody just wrote something in the Gazzete that makes sense. Enough of the divisiveness. Like the writer says lets move on. If you dont believe in same sex marrige dont marry someone of same sex. Now lets get on to the important stuff and have a contitutional ammendment banning pork chops! Wait, I like pork chops.
LikeLike
Thanks Steve for the amazing words. As a native Iowan, I wrestled many times with thoughts of leaving the state for greener, more welcoming pastures, but now I am very happy to say my home is, and will hopefully always be, Iowa.
LikeLike
Your comments would make sense if marriage were a right(we are entitled to it)instead of a privilege(something we qualify for or earn). Allowing homosexuals to marry is big change and Iowans should be allowed to weigh in on it with our votes.
LikeLike
Martha,
You may wish that marriage were a privilege rather than a right, but legally, you are mistaken. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that marriage is a fundamental right. The unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
You can read the whole decision here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
I welcome disagreements here and you’re welcome to voice your view that Iowans should vote on this issue. But I correct factual errors on this blog and marriage absolutely is a right under U.S. law.
LikeLike
Steve,
I was referring to the qualifications that need to be meant in order to marry such as being old enough and not being too closely related or married to another.
LikeLike
Good job, Mr. Buttry! I somewhat despaired over your overlong treatises on changes at the Gazette, but this piece on gay marriage is terrific! You claim some real authority, based on a career apparently spent having to listen to the religious espouse their view of the world (it must have rotted your socks many times). Then you lay it out economically, including the misconceptions about scripture. Good service to your readers, good solid statement of the tasks at hand, which don’t include listening to aforementioned socks-rotters adulterate the body politic. Just what good journalism should do!
LikeLike
Mr. Buttry,
I am writing in response to your editorial this morning “Iowa has more important fights than marriage rules”. Your logic suggests that the battle for same sex marriage was initiated by those of us who believe in the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Your logic suggests that if an intruder entered my home and assaulted my family, that I should not engage the fight because I may have other more important things to deal with. How absurd! The battle has been initiated by a vocal minority expecting me to condone their lifestyle. Jesus clearly referred to heterosexuality as a standard. He specifically described God’s created intent for human sexuality: “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt. 19:1-8 and Mark 10:6-9). This is the standard and there is no reason to mention any other substitute, because there isn’t one.
Now, I understand that I chose to use the scriptures in guiding me though this life and that not everyone agrees with me on this. I also understand that our constitution is a man-made document that was influenced by our faith but was not written to follow a particular faith. However, since I am a citizen of this country and have a voice in how our country is run, my opinion, just as yours, should be considered in this important discussion and not quickly discarded for convenience or cost. I will always standup for the rights of our people to disagree, discuss, and find solutions to our differences. And in some cases even agree to disagree. I would hope that even in this difficult time, we can take the time to find solutions that will meet the needs of our country, not only in this generation but for generations to come.
LikeLike
Dear Mr. Buttry:
While your article is thought provoking and well done, there are a few eroneous, and not so well researched items; one imparticular:
It is obvious that you do not undersand, or if you do, are not willing to make know the difference between the Old Testament (The Law) and the teachings of the New Testament (Grace).
While eating pork and shell fish was forbidden in the Old Testament it was received as permissible in the New Testament. Likewise, there is a deliniation between the Jewish understanding and a New Testament Christian understanding.
While Jesus never approaches the subject directly, He does teach His followers to follow the teachings of the Apostles and Disciples. Paul, and others were strongly opposed to a “man lying down with a man …” and so on.
While we need to “choose our battles”, I believe there is a greater matter at hand here, and that is a matter of integrity and values. Sad to say, we are quickly leaving our values behind and throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I must maintain the Biblical premise which teaches that this is wrong, wholly and without question wrong, and therefore it is an abonination that our Supreme Court has even considered upholding this matter.
I pray God will bless our great state, and our great country as well.
LikeLike
Mr. Buttry,
I am currently living in the Panhandle of Texas but have only lived here for 6 1/2 years. Prior to that, I lived in Cedar Rapids/Iowa City for 32 years of my life. I am so proud of Iowa and wish I were up there right now to share in and experience the celebration going on. I still have family living there and was just back home this past October for 2 weddings. Too bad this law wasn’t changed 6 months earlier, or there would have been 3 weddings happening. But, the fact that it did change is amazing news to me and I’m very grateful for that. I have many friends up there and have spoken to several who will be applying for their marriage license. I am jealous and wish my “wife” and I could be legally married as well, but I am not optimistic that Texas will pass that law in my lifetime. Texas made an amendment to it’s State Constitution following California’s decision to overturn the Courts, declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman only. Kudos to the Iowa Supreme Courts decision to treat us equally and allowing us the rights to marry. Many of us have been in long-term committed relationships longer than many heterosexual couples stay married! Gay couples experience the same trials and tribulations, joys and triumphs, as straight couples. We work, pay taxes, raise kids, clean house, cook dinner, grocery shop, argue and make up, travel, pay bills, etc., just like everyone else. Many straight people are so upset and worried about us ruining the sanction of their marriage. Why can’t they realize that it takes nothing away from them or their marriage vows to one another? It it does, then what does that say about their committment to one another? Straight, legally married couples have destroyed the sanction of marriage by making it so disposable. The divorce rate proves that theory and we had nothing to do with those numbers. Who knows…allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry may help lower the divorce rate in Iowa. Sure can’t hurt it any! Thank you for your very expressive article and hopefully, people will see you are right about picking your battles and start focusing on the issues at hand that are so much more important!
LikeLike
Keith, your analogy is flawed. If there was an intruder in your home, I’d imagine that it would jump to the front of your list of priorities. Steve is arguing that gay marriage should be lower in the list than concerns with the state budget, infrastructure, and post-flood rebuilding. And I agree with him. I care much more that the bridge I’m driving on doesn’t collapse than whether two people I will never meet get married on the other side of the state.
Plus, comparing two people getting married to someone forcibly entering your home and assaulting your family is incredibly offensive.
Also, does anyone else think that this ruling will actually be good for our state’s economy? If gay couples start coming to Iowa to get married (and I’m sure that many will), they will more than likely spend a fairly significant amount of money here…
LikeLike
Firstly, I want to address your article. As usual with promoters of same sex “marriage,” you make ludicrous claims about what the Bible does or doesn’t say about same sex relationships. If you are going to use the Bible to defend homosexual behavior by attacking what it says, at least have the decency to represent it properly.
You stated, “Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from certain segments of Christianity.” You say this as if that segment is in error, when it is in reality the true teachings of Scripture that these “segments of Christianity” hold fast to. It is the apostate and liberal people claiming the name of Christ who sanction homosexual behavior against God’s distinct condemnation of it as sin.
While the Bible records many things, such as the polygamy of Abraham and David, not everything recorded is approved by God. God created one man and one woman for marriage, and Jesus did in fact address the issue of same sex marriage when he referred to that creative act as the example for marriage. To claim this does not exclude other marital relationships is practicing eisegesis. The standard Jesus gave was just that – the standard that God set; one man and one woman. Anything else is against God’s design. (Any sexual relation outside of marriage is wrong).
Since Jesus is God, he also thoroughly addressed the issue of homosexual behavior being an abomination in the O.T. passages. (The argument from silence in the N.T. gospels is getting very wearisome – Jesus didn’t say anything specific about bestiality but I don’t see gay’s promoting that sexual behavior just because Jesus didn’t mention it.) The New Testament, as with the Old Testament, remains consistently against same sex relationships as abhorrent to God. Since Paul received his teachings directly from Jesus, then the prohibitions against same sex relationships in his letters are indeed also from Jesus.
Your red herring about particular foods being banned again demonstrates your fundamental lacking in biblical matters. These food prohibitions were part of the Mosaic Law which was only for Israel and no other nation; they were part of purity laws designed to set Israel apart from all other nations so as to make them holy unto God for His use in bringing the knowledge of God to the rest of the world. But all those foods were declared clean by Christ (Mk. 7:19, et al), which is why Christians can eat them while condemning homosexual behavior.
Oh, and the slavery reported in the Bible was a far cry from the type of slavery America used to practice and that many countries still practice.
As for the SCOTUS decision on marriage being a right, the context is of a man and a woman – not people of the same sex. Racists prevented people of different skin color from marrying, yet there is nothing morally wrong with it. Skin color is something that is intrinsic, and no matter what color our skin is, we are still the same – humans of two sexes. It is perfectly natural for any color man to marry any color woman, but it is unnatural for two people of the same sex to marry – same sex sexual relations is unnatural in every form. (Sexual behavior is always a choice whether one’s orientation is chosen or not. Self control is a virtue and sexual relations are not necessary for survival of the individual.)
The only purpose for same-sex marriage is to force societal acceptance of homosexual behavior. “Loving couples” in same sex relationships can provide all the legal benefits of marriage by making contracts. But that isn’t what gays want; they want more than mere tolerance by their demanded acceptance.
Legislatures have the duty to make the laws, yet activist judges are taking on this duty themselves. But just because they call a noxious weed a beautiful flower, that doesn’t alter the fact that the noxious weed is still a noxious weed.
Fighting for morality should be at the very forefront of our battles, since when morality disintegrates, so does the nation. The fight is far from over. There is nothing more important.
LikeLike
What will keep straight folks from same sex marriage just to obtain the significant tax break. Will there be some test required to proove that they are ” Gay”.
LikeLike
I’d like to see your response to this commentary from Gregg Jackson:
http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=231
LikeLike
Thanks for asking, Glenn. I’ll let my commentary on this issue stand. I don’t care to respond to individual bloggers.
LikeLike
Steve, I told Gregg your comment and I think it only fair to post his e-mail response to me:
“Individual bloggers” eh? I guess the fact that I’ve sold 60,000
copies of my book,hosted radio shows on two of the biggest radio
stations in the country, write for Townhall.com and have hosted the
presidential sessions at CPAC two years in a row. But I guess I’m just
a “blogger.”
Bottom line is that he can’t rebut anything from my post. And u can
share that with him.
LikeLike
Afraid you picked the wrong dogs in this fight Steve , Goodby and good luck.
LikeLike
Mr. Buttry,
I have long read the Gazette at work and respected its independent views and valued its independent status from more liberal papers that are part of corporations like Gannett, CNHI or Lee Newspapers.
However, after reading your post and watched your sports section dwindle to just four pages except for Sundays the past two weeks, I have decided not to take your paper because I feel the Gazette is heading that way.
For the past two weeks I have gotten your newspaper on a trial time, and had pretty much made my decision prior to your column based on the sports coverage, but your column sealed the deal. If I want to read your opinion, I can just pick up a copy of the QC Times or DM Register. Your sports pages were once great, but now with four pages, even with today (Tuesday April 7th) with the start of baseball season.
I can get more sports in both the QC Times and the Register – even if its a day late.
I respect your opinion, I just want to read others, not just people that agree with you. I can do that already at work with the QC Times and not have to pay for it. The Gazette, was the opposite. I’ll keep reading at work, but likely won’t subscribe. I hope that the transition of your paper is going well.
LikeLike
I think Gods opinion of those who promote immorality and the reaction we should have to them as Christians is best summed up in Psalm 37.
LikeLike
I agree with several of the writers who have carefully pointed out your ignorance of the Bible. Most of your other arguments can easily shown to be poorly made. I will do so at your request.
In another matter, i am very, very disappointed in your very weak coverage of national news. The goings on in Washington are poorly covered such that it is generally very hard to form any kind of understanding about the things in President Obama’s plans. I follow the national news on various web sites that post stories from other papers. Others may not be able to do so. Please consider expanding the national news portion of your paper.
LikeLike
Michael, you might take a look at Matthew 7 as well.
Paul, I will pass your view about national news along to Lyle Muller, editor of The Gazette. Your own comment gives one of the reasons why we have reduced our space commitment to national news: You follow national news from other sources. With the large increases in newsprint costs, we have to cut space somewhere. And our audience research shows that people value us most for the local news, which no one gives them in the depth that we do.
LikeLike
And just what in Matthew 7 are we supposed to see that justifies homosexual behavior? Let’s see, could it be one of the most misused passages – the one about judging others? CONTEXT is about hypocritical judgment – e.g. condeming casino gamblers when buying lottery tickets, etc. However, we are told throughout scripture (you’d know if you’d read it) that we are to judge behaviors, make righteous judgment between right and wrong, and even to judge those inside the church. We judge behavior when we punish those who rob banks or rape women, e.g. So judging homosexual behavior as wrong because God said it is wrong, is making a righteous judgment.
Next there is the “golden rule,” which tells us how to treat others. Well, it certainly isn’t loving to foster a destructive behavior such as homosexual behavior. Christians treat homosexual behavior the same way we treat other immoral sexual activity such as fornication and adultery – it is a sin and the sinner is called to repent and leave that life behind.
Next we learn that the gate to eternal life is narrow – only via Christ.
Then we learn how to discern false teachers by their fruit. And finally we learn about how acting on Jesus’ words is like having a firm foundation.
So my question becomes, what is it that Michael – or anyone – is supposed to learn about this situation by reading Matthew 7? Perhaps vs. 6?
If you want to attack those of us who agree with nature, let alone God, that homosexual behavior is wrong biologically, physically, emotionally, psychologically, physiologically and spritually, then leave the Bible out of the equation. I don’t need the Bible to demonstrate the harm of homosexual behavior, let alone the destruction to society caused by fostering it. You will never win making a biblical argument because the Bible is plain in its teachings on the matter, and only liberal hermeneutics and twisting of scripture can pretend to say differently. And you certainly have demonstrated your lack of understanding of spiritual matters.
The Iowa Supreme Court decision was not based on facts or even common sense, rather it was based on personal agenda. They claim that equal rights are not granted to homosexuals if they can’t marry, but they’d have to use the same argument to prevent polygamous marriages, marriages between parents and children, between adults and children, or even between people and animals. Equality is not something that is intrinsic in every law, or even in nature.
Your defense of the indefensible is most likely a reason fewer people pay for the “gayzette” – that paper has supported the homosexual agenda stridently for the whole 13+ years I have been in Iowa.
LikeLike
Steve—Tell me, on what basis have you decided that theft, murder and rape are wrong? And if you call those things wrong, are you not judging those who commit them? Are you not saying “That is wrong by my standards and therefore I condemn your actions?” Now, you judge based on your own standards but we do not judge at all, rather we point to what God has said about these things and proclaim that He has condemned them. If He condmens them, then no man can commend them and be justified before Him. And if we commend them, then we judge Him and call Him a liar as you are doing. You commend them because you do not know The Truth, and when you call God a liar for condemning them, you only condemn yourself.
LikeLike
Glenn and Michael are asking for responses and I am going to have to disappoint them. I have too many things to do to engage in endless debates. I said what I wanted to say. You’re welcome to do the same in comments (though I did block a comment that used language I considered offensive).
LikeLike
The reason I follow national news from other sources is that the Gazette is such a poor source and, actually, always has been. I guess bread and circuses is better than nothing at all.
LikeLike
[…] it’s a religious duty, too. At the risk of reigniting all those who didn’t like my Bible interpretation last week, Jesus had a pretty simple tax policy: Render unto Caesar what is […]
LikeLike
[…] Iowa has more important fights than marriage rules […]
LikeLike
[…] Buttry of the Cedar Rapids Gazette believes that “Iowa has more important fights than marriage rules.” Thanks, Steve. As resident of the flood-striken corridor, I whole heartedly agree that we […]
LikeLike