Balkinization: The Three A's - Acknowledge, Apologize, Act

The Three A's - Acknowledge, Apologize, Act

Ian Ayres

Our proposal for a new statute requiring private warnings and acknowledgements can also be applied at the individual level. Instead of just thinking of the duty to warn as a legislative mandate, we might start thinking of discrimination warnings as a personal moral duty of both the discriminatory organizations and their members.

Take for example my church . . .

I'm Episcopalian (and have been teaching Sunday school for the last three years). The Episcopalian Church still discriminates against same sex couples. I can religiously marry the woman I love, but my sister who is gay cannot religiously marry the woman that she loves.

[Now some readers do not accept the characterization of this marriage prohibition as being a type of discrimination. But imagine for moment that you did consider it to be a form of invidious discrimination. Or imagine for a moment that the church that you loved engaged in a form of invidious discrimination on some other dimension (such as gender).]

What should I do in response to this discrimination? Well, Jennifer and I worked hard in getting the vestry of our local parish, St. Thomas in New Haven, to pass a resolution requesting that the clergy of the parish consider same-sex candidates for marriage on the same basis as different-sex candidates. The movement for the resolution was spear-headed by a group of heterosexual couples who wanted their children to grow in a church that truly embraced equality.

But the Bishop in short order called us on the carpet saying that Canon law did not allow same-sex marriage. He forbade us from ending the discrimination by religiously marrying same-sex couples.

This is a point where the moral duty to warn kicks in. My parish was prohibited from marrying same-sex couples, but neither the bishop nor the cannon law prohibit us from warning potential members that the Episcopalian church treats same-sex couples differently than different sex couples. We might even require our current members to sign statements acknowledging that they are choosing to associate with an organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation with regard to marriage.

Isn't there a moral duty to warn people about things that they might find repugnant -- especially if you find it repugnant? Reasonable people can make different choices about whether it is appropriate to work for change inside or outside a discriminatory organization. But if you're working for change inside, you should at least let a potential member know that he or she is making this kind of choice.

Just the act of private acknowledgement is a power force for change. Few organizations or people could distribute such warnings or make such acknowledgements without doing something more.

Indeed, it natural to move from acknowledgement to apology and action -- the three A's. A church in warning about its mandated policies of discrimination would have a powerful calling to go forward and apologize for the discrimination that it is for the moment saddled with. And ultimately acknowledgement and apology would be a powerful impetus for action to change the underlying discrimination itself. Acknowledgement and apology is not a stable equilibrium â€“ something has to give.

It's hard to acknowledge that you associate with a discriminatory organization. Here's a personal exercise that you can complete right now in the privacy of your home or cubicle. Do you attend a church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation on whom it will marry? Can you bring yourself to literally sign your names to these words: "I acknowledge that I am choosing to associate with a church that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation"?

Here's a confession. Jennifer and I believed that we were doing this, but we couldn't bring ourselves to put pen to paper.

We been delivered from this dilemma by Rector. The bishop wouldn't let us marry same sex couples. But Father Michael Ray ended discrimination another way. For now, St. Thomas will not marry either same- or different-sex couples.

Posted 1:38 PM by Ian Ayres [link]

Comments:

Why on earth would you want to be part of a particular church that violates your principals? Surely you can find one that does not. As a Liberal AND Libertarian I believe that any clergyperson has the right NOT to marry single sex couples if it is against his/her principles. The whole argument is silly.

# posted by

Larraine : 6:49 PM

Any objective consideration of the sociological evidence would suggest that a church that refuses to marry young (heterosexual) couples will not be with us much longer, since it is young couples with children who supply the bulk of new members for any church. Now it may be that God likes your church better than the ones that "discriminate" on the basis of sexual orientation, but we are living in a material world. Of course, I have noticed that when the statistical evidence doesn't go their way, left-liberal academics tend to morph into tobacco company executives.

# posted by

sean : 9:19 PM

The church clearly has the right to do so. It has the right to do a lot of things. This doesn't make it right.

I'm unclear of any association that is pleasing in all ways possible. Certain special associations, especially on the level of a church, are especially complicated. It's not so easy to pick and choose among them all.

Same sex couples have children too. The inability of a church to marry both groups is unclear to me. Also, these days, many churches are in need of members. Pushing liberal members like him away will be trouble for certain churchs who aim for that demographic.

The proposal ... for reasons raised at the provided link ... is dubious though. It's fine for the church to decide to go along. Having the gov't force it, esp. since it sounds like it won't apply neutrally, is quite a different story.

# posted by

Joe : 11:16 PM