Covenant of same-sex marriage

While the nation agonized at finding itself between the proverbial rock and the hard place in the Terri Schiavo life-support issue, seven young people of great oratorical skills debated this resolve: The people of the CNMI should pass House Legislative Initiative 14-3, thereby banning legal same-sex marriage in the Northern Mariana Islands.

Held at the Guma Hustisia under the sponsorship of the NMI Council of the Humanities and the PSS Forensic Leagues, the event engaged seven young intellects. Tony Rector and Nathan Taitano (middle school), Henry Chan and Caroline Lockabay (high school), of Saipan International School, Jeffrey Bacani of Hopwood Junior High, James Castro and Gretchen Smith of Marianas High School, shared their thoughts in a four-hour formal PBS-Presidential-debate-like format.

NMICH is a proponent of civil and reasoned discourse. It takes on this challenge at a time when the civility that has served as the foundation of Western civilization is eroding at a fast pace. Social anthropologists characterize contemporary culture as not so much post-modern but as post-civilized. Meltdown of civility marks the shift. Innate barbaric savagery is boiling up to the surface. Earlier avoidance of intellectual error has been supplanted by the fear of physical terror. Pedestrians who bumped on each other at blind corners tended to be humble and apologetic. Now, at the slightest incidence of traffic discourtesy, motorists unleash on each other hateful invectives if not actual weapons of destruction.

The Humanities Council’s promotions of civil discourse such as the format of the Covenant Day Debate and the genial roundtable conversation of its Art of Association program, stand in stark contrast to the often acrimonious exchanges found in legislative and deliberative bodies. In our time, it seems that homo sapiens have become homo abusives. That is not just a play on words! It harks at the core of the debated resolve.

Of the seven, Jeffrey defended the sanctity of marriage as traditionally practiced. He protested the arrogance of those not part of the tradition for trying to undermine it. He declared that the status quo is “right, traditional, natural, and make sense.” Masterful in delivery, he fell short on citations and substance.

The rest of the debaters harped on the unconstitutionality of excluding a group in society from its legitimate rights. Comparing the plight of homosexuals with those of black slaves and women in an earlier age, each came up with their own emphasis, along with an array of delivery styles.

Tony argued that homosexual unions would actually stabilize the institution. It might also lessen the spread of deadly STDs. Nathan dwelt on the discriminatory nature of the Initiative and invoked the constitutional provision of equal rights. Moving off prepared text, he extemporized on discrimination, focusing on hatred as the underlying force, which has even led the nation into grievous mistakes such as wars of dubious intents.

Henry showed acumen for comprehensive research. His forceful delivery made him appear like the proverbial bull in the china shop. Tart (agreeably sharp), quick-witted and sassy, the brevity of Gretchen’s responses to the judges’ questioning elicited not a few giggles from the audience. James had an engagingly suave appeal and an impish delight on word coinage. “The knee-jerk paroxysms of knee-slapping hilarity of upright, uptight, downright, forthright bastions of moral correctitude,” (I lost my notes so this may not be verbally accurate) to characterize those who insists on “hetero-exclusive unions” was appealing. However, he might have over-stepped his bounds when he portrayed the marriage of a “sleazy 80-year old to a 16-year old cheerleader” as worst than the prospects of homo-inclusive unions. None of the male jurors were spring chickens.

Caroline’s poise and clear reasoning carried the day for her. Separate but equal did not work in the past, and it will not work in the present, she countered on the suggestion that homosexual civil unions may be sufficient in lieu of marriage. She expressed the hope that the CNMI might choose the “high road” should it ever have to vote on HLI 14-03.

Religious leaders often make the distinction between a Marriage Contract and a Covenant of Marriage. The first is a civil arrangement with provisions of responsibilities and liabilities, quid pro quo, in a court of law. The latter is a symbolic category performed under rites and rituals of a religious ceremony. In the Christian Church, the Covenant of Marriage is focused on the free will of the personae involved. It is not about gender. It is about commitment—of solemn vows and promises, to care for one another unconditionally before God. Refusal of the Church to dissolve a covenant stems from this understanding. Divorce as the dissolution of the contractual arrangement may be recognized but the Covenant of Marriage cannot be dissolved saved by annulment. That speaks not of impossibility but of degree of ecclesiastical difficulty.

One of the jurors pointed out that at the House public hearing, the overwhelming support for the Initiative came from the religious sector. (The juror failed to mention that the din of the crowd failed to drown a dissenting “mousy squeak” from one Millie Carroll of the United Methodist Church.) He, along with the other judges, proceeded to ask the debaters if they thought morality and religion should affect the decision to support or reject the Initiative.

Acceptance of the lifestyle of individuals who have professed same-sex preferences is gaining support even within historic religious groups. Given that the theological core of the covenant of marriage is commitment rather than gender, there is reason to believe that the practice of blessing homosexual unions now progressively being observed will evolve into a full rite of the Covenant of Marriage.

Tradition must make way for justice, Gretchen crisply proclaimed. This initiative is not the will of my God, chimed Caroline. Nathan rhetorically asked: Should morality play a deciding role in this initiative? My morality, which I believe to be very American, is about compassion, tolerance, and justice. Yes, morality definitely should play a role.

At London’s Aldersgate, the commoners would have heard me say, “Amen!” Up Berkeley Square in the ‘60s, I would have shouted, “Right On, Brother!” But this is the formal Guma Hustisia of the CNMI in 2005 where even I knotted a tie and donned a jacket to feel at home in the place, so I kept my composure, and with a cool voice appropriately laced in protocol and the proper tone of decorum, I said: “Yo! Hey! Ho!”