Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Mercy Not Sacrifice

Home
About
My Book
Archives
More
- Theology
- Culture
- Politics
- Sermons
- Bible
- Devotions
- Daily Office
- Podcast

Home
Progressive Christian
When the Equal Rights Amendment was “gay marriage”

When the Equal Rights Amendment was “gay marriage”

Last updated on: July 17, 2014 at 1:59 pm by Morgan Guyton

When the Equal Rights Amendment was “gay marriage” 2014-07-17T13:59:27-05:00 Morgan Guyton

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The amnesia of America culture always fascinates me particularly with regard to the things that are perceived to be “threats to the American family.” When anti-gay Christians are asked why they make a big deal out of homosexuality, the standard response is to say that the gay people were the one who made it a big deal and they simply offered a “Biblical” response when asked. There are many different legitimate personal stories that overlap in sociological phenomena, but it’s simply not accurate to treat the “gay marriage” battle as a stand-alone historical issue; it’s one battle in a larger war that has been waging between conservative Christianity and the feminist movement for the last half-century over the meaning of gender. The “gay marriage” crisis of the seventies and eighties had a different name: the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed constitutional amendment that would have made any gender-based discrimination illegal, which was successfully defeated by conservative activists under the leadership of Phyllis Schlafly.

It seems like an entirely different world, but when I was growing up, it was very controversial (at least in white middle-class Southern Baptist circles) for women to work outside of the home. Men were supposed to be the breadwinners and women were supposed to raise the kids. That was just how we were created by God as men and women. There was plenty of scripture to back this view. It was selfish and prideful for women to put pursuing a career above raising a family. There were plenty of outlets for them to use their gifts through volunteer work with the church. For women to work meant that their kids would get warehoused in daycare clinics where they might get molested. In communist countries, they made women work in the factories and put their kids in daycare, but America was different because we cared about freedom and family values.

It probably seems inconceivable today that a constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women and men would fail to get ratified only 30 years ago, but that’s what happened, thanks to Phyllis Schlafly and other conservative activists. The ERA had great momentum before she started, getting ratified by 30 out of the necessary 38 states in 1972 and 1973, but then the momentum sagged when Schlafly’s campaign started to gain steam. Schlafly’s argument was that the ERA would make women absolutely the same as men. They might get drafted for the military and sent into combat, single gender bathrooms would be eliminated, women wouldn’t be able to get alimony or custody of their kids after a divorce. Schlafly won (though of course we have to keep in perspective that “winning” only meant keeping more than 12 out of the 50 states from ratifying it by 1982).

Schlafly’s movement may have won the battle then, but three decades later, they have completely lost the argument. With the exception of a much reduced enclave within conservative evangelical Christianity, it is no longer considered a moral issue for women to stay home while their husbands work. That hill of the battlefield has been quietly surrendered and retreated from. Why? Because it’s no longer economically viable for middle-class families to make it work (working class women have always worked). And championing the right of women to be stay at home moms would require campaigning for a higher minimum wage and supporting the struggles of labor unions, which would pit “family values” against “free market values.” In a head-to-head between the family and the free market, the free market seems to have the trump card every time. Hence the quiet retreat.

The debate thirty years ago about women working outside the home is actually very similar to the debate today about gay marriage in terms of the core question that’s being asked. Are all women supposed to be the same just like all men are supposed to be the same? To argue that all women are supposed to be stay-at-home moms or that all women are supposed to marry men means making it a moral issue to conform to the standards of your respective gender. Likewise to argue that some women are great stay-at-home moms while others make great lawyers is consistent with arguing that while most women are biologically wired to mate with men and vice-versa, some are wired differently. In such an argument, you’re saying in both cases that gender is more complicated than either/or.

The reason that conservative evangelicals make gender normativity into a moral issue is because there are places in the Bible that seem to tell all women and all men to do things a certain way, like telling all wives submit to your husbands, all women to cover their heads in church, etc. This is certainly a plausible way to read what the Bible has to say about gender (if it’s applied consistently). Other Christians (like me) argue that these instructions to women and men are contingent upon their cultural context, basically that Paul was saying since Roman society defines the family as being under the headship of the male paterfamilias, let’s do the Roman thing in the most Christian way possible, but that ultimately the gospel vision is for there to be “no longer male and female for all are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

I’m perplexed by the way that my denomination, the United Methodist Church, wants to hedge its bets by allowing a Galatians 3:28 vision for a “post-gendered” (?) body of Christ to trump the plain meaning of scripture in Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12, and other places when it comes to women serving in ordained ministry, but then casting aside Galatians 3:28’s eradication of gender normativity when it comes to LGBT issues. To believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality is contingent upon making the 1st century presumptions about gender in Paul’s epistles permanently normative for all Christians at all times. We either live in a world where all women are supposed to act the same and all men are supposed to act the same, or we don’t. It’s artificial and dishonest to treat these issues piecemeal.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s an unqualified good that free market pressures on wages ultimately won the debate over Phyllis Schlafly and her “family values” so that most married middle-class households have to rely on two incomes today. Why couldn’t we divide up the work in our society differently so that everyone would have 25-30 hour work weeks, currently unemployed people would have jobs, and kids would spend a minimal amount of time in daycare? I realize that’s a very Pollyanna thought. The free market requires everyone who has a job to work like crazy and maximize their efficiency so there will be even fewer people with jobs next year.

My wife and I are blessed to have the resources to enable her to stay home with my kids until my youngest starts elementary school. The reason she’s the stay-at-home parent is not because she’s the female but because of where each of us were in our ministerial ordination process three years ago. When I was a seminary student and my wife was a chaplain resident at Duke hospital, I was the stay-at-home parent. In our home, there are some things I’m better at and some things that my wife is better at in terms of how we parent and manage our household. I have no idea which of these things have to do with our gender and which of them have to do with our personalities, nor does it seem like a grave moral matter for us to figure that out.

Politics

Equal Rights Amendment

Previous Post

January 3, 2014

A letter that captures the heart of the Methodist conflict

Next Post

January 6, 2014 The difference between spiritual purity and moral cleanliness

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Beauty Will Save the World Bible Big Picture: Ephesians Bloggers Book Christian salvation and the Beautitudes Culture Daily Office Danceable Homiletics Deadly Sins Deep Roots: Genesis Devotions Dominican Republic May 2011 El Principio Misericordia (The Mercy Principle) Five verses God tattooed on my heart Fundraising FutureGospel Good Biblical Words Henri Nouwen Interview Jennings' Christian Imagination Jesus inside the beltway Jesus Is My Candidate Jesus vs the Pharisees Jesus vs. Plato Journey to Eternity Looking Back on 2012 Love Actually Monday Merton Monday Merton Music Occupy the manger On Earth As It Is In Heaven Original Sin Podcast Poetry Politics Prayer Psalm 119 Radical Jesus 101 Reviews Sermon on the Mount Sermons Spanish Bible study Special Series Spiritual but not religious Synchroblog Theology Things that made me think Thomas a Kempis Ugliness Into Beauty Uncategorized Viaje Dominicano 2013 Walking in the Valley (Lent) Welcome: It's More than a Mat Wild Goose 2013 Wrestling

Select a Month March 2022 January 2022 December 2021 September 2021 April 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul say we see now as in a mirror dimly, but will one day see face to face?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Christ Heaven Knowledge God