On November 4, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida approved ballot measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. The initiatives amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby barring the state from recognizing marriages that do not meet this criteria. Similar measures have passed in eighteen other states since 2004, contributing to a growing national movement to introduce a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide. The surprising success of these initiatives makes it likely that similar proposals will continue to be introduced in other states and ensures that the controversy over same-sex marriage will continue for years to come.

When confronted with this issue, many Muslim-Americans may instinctively support such initiatives, citing Islam's clear stance against homosexual lifestyles. However, should Muslims' position on this and other political issues be dictated solely by their moral views on homosexuality? Taking a deeper look into these initiatives and their implications suggests that the answer may not be so simple.

Support for bans on same-sex marriage is driven less by moral or religious disapproval of homosexuality and more by a general sense of fear and suspicion of communities that do not share all of the dominant society's values, norms, or traits. This can be discerned by noting that in many respects, the debate over same-sex marriage is a semantic dispute surrounding a largely ceremonial institution. In some states, bans against same-sex marriages do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into civil unions, an arrangement that confers the same rights and privileges as a marriage but is reserved for couples who do not meet the legal requirements of marriage.

Similarly, campaigns against gay marriage have not been accompanied by a movement to overturn the constitutional bar against laws that prohibit private homosexual relations (which was established when the Supreme Court struck down Texas' anti-sodomy statute in 2003). In focusing their efforts on same-sex marriage in particular as opposed to homosexual relationships in general, the supporters of same-sex marriage bans have effectively acknowledged that their campaign is largely a symbolic endeavor to prevent the extension of equal rights to communities that do not share the dominant society's values.

Muslim-Americans should note that these are the same instincts that underlie Islamophobia, as Muslims' distinct values and traditions are seen by some as being antithetical to American culture. Muslims' status as a religious minority in this country thus weighs against extending support to any endeavor that would impose the dominant society's values as law, even in instances where those values may agree with their own. Taking a public stand in favor of a ban on same-sex marriage based on vague notions of "traditional American values" leaves Muslims with little ground to stand on if those values are ever cited to impose laws that may clash with Muslim family norms.

For instance, marriage between first cousins is permitted in Islam but regarded as incestuous and abhorrent by the majority of Americans. If cousin marriage ever became such a pressing social issue that a proposal to ban recognition of marriages between first cousins was introduced, on what grounds would Muslim-Americans oppose it? How would Muslim-Americans argue in good faith that cousins should be allowed to marry, but homosexuals should not?

Furthermore, in order to fully understand the implications of any ballot measure, its principal backers and their agendas must be scrutinized. Without exception, proposals that would ban same-sex marriage have been spearheaded by coalitions of right-wing Christian organizations, a constituency whose leaders hold virulently anti-Islamic views and whose agenda is overwhelmingly hostile to the interests of Muslims in America.

On a local level, right-wing Christians have been at the forefront of campaigns to block the opening of new mosques, prevent the balanced teaching of Islam in public schools, and oppose the accommodation of Muslims' religious practices in the workplace. On a national level, the role of right-wing Christian groups in the War in Iraq and their vocal support for anti-Palestinian foreign policies are well-documented. Should such organizations be successful in their efforts to ban same-sex marriage nationwide, they may be emboldened to pursue reforms whose effects may not be so benign. Muslims must give serious thought to the consequences of strengthening this constituency by supporting its initiatives simply because they comport with Muslim family values.

Conversely, the opposite side of the gay marriage debate consists mainly of left-leaning leaders and organizations that may not share Muslims' family values but have taken pro-Muslim stances on numerous other issues of greater importance. The American Civil Liberties Union, which staunchly opposes bans on same-sex marriage, has organized campaigns against policies that disproportionately affect Muslim-Americans and assisted many Muslims in seeking to redress instances of discrimination and injustice. Unitarian Christian organizations, among the most prominent religious groups to oppose bans on same-sex marriage, have stood with Muslims in campaigns against the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act. Supporting a movement whose failure such organizations view as an important objective but whose success would bring minimal benefit to the Muslim community could alienate potential allies on the left whose support is critical to the emergence of Muslim-Americans as a politically influential community.

Many Muslims may be receptive to the above concerns, but feel that they would be compromising their Islamic principles by voting against a ban on same-sex marriage. However, this need not be the case. A vote against a ban on same-sex marriage does not necessarily constitute a vote of moral approval for homosexual lifestyles. No ballot measure can change Islam's clear and unambiguous stance on homosexuality. Rather, Muslims may disapprove of a practice while recognizing the right of other communities to apply their own distinct norms within the context of a pluralistic society.

This principle is not without parallel in the Islamic scholarly tradition. As noted by Dr. Sherman Jackson in his paper "Shari'ah, Democracy and the Modern Nation State: Some Reflections on Islam, Popular Rule and Pluralism," tenth century Hanbali jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya held that the Abbasid State ought to tolerate the Zoroastrian practice of self-marriage whereby men married their mothers or sisters. According to Ibn Qayyim, as long as disputes involving such marriages were not brought before Muslim courts and as long as Zoroastrians considered self-marriage permissible according to their own religious laws, Muslim authorities should not interfere with the practice despite its clear conflict with Islamic Law. If classical Islamic scholars have tolerated the divergent norms of non-Muslim religious communities that came under Muslim rule, then why is it wrong for Muslim-Americans to exercise the same tolerance as a minority community within a non-Muslim society?

In order to progress and mature as a politically relevant community, Muslims must resist one-dimensional knee-jerk reactions to issues that are actually multi-faceted in nature. A Muslim stand against campaigns to ban same-sex marriage is not a show of support for homosexuals or homosexuality. Rather, it's a stand against the agenda of the Christian Right, a stand against the imposition of the majority's values on minority communities that many not share them, and a strategic move aimed at building the Muslim voice in America.

Actually the real argument hear is that the state should not be involved in marriage at all. everyone should have civil unions, and marriage should be left up to religion or whatever people may choose. The government in this case is in charge of a distinctly religious institution. it really has no business in this area.

however, i give the write and altmuslim credit for finally providing some intelligent discussion on this issue.

I disagree with several issues raised in the article.

The primary argument in not supporting the banning of homosexual marriages seems to rely on an "us" against "them" position between Muslims and the Christian right in America. It is supported by a plea to support "allies on the left whose support is critical to the emergence of Muslim-Americans as a politically influential community."

The example of Zoroastrian practices as inidcated above does not fit with the general argument.

Allow me to discuss the last argument first.

The example given resides in the position that the Sha'riah is not applicable to non Muslims. This is a generally accepted position as shown in the hadith of a Jewish man found to have commited fornication. The Prophet's question to determine the response "in your law" is clear argument that Islamic laws are only applicable on those who have consciously accepted Islam as their guide.

But it is not a similar situation in the recent proposition in the 3 states. Here, Muslims, as any other Americans were supposed to vote their individual position as regards to same sex marriage. It is not similar to implementing the Sha'riah on non Muslim homosexuals. It is about the democratic response by people who happen to be Muslims.

Since Islam provides guidance to those who believe, the response for adherents of Islam is that there is no marriage for same sex couples. It is similar, yet different from the issue on the legality of sodomy or homosexual relationships. Similar, as to the response, different, since that is not a proposition.

Muslim voters do not vote as to whether the marriage should be legal for non Muslims. That was not part of the proposition.

As for alienating groups that have supported Muslims, it is faulty to believe that our alliances demands full and total support for every issue.

I am originally from Singapore (though now I reside in Australia) and have been active in several issues concerning the community.

Of particular importance to me, is the recognition of a woman's right to education, views and choices. Having a mother who was very active in women's issues have shaped my views in this matter. And I have friends from a major women's group in Singapore.

When the activist group I led argued for the right to education, for Muslim girls who wear the hijab, we naturally sought the support of the women's group. However, they adviced me kindly that while they support the right to education, they felt that the hijab is a symbol of oppression and would not be able to lend their voice. We disagreed, but we respected each other's positions.

Being allies does not mean they had to support every issue that I raise.

And disagreeing with the general premise does not mean we have to disagree with every issue that another party put forward.

Providing support while we disagree does not strengthen the community's growth politically.

Our friends and allies understand when we vote as per our beliefs. Support while in clear disagreement will not last. And when we finally decide not to support our allies' position, our change will not be easily accepted.

But if we are clear in our positions, that we vote in accordance to our beliefs, and are clear with our beliefs, then it is easier for our allies to know us and have clearer expectations.

Do not support an issue purely to dismiss an "opponent" or support an ally. Let us be clear with ourselves and everyone else.

I'm glad this article was published here because I've not quite decided how to view the matter. I personally do not recognize marriage between two persons of the same gender. However, I am just as uncomfortable having the government deny certain citizens any specific rights. I just don't see how its Constitutionally possible and how its consistent with a democracy and freedom.

>> Let us be clear with ourselves and everyone else.

That very notion requires an equal playing field for everyone and a culture of human rights. Most Muslims do not accept this as the basis of our law.

It would indeed be a very strategic move for Muslim Americans to support gay marriage, but it would be equally unprincipled.

I guess that Muslims or "American(ized) Muslims" should now also work with and campaign for pedophiles, child molestors, rapists, and people in incestuous relationships as there are Republicans and people on the Christian Right in America who are openly in opposition to this (at least publicly and Mark Foley and Ted Haggard notwithstanding).

Secondly this article ignores the fact that some of the most militant advocates against immigrant Muslims and xenophobic campaigners against Islam in Europe are advocates of homosexual unions/'rights' -- Pim Fortuyn, Jorg Haider, Geert Wilders, etc., I am sure this author should have no problem with joining or having common cause with anyone from this site:

http://gaysagainstislam.com/

or this advocate here who is very explicit in his hatred:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam
--------------------------------------------------------------

When you have NO anchor, NO criterion, or NO verifiable or objective source of truth, everything and anything can seem like a solution. This is more so the case if one's perceived enemies are the ones on the opposite side of an issue, therefore supporting that cause or issue becomes YOUR issue, a raison d'etre so to speak. This is not dissimilar to how Blacks in America were told to vote for candidate X because wealthy Whites supported candidate Y. Candidate X upon receiving their token votes would then go about implementing the same agenda and same policies of that of candidate Y, with some bread crumbs thrown their way to keep them pacified.

Come to think of it, this bankrupted failed logic is what led Muslims to endorse Bush in 2000 (since Al Gore's perceived biases with Israel and Lieberman).

The more things change the more things stay the same.

regards,
Kw

To quote Niemöller: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
I think this sums up the argument behind this article.

If we, as American Muslims, want to be Americans, we have to ackowledge and define what American values are.
Democracy itself is threatened by indifference toward minority rights and political opportunism that exploits prejudices and ignorance in the population.

Minorities must be able to participate in society as equals while giving full expression to their own identity without fear (this includes Muslims!). To accomplish this, minorities are dependent upon the majority - upon the awareness within the majority that it has a special responsibility in actively safeguarding minority rights.

If as Muslims we are not comfortable with this, we may need to one day decide if being Muslim and American are mutally exclusive.

kwaleed's argument doesn't hold water. No one is suggesting that a person should vote for the opposite candidate or support child molesters. In fact, the article points out that one should be careful where one's loyalty leads you.

I think there's a big difference for voting "YES to Gay Marriage" versus "NO to a Constitutional Amendment". I don't think I would ever vote to legalize gay marriage, yet I also would not vote to change the Constitution to prevent the judiciary from extending those rights if it chooses.

I think Muslims should just stay on the sidelines in the debate about gay marriage, because to support it would be hypocritical and to stand up against it would alienate the civil rights' groups that Muslims may turn to in the future. Besides the Mormons are doing more than enough to stop this, though they will ultimately fail, but still, one more black mark won't hurt them, Muslims however can't afford any more adversaries, the far- right Evangelical Christian base is more than enough.

OmarG

I agree with your last post. My reason for No on Prop. 8 was more a No on a constitutional amendment.

This is a good debate to have since it might accelerate our understanding of politics in this country so that we can begin to define subtle boundaries between religious convictions and political issues and viewpoints.

#1, I agree with Kaz's position on the issue. Government should not be involved in marriage. Civil unions should be open to all above an age of consent and with some protections for the medically-defined incompetent.

#2, the movie Philadelphia with Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks changed my opinion a lot on this issue. Marriage today in the U.S. involves a transfer of rights related to everything from health insurance, estates, medical power of attorney and even your card at the local video store. So it's just not fair to deny a portion of the citizenry those rights and make them have to spend a lot of money at a lawyer's office to enforce those rights through legal documents.

#3, Zulfikar Sharif's comment of November 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM that Muslims are choosing "to vote their individual position as regards to same sex marriage" is misleading in that I do not have to approve of same-sex relationships to believe that the government should not persecute those in same-sex relationships. I don't like abortion in general, but I don't believe that the government in the United States today should overly restrict abortion.

#4, I agree with Zulfikar and others who pointed out that "alliance-building" is not the right reason to support same-sex civil unions/marriages. We should try to things based on a principle. I simply believe that the harm of government persecution of minorities is greater than the harm of allowing same-sex civil unions or marriages. In this I agree with Humanitarian's comment of November 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM.

wassalaam
Ayman

I think I feel exactly about this as I feel about abortion. I would never have one (inshallah), but I'm not about to tell another woman if she can or cannot. Her sins are her own.

This is different from the debate about abortion-because an abortion is a personal decision, something that the government should have no say in. Whereas gay marriage is something that has great consequences on a society as a whole, and for this to become the norm would ultimately affect everyone because human beings are at their core, very social creatures.

>> because an abortion is a personal decision <<
>> Whereas gay marriage is something that has great consequences on a society as a whole <<

he he he he he. Great logic!

This was an enlightening article from an important perspective. It reminds us that once the freedoms of one minority are violated, the freedoms of every minority are at risk.

The Christian right is not concerned with freedom, but only with basing all our laws on their beliefs. That is dangerous because the core of our government is based on freedom including freedom of religion.

We are a country that promises its citizens a deep respect for diversity and, in the end, unity through diversity. This means no group should force their ideas on another.

(I also have a response to kwaleed. The ones who are most homomphobic are the ones who are most ignorant about same sex relationships. To compare gay relationships to rape, pedophilia, etc., is equivalent to saying every Muslim in the United States is a terrorist or supports a holy war).

I think this article, as well as the one Sherman Jackson wrote a little while back, present excellent reasons why people who are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds still can and should oppose efforts to prohibit same-sex civil marriage.

From the perspective of human rights, as well as under a progressive view of US constitutional law, when the state grants rights and privileges to individuals, it has no business discriminating between people on the basis of gender, skin color, national origin, religion, etc. The right to marry, and the various state-granted privileges granted to married individuals, fall under this category.

However, I believe we should go further: not simply "tolerating" same-sex marriage for non-Muslims out of a sense of pluralistic principle (or simply for self-interest or a quid pro quo between minority groups); but rather pushing for full and open acceptance of gay and lesbian Muslims as co-equals of straight Muslims in our families, mosques, and communities, and working to reform those aspects of traditional Islamic law that discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

Not all Muslims share the same concept of "Muslim family values", and we need to stop applying feel-good terminology in ways that exclude and marginalize people in our communities.

>> When you have NO anchor, NO criterion, or NO verifiable or objective source of truth, everything and anything can seem like a solution. This is more so the case if one's perceived enemies are the ones on the opposite side of an issue, therefore supporting that cause or issue becomes YOUR issue, a raison d'etre so to speak.

Americans do have an objective source of truth. That source is the constitution of their country. That source says that the best principles for governing their society is that its citizens should not be discriminated against and should be free to associate.

We oppose Christianity and idolatory on religious grounds. We oppose eating pork on religious grounds. That doesn't undermine a Christians right to practice their religion, an idolators right to worship a stone or a pigs right to humane treatment. The "religious" distinction in the political realm is about fair treatement of citizens, regardless of how sinful or sinless they are. The issues under discussion aren't about obective sources of truth or moral entitlements of specific social groupings, they are about the rights a countries citizenry are entitled to when observing the law of that country. The issue of the American civil union is NOT one of Nikaah.

The problem with this article is that it is based on the same premises as Western Secular thought, that government is the controlling factor in people's lives. As a few have briefly mentioned, the government should not have any hand in marriage. Government is an institution built to enforce criminal misdeeds, i.e. actions that inflict harm upon non-consenting victims. Marriage does not fall under this category, rather it is a civil matter that should be left to the civil courts. The government should have no hand in determining what is moral for any group of people. This is what the article's ending example is explaining as well. Under Islamic rule, minority religious groups had their own civil courts to handle things like marriage. This is not the case in the USA.

Since this is the case, what should occur is that the government should recognize marriage contracts, which would stipulate typical things like inheritance, power of attorney, and other such rights. This would eliminate the debate entirely, because there would no longer be a governmental legitimization of relationships. This would also keep many divorce issues out of court, unless there was a direct violation of contractual issues. To this extent, there should also be no tax benefits for married couples. Instead, people should be taxed individually.

Ultimately, the gay marriage debate is about legitimacy. It is quite obvious to the leaders of this movement that they cannot force legitimacy upon religious groups. However, they have found the loophole by going after secular government. Because secular government, by its very nature, is unsuited to discriminate against differing groups, then people with differing life styles can encroach upon government to force legitimacy upon those who would otherwise not recognize them. I personally feel that this is not right for any group to do, even us Muslims. We cannot force our views upon others, nor should anyone else be allowed to do so. We should not be discriminated against by public institutions. However, we cannot expect even public institutions to go out of their way to accommodate us, or any other minority group.

On these grounds, Muslims should take the middle path, as we have tended to do throughout history, and not support either side. Instead, we should support the dissolution of government sanctioned marriage, and destroy the debate at its roots. After all, we cannot support the obvious bigotry towards anyone that is different, which is coming from the right, nor can we support the legitimization of a group with what we believe to be abhorrent practices.

Abdalalim1982, I was with you for the most part until your last paragraph.

First of all, not all Muslims fall into the category of "we" who believe homosexuality is abhorrent.

Second, you state that we should avoid bigotry toward those who are different, but we should also avoid supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians. But I think that's bigotry. If the equal rights of polytheists were being stripped away, I think we'd find Muslims actively involved in fighting to support their rights, and rightly so, even though many Muslims find polytheism "abhorrent". To not do the same when the group in question is gays and lesbians is bigotry: we're discriminating not based on any principle, but based on the personal characteristics of the people involved.

Arain, it is a well known, and accepted belief amongst mainstream Muslims that homosexuality is considered abhorrent under Islamic law. I said nothing about stripping away the rights of anyone. If a homosexual couple were to sign over power of attorney, or other legally binding roles to their partner, then so be it. All I am saying is that they are trying to force legal legitimacy of their lifestyle upon all of us. This is not acceptable under Islamic law, as the story at the end of the article states. I am not talking about saying that homosexuals should be jailed, or worse. We should only not legitimate them. At the same time, we cannot side with those who are more than happy to strip rights away from all people. Those who struggle so hard to ban, and outlaw gay marriage, are the same people who would attack Islamic practices if allowed. Therefore, we, as Muslims, cannot take either side, but should rather take a middle ground, and support the dissolution of government sanctioned marriage.