How many souls did you save?
When you helped your church ban gay marriage, how many souls do you think you saved?
When you went door to door, or handed out fliers at the grocery store, how many people saw God’s grace in you? How many people saw Jesus’ love for the sinner?
When you gave money to the campaigns to pass gay marriage bans, how many of the hungry did you feed? How many of the needy did you shelter?
When you voted in private to take away the rights of your fellow U.S. citizens simply because they have different beliefs than yours, how many people did you convert? How many sins did you prevent?
People will still have gay sex. They just won’t be able to visit their loved ones when they are dying, they will be subject to a different tax code, their estates will be unnecessarily tied up in court on their passing.
Great job, I bet Jesus is really cheering you on.
You hypocrites! You are being cruel to people just because they are different and too weak to defend themselves politically. You are teaching the rest of the world that your church is about cowardly hate. You are perverting the core values of Christianity, and you are undermining the freedoms of our state.
You are driving people away from the church, not bringing people in.
Yes, I know, you think these people are sinning and you think sinners should be punished. Do you sin? Does that mean we should be able to stop you from visiting your loved ones in the hospital? Or we should bar you from raising your kids? Or you should have to pay more taxes upon the death of your spouse? Would any of these things stop you from sinning?
For those of you that homeschool, you do realize a lot of people think that you are sinning by giving your kids an inferior education? You may not think that’s what happening — I certainly don’t think that’s happening in my home — but plenty of people believe this firmly. Does that mean it should be OK for others to take away your right to teach your children?
Absolutely not.
So why on Earth do you think you should get to deny other people their rights, just because you think they are sinning?
It’s a free country (for some more than for others) so of course you are free to spread whatever gospel you please. But if you really are a Christian, if you really want to live a Christ-like life, please stop and think a little bit about what you are doing. I know some of you are out there.
How many souls did Prop 8 save for the church?
I’d venture to say it lost quite a few.
The idea that we should be able to vote who is and isn’t worthy of fundamental rights is mind boggling.
As an atheist, am I next?
Maybe it’s just the circles in which I travel, but many people seem not only to have lost respect for religious conservatives, they’re livid. Fit to be tied. Could it be that the religious leaders behind “8″ finally triggered the culture war that they’ve been hyping all these years?
Good post, Rolfe.
boremetotears
November 7, 2008 at 12:55 am
Right after the Saddleback “debate” I remember being chilled by kingmaker Rick Warren, with a big friendly smile, saying how much he respected both candidates and he could vote for either one, but the only dealbreaker for him would be voting for an atheist, that this country couldn’t have an atheist as president.
That’s how I feel as a woman, about the five conservative Catholic SCOTUS justices poised to take my rights away in the name of some godly mandate only they are fit to interpret for us lesser mortals. . .
JJ
November 7, 2008 at 8:11 am
Thanks Lynn. As JJ points out, since you’re an atheist you’re effectively barred from holding high office in this country. That’s for “Christians” only. The only debate seems to be whether Catholics, Jehovah’s witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists are actually Christians. I don’t know if you be worse off as a muslim, but no matter how you slice it, you’re an apostate and a second class citizen. Sorry.
At least for now, you can still marry
I used to be pretty open to religious conservatives. I grew up as one, after all, and I know how the widely shared feeling that your way of life is under attack can make you stop thinking and start “defending”. I want to cut them some slack, and I firmly support their freedom to believe what they want and worship however they want.
But these sorts of campaigns to use the state to push religious values on people who do not believe have made me livid. To me, they seem anti-Christian and anti-American. They undermine what is good about both the church and the state. I’ll defend their right to worship, but that does not mean I’ll help them wreck the country.
JJ — you’re right that this goes far beyond one issue. I hope that our political debates can back away from the wedge issues and focus on what the religious right is really doing. I hope we can turn the repudiation of the Bush administration into a repudiation of this blending of church and state that Bush encouraged (as you pointed out in your last post). I hope, but I’m not that optimistic. Democrats seem to play along with the wedge game, so the best shot at progress is an internal revolt in the Republican party. No signs of that yet, the Palinites seem to be the only energized Republicans out there.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 7, 2008 at 11:22 am
the only dealbreaker for (Warren) would be voting for an atheist, that this country couldn’t have an atheist as president.
Yeah, all the “Anybody can grow up and become President!” talk isn’t really true, is it?
At every opporunity, kingmaker Rick Warren, with a big friendly smile, says “Christians should be known for what they’re for, rather than against.” So, when he tells his tens of thousands of conditioned, unquestioning “ants” that Prop 8 is “for” families, children, western civilization, etc. and not “against” homosexuals, the message is embraced enthusiastically – and spread. Like a cancer.
boremetotears
November 7, 2008 at 11:37 am
I don’t know if you be worse off as a muslim
Not you’ve got me wondering: Would a muslim candidate be accused of being black??
boremetotears
November 7, 2008 at 11:39 am
I agree with you. Their actions were reprehensible. But remember this: a majority of Californians agreed. Why?
bill
November 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I wish I knew why, then I might be able to making a more convincing case against ballot measures like this. Obviously it wasn’t just the religious conservatives that pushed it through — a good number of Democrats voted yes on prop 8.
Boremetotears pretty much summed up my feelings in her comment when she said The idea that we should be able to vote who is and isn’t worthy of fundamental rights is mind boggling.
Gay marriage is just one issue,
Rolfe Schmidt
November 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm
One of the best arguments I have ever heard! I think you have really gotten to the heart of the matter with out attacking in the same old way that allows the Fundamentalists to cry “ANTI-CHRIST! We have freedom of religion!”
I hope you don’t mind, but I am going to link the daylights out of this!
Mandi
November 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Thank you Mandi, of course I don’t mind the links at all!
Rolfe Schmidt
November 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thank you. I stumbled on this page, and I am speechless. This is a fantastic argument. Thank you for making it.
wumples
November 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Remember how many people got angry when the rights of foreigners to have fair, speedy trials was taken away (Military Commissions Act)? Not many. The lack of empathy in that instance was horrifying to me. Indeed, it is not just one issue.
A significant number of Americans don’t think twice about stripping the rights of fellow human beings as long as *they* are untouched. So many are too proud to consider that they are hurting innocents rather than crusading against evil.
Stephanie
November 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm
It really ticks me off that “the majority says so” is seen as some kind of legitimate argument for bigotry. In the 1930s, the majority of Germans thought the Jews were less than human and should go away. What would happen if the majority today suddenly decided that black people could no longer drive cars? Is that right because more people agree than disagree?
The US Supreme Court serves many purposes, not the least of which is to protect those whose numbers are too small to give them a majority voice. Right and wrong are not decided by the majority, nor should they be. In this case however, the Supreme Court, stacked with conservatives, keeps passing the buck and relegating the decision about same-sex marriage to the states’ discretion. Maybe Obama will get to appoint some new justices and we can settle this the right way: equal rights for all (I think I read that in some Declaration of some kind).
By the way, boremetotears, LGBT people are light years ahead of atheists in this country. Will and Grace have made gay cool. But we may get killed if too many people find out we’re atheists.
erock
November 7, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I am not a church going person and I could care less about your whining about someones “rights” being violated. I particularly don’t care because both sides of the political coin step on peoples rights. Bush has his way over the constitution to the detriment of America. Those on the left claim the constitution is “a living breathing document that changes with the times” No amendments necessary. President Elect Barack Obama on his website informing us that there will be mandatory “service” that will need to be given by certain segments of people. Michelle Obama tells us what Barack will and will not allow, what he will demand. So you morons that trample on the rights of others when you think it is the “Right thing to do” then shout at the other side for trampling on the rights of others when it’s their time to violate peoples freedom when they think it’s the right thing to do. Next up for the democrats, the so called fairness in broadcasting act, for republicans it was not allowing gays to marry. I wish each party would destroy the other so a 3rd party would have a chance to rise up and restore the Constitutional rights of us all, not just the rights that each party thinks is right. So whine on, you’re all hypocrites and deserve no respect. You only support those parts of the constitution you agree with, so spare me the drama queen act.
Class dismissed
Gary
November 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Posted on Facebook!
I’m a Methodist by tradition, but I identify with a lot of leftist ideals regarding religion and government. I live in Kansas, so I’m surrounded by hordes of those belonging to the religious right, and it still stuns me to hear some of the things these people can say about one particular group or another (that doesn’t agree with them).
factorone
November 7, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Brilliant. Practice what you preach, but don’t make others have to practice. It’s nobody’s business, and nobody gets hurt, WTF is the problem? I’m living out of wedlock with my woman, sinning, but can be FORGIVEN and then get married, if i choose to. Everyone should have a choice, and not just 2 options.
Bucky
November 7, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I wonder one thing, how is it that the majority of a nations citizens is able to vote and decide on the rights of a minority of its citizens and this is viewed as just?
soyeah
November 7, 2008 at 8:29 pm
So, let me get this straight. You all support democracy but only when the vote supports your worldview? How pathetic… In a democracy the will of the majority prevails. If you don’t like the result then work to change the vote next election cycle.
Other than that, please keep your bigoted, anti-Christ comments to yourself.
I just think that if we were all gay, where would our population be? In about 80 years, completely extinct. Yup just natural sex acts between two consenting adults… Good luck with that.
Big Bob
November 7, 2008 at 9:19 pm
This is amazing. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
sam
November 7, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Thanks for all of the comments. I’ve got to get the kids to bed now, but I’ll try to respond to a few of the points tomorrow.
One question for Big Bob: are you calling me a bigot? Or one of the other commenters? If so, I’d like to know what was said that struck you as bigoted. And I wouldn’t worry too much about the world’s population, we seem to be breeding just fine…
Rolfe Schmidt
November 7, 2008 at 9:36 pm
All, I would like to say is, gay deserve equal rights just like everyone else. Just because you are afraid or creeped out by what other people do, since you live a shelter thoughtless shell of a life. Keep your damn religion out of my government, got it.
SCB
November 7, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Hermaphrodites, created by the gods and goddesses, born with both male and female sex organs, ignored by religions and politicians, yet should be allowed to marry anyone they wish.
Just ask any religious leader or politician if they can marry. I know for a fact that religious ministers are taught how to ignore this question. Ask if they can get a marriage license or the minister will marry one.
Estimates give birth rates of greater than 1%, many are surgically altered shortly after birth, and they are human beings supposedly with the full protection of the law. One major religion encouraged their death at birth as they were creatures of the devil.
If the gods and goddesses created people with these different mixed physical genders then they also created people with gender preferences with no physical differences, i.e., gay and lesbian.
Any religion, person or politician who penalizes or discriminates against hermaphrodites is a hypocrite, pure and simple. The same applies to those against gays.
Savvy Man
November 7, 2008 at 9:52 pm
If the gods and goddesses created a hermaphrodite with mixed sex organs, then how are they sinning if they have sex with another hermaphrodite, a woman or a man?
Savvy Man
November 7, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Ha! You people whine and complain about the Christians. Just wait until the Muslims infiltrate and enact Shiara Law!
You won’t have the issue of not being able to put your partner in your Will; you’ll have to worry about being put to death….
Carny
November 7, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Name calling is not the way to get your ideas through. People tend to shut you out when they insult you.
But in all these comments, Bob, I haven’t encountered a single one attacking Christianity. Care to tell us where the Anti-Christ attacks are? They’ve all been repudiations of extremist stripping of rights.
I also haven’t seen any suggestion anywhere that everyone should be gay, so I have no idea how that notion came into your head. No one here suggested it, and it’s interesting that you would bring it up seemingly without relation to the ongoing argument.
Finally, it is not, and has never been, the job of the Supreme Court to uphold the will of the majority. Its sworn duty is to preserve the rights of all. When the courts ruled back the the Jim Crow days that it was unconstitutional to forbid interracial marriage, there was an uproar. The majority of Americans were against allowing marriage between black and white. Does that mean that the courts were wrong to allow it?
John
November 7, 2008 at 10:08 pm
The church lost me, that’s for sure.
Kim
November 7, 2008 at 11:01 pm
This is so laughably ignorant I had to respond. If you know anything about the Church, you would know that it’s not about recruiting as many people as you can, but by abiding by a moral code. If you don’t care to follow this moral code, then the Church does not want you. This isn’t an attack on homosexuals: I don’t care what you do and I don’t mind if you get married. But you can’t act on your homosexualism and be a part of the Church (much like you shouldn’t have sex before marriage). Please, understand the Church before you criticize it (the Catholic church, btw. Protestants do whatever…)
usurper7
November 7, 2008 at 11:51 pm
@Big Bob: We support democracy only when it’s free from religion.
ln
November 8, 2008 at 12:28 am
Um…
Since someone asked, I thought I’d posit a possibility for why Prop 8 passed:
It has less to do with politics than it does religion. To religious people, living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. Most people that are not religious don’t have this conviction, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a sin to the religious. So… in order to save us ALL from God’s wrath, the God fearing voted for what they thought was best. (for their souls included!)
People have to understand that if a church-goer does nothing to stop the public acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, they are in effect APPROVING of that lifestyle. Simply put, there is no middle ground on this issue, you can’t oppose homosexuality and stand idly by while God wants you “to help your fellow brother and sister get back to Him.”
Anti-prop-8 proponents may disagree with all of this, and they have a 1st amendment right to do so. But it nonetheless explains why people voted the way that they did.
I also hope this explanation helps others recognize that anti-homosexual sentiment doesn’t always flow from hate. Even if the place that it does flow from ends up being misguided anyway.
RuE
November 8, 2008 at 12:32 am
Here’s an idea I’ve been running around in my head for awhile… I’ll stay anonymous, if you don’t mind, but here’s where I’m coming from:
I’m a Christian. I was raised as an atheist and came to belief in my late teenage years.
I am now a philosopher professor at a major research university.
I see both sides…. and it’s not what you think, so let me explain.
I think that most Christians believe that marriage is a sacrament of their faith. The problem is that government got involved, LONG, long ago, in being a part of marriage. Laws were involved in this religious practice, like many laws have always been. But then, as our little nation got started, we didn’t separate the laws (the state) from this particular religious practice.
Fast forward a few hundred years, and now we have the problem of today: Christians believe marriage is a God-ordained religious sacrament. I know you know this, but let’s pause for a minute and recognize that they have the right to believe that. They have religious freedom, of course, and are free to believe whatever they want about religious sacraments, etc. So, in short, Christians see movements to allow gay-marriage as an infringement upon THEIR religious beliefs. I think you should at least try to see where they are coming from on this… if for no other reason, it’s good to know thine enemy. But further, most people who voted for the ban are generally nice, decent people… so how does this make sense? Well, as I suggest, it is because they view gay marriage as an infringement upon THEM and their religious rights and beliefs.
NB: This is born out of the problem that their religious beliefs got mixed with laws in the first place. Put a pin in that for a second and look at the other side of the coin.
On the other side, gay right activists view marriage from the legal side. It is a legally recognized form of a legal contract that enables two parties to particular rights and powers that no one else has. Like all legal contracts, we belief (rightly) that competent, rational adults can consent to just about any legal contract they want with another competent, rational adult and so the move to BAN their right to enter into such an agreement with their partner seems outrageous, and they are right. Additionally, for many gay people, marriage is this PLUS the religious side (they are Christians themselves, or some other faith, but Christians who believe that Christianity endorses, or is at least not against, homosexual relationships). Thus, for them, marriage is a basic legal right, plus it’s a deep religious freedom right, both of which seems to be to violated (banned) for no reason. Note that this too is a result of the mixing of the religious practice of marriage with civil law.
So… here’s my solution I’d like to run by you and get your thoughts on…
Let’s get civil law entirely out of the business of marriage.
Here’s my proposal, you tell me where I go wrong… and I think everyone would be happy (or most, or at least they should be, on both sides):
– We get rid of all marriage laws. Tax laws, medical ethics questions, etc., etc., etc. All of them. We would grandfather everyone who is currently under such laws in, just for prudential reason to make it easier.
–If people want to get married… great. That’s their religious freedom right. They can have their church, or temple, or group of friends, or whatever they want, DO whatever they want. They can have ceremonies, whatever. Of course. But the state is in no way involved in that.
–If people want many of the current legal rights granted to married couple granted to them, they simply go down to their local court-house and get a contract written up and recorded that lays out these various legal rights. You want a right for person X to be able to see you in the hospital? Ok, write up a legal contract and make it so. But anyone can do this, of course, for anyone they want. The same for any and all other rights that would normally be associated with marriage. We completely remove those from civil law and instead leave it up to individual couples to write up contracts if they want these kinds of legal rights. (I imagine nearly all marriages would do this — gay or straight — just as all now go register at target, etc.).
The result:
Everyone, gay or straight, can get married if they want. If that’s their religious gig — cool. Whatever. Just how everyone , gay or straight, can pray or meditate, or take communion, or whatever they want in whatever religious community they want.
Everyone, gay or straight, if they want accompanying legal rights must get a legal contract (some kind of legal civil union) that spells those out.
That’s all there is to it.
Where am I going wrong here?
What am I missing?
seriously… I’ve been contemplating this for sometime and I’m trying to see what I am missing. This seems like a straightforward, simple solution to this entire problem that keeps everyone happy.
Anon Philosopher Christian
November 8, 2008 at 12:33 am
As a woman in a committed relationship with another woman, you can understand how crushed I was when prop. 8 got passed. I guess my girlfriend and I will just continue to be “life partners”. That being said, your post made me almost as happy as the election results. I’m going to send this link to many of my friends and relatives. Thank you very much. You don’t know how much this means to me.
Kirstie
November 8, 2008 at 12:57 am
You know, I never really considered why the vote had such a wide gap. Only thoughts I could really muster were those of disappointment. I figured it was the ads featuring children talking in regards to learning about gay marriage in the classroom. When I brought up the subject with family and peers that’s the most common answer I got. Of course the ads were full of crap, but you know… people usually hear one negative thing and run with it. They practically hold on for dear life to it even if you present them with the truth. If only they knew that flip-flopping was a political term and in real life it’s called acknowledging the facts and changing your mind.
Anyways, I really loved this post. Too bad the people who need to read it probably won’t.
Nia
November 8, 2008 at 2:15 am
It seems to be so typical of the church to want to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. Fair enough they have their views on abortion, euthanasia and of course, homosexuality but they have no right to force this on everyone else. I’m not saying that we should all turn gay or even be comfortable with the concept, but as a society we have no right to deny the happiness of others.
Sheree
November 8, 2008 at 2:59 am
Usurper:
I find it interesting that you say the Church does not want those that abide by the moral code. I have two points to make regarding that statement:
1.) If my understanding of modern Christian tenant is correct, aren’t we all sinners? We can still accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, but, in the end, we are sinners… Which is why we pray and ask for forgiveness in the hopes that we will make it to Heaven. How is our “sin” of homosexuality different than other people’s sins of Greed (not giving to the poor), Pride, etc.? I assume that you are not perfect. Why should the Church accept you?
2.) How does the Church pertain to legal/government-ordained marriages? From what I observe, because I cannot participate myself, people may be married by a Justice of the Peace? Now, how is that a religious ceremony?
Furthermore, you’re statement implies that the Church is the only church that conducts wedding rituals (and, if I may add, I sensed a spark of vanity in your text regarding Protestants). I am not sure if you are aware, but there are different religions in the United States, some (Wiccans, Unitarian Universalists, possibly even some Methodist churches, etc.) of which may actually be openly accepting of homosexuals and would like to help them marry.
In fact, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, gay marriages happen. I went to one last year… It was a beautiful ceremony and it was held in a (Christian)church. The only difference between their ceremony and yours, if you are married, are the sex of the couple and that their marriage is not legally accepted under state law. The “Church” is still “desecrated” by this horrible, monstrous, devious event of the union of two beautiful souls, but the Government (which is for the people, might I add), won’t accept it.
The taxation and domestic rights that you might hold as a married couple cannot be given to them. How does that have anything to do with the Church? In fact, it does not have anything to do with the Church. The creed of separation of Church and State still exists as part of the Constitution of the United States.
p.s. We’ll win.
Justin K
November 8, 2008 at 7:19 am
Thank you Justin K. You said that better than I would have.
I’m sorry the comment moderation has been slowing down the discussion, I’ll try to speed it up.
I appreciate all of the feedback, it is nice to know that this post struck a chord with some of you. I was angry and frustrated when I wrote it, and I expected it would mostly make people mad. It is a pleasant surprise to get comments like Kirstie’s and many others.
Of course, the less agreeable comments make a livelier discussion, so let me take some of them on.
Gary: Are you suggesting that it is OK for Republicans to take away civil liberties just because Democrats do it too? The end of your comment suggests you think it is wrong either way, if that is the case I’ll agree with you.
BTW, I am not a Democrat and have plenty of arguments with the left too — especially when it comes to homeschooling. But that is beside the point here.
RuE: You’re right that there are all sorts of motives here and it isn’t all simple hate. I happen to believe that it is pointless for the church to force good behavior if they don’t get someone to believe. However, if someone converts don’t you have faith that God can take care of their behavior? Others (like usurper7) disagree with me on this. I’d like to persuade them to change their minds, but I certainly don’t want to force them to act like they have changed their minds.
Anon Philosopher and others who pointed this out: Yes, I think it would be just fine if the state got out of the marriage business. Institute a legal civil union that is not called marriage, and have it entail all of the rights and responsibilities formerly known as marriage.
I don’t care too much about defining words. I care about laws and rights.
Re those ads about families and kids: Don’t people know their kids are going to learn about the real world some day? Wouldn’t the responsible parent want to guide them into it instead of hiding from it?
Rolfe Schmidt
November 8, 2008 at 9:03 am
As a Christian, I cannot agree more. Eloquently said. As a gay man, ditto!
To the atheists here: as an Episcopalian, I assure you I will fight for your right to be who you are and your freedom to forever be free from judgment and discrimination.
That, I think, I am called to believe, is what being a Christian truly means.
I really do have to wonder from a purely pragmatic point though, if it’s dawned on these bigots that sent their money from out of state, how badly they lost their power in the election because they wasted their money on hurting people they didn’t even know. How much better would they have been served sending that money to fund their own election goals at home?
I think that is the true definition on an idiot.
Craig
November 8, 2008 at 12:52 pm
All this uproar over the banning of gay marriage in California but no one is saying anything about how workers in the sex trade industry in San Francisco are being discriminated against. And the vote wasn’t even close.
California is a “Right To Choose” state. San Francisco is the Mecca of liberalism and enlightenment. Ballot “K” crossed gender lines and was not just a female right “To Choose” but also impacted the right of males “To Choose”. Why would the enlightened, highly educated citizens of San Francisco strike down Ballot K? If there is any issue that impacts both genders and sexual persuasions and the right to do with ones body what you wish it is prostitution. But there is no uproar over this ballot defeat.
Legalized prostitution enables the “GOVERNMENT” to license and monitor the activity of its participants. It enables Public health to do a better job of monitoring and tracking diseases to prevent their spread, allows prostitutes to turn in John’s and Joan’s that are abusive increasing their safety, and destroys the business model of pimp’s. By legalizing the profession it actually reduces the risk of victimization of women and men who participate in this long storied profession.
If a young 18 year old girl or boy desires to sell their body to a 50 year old man or woman and perform consensual acts why are the intellectuals and straight/gays in San Francisco opposed? And the same holds true for the opposite, if a 50 year old man or woman wants to sell their body to an 18 year old boy or girl why do the citizens of San Francisco have the right to stop it? It puts these people in danger and keeps the practice of back alley prostitution strong and imposes unnecessary danger.
This voting ban gives the appearance that the only groups allowed to “Judge” or have an opinion about what is right and what is wrong are liberals and the gay community. The citizens of San Francisco support gay rights and claim the right to choose but don’t support the freedom of choice for prostitution? I’m not exactly sure what The Rock is cooking but it smells a lot like hypocrisy.
The Results of San Francisco’s Ballot K to Legalize Prostitution
http://www.bayswan.org/SFInitiative08/
FinderofHypocrisy
November 8, 2008 at 2:26 pm
To understand why this hateful little addition of 14 divisive words to our state constitution passed you need to look at the overall environment of this election. Many of the folks who came out to vote for Barack Obama were people, mostly Democrats, who had not likely voted much in the past if at all. Namely latinos, blacks, and asians who all are deeply religious. Those voters had enough plausible doubt planted in their heads by the Yes campaign’s bald faced lies and misdirection that they felt there really is a threat posed by gay marriage.
Initially I had a hard time seeing these voters as being enough of a margin to make it pass, but with it passing by just under 500,000 votes*(!!!), it seems like these one time voters were enough. Sickeningly sad.
*Check out L.A.Times coverage at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory
HDCS
November 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm
[...] Schmidt too, asks, “When you helped your church ban gay marriage, how many souls do you think you [...]
Ann Somerville’s Journal » Blog Archive » In the name of your god, go forth and hate?
November 8, 2008 at 6:12 pm
To Anon Philosopher Christian’s proposal, I think something on that order is where we’ll wind up (thoug it may not be pretty getting there.)
My marriage is civil only (20th anniversary coming up in February!) although my husband was raised Catholic in Boston and I grew up in the South as a Methodist. We were older professionals when we married and not attending church, we each had cars and property and planned to buy a house together. Thge point being, we needed the civil protections, not the church community and rituals. So that’s what we got.
We could have chosen both or church only, or neither. Every citizen should have that same right, and I don;t much care what anything is called, as long as it’s fair and “right.”
JJ
November 8, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Rolfe, I hope you don’t mind if I add this John Dean post here, describing authoritarian conservatives and explaining how they comprise 25% or so of the population, who we can never reach with reason, change, or work with:
JJ
November 8, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Religion and politcs should not be mixed…
Kevin Banks
November 8, 2008 at 11:01 pm
So many people here make the assumption that same-sex marriage is a “right.” Just like that, one of those privileges you are born with and which is somehow “inalienable.” Never mind that such a thing as same-sex marriage never really existed as such in any major civilization until a few years ago (perhaps someone can prove me wrong on this point by pointing out some rare instance of same-sex marriage somewhere in history, but it still wouldn’t change the main thrust of my comments here). I know that the way I have just phrased this is such that my words might provoke immediate condemnation around here. But think it through. The debate over same-sex marriage is a debate between a view of marriage that has been in existence for thousands and thousands of years against a viewpoint rooted almost entirely in modernistic political theory of what equality means and what rights are (it can be argued that absolute equality in every matter is an impossible goal and that there is no such thing as an absolute right without a state to grant it, i.e. no right is natural and no right is inalienable in the most literal sense of the world, but I’m getting too abstract with this line of thinking, I know).
Sure, the simple fact that something has been accepted for thousands of years doesn’t in itself make it right, but it does offer an explanation of why something like marriage might be defined one specific way and not another and why there might be resistance to an alteration in the definition of something that is so very fundamental to humanity. It isn’t necessarily sheer bigotry that would motivate people to resist the extension of marriage. To many (most) people in the world today, marriage IS the union of a man and a woman, a particular union based on love but also on procreation and the formation of families (sure, same-sex partners are able to form families, but most often this is by artifice rather than by nature — I don’t say that as a way to condemn the artifice, but just to highlight its distinction). This definition has been the basic definition for so long. Why should people be so despised if they are reluctant to change that definition (notwithstanding a few truly bigoted loudmouths who make them all look bad). To these people, a union between persons of the same sex might be something real and might be something that can be accepted and given a name, but not marriage. That’s one line of argument, and many gay-rights supporters are no doubt impatient with such lines of argument drawn from tradition. But it isn’t as though such a line of argument was just pulled out of a hat with the express “hateful” purpose of quashing the “rights” of anybody.
Also, I realize that the courts exist in part to protect minorities from the oppression of majorities, but there does seem to be something fishy, at least in my mind and in the minds of many others, about such a monumental alteration in the definition of a most basic human and societal institution being made by a handful of judges. There is something of an imposition here on the part of the minority upon the majority, and this isn’t really right, either. Certainly, the majority might need to change its opinion, but perhaps the proper way to bring about that change in opinion is through the more lengthy process of public debate that, heated as it may be, with gains and setbacks for all parties along the way, might actually arrive at broader consensus. This process takes longer, and maybe that’s why the courts seem like such an appealing avenue instead. It just seems to me that when activists would like to modify something that has essentially existed in one form for thousands of years, there’s no need for haste. One could argue that haste is necessary, because a group of people are being “oppressed,” but I would suggest that such an argument is a bit hyperbolic. After all, we are speaking of something that for all intents and purposes didn’t exist until a few years ago.
On another note, it isn’t only Christians who look upon homosexuality as sin, or at least as. Check with Muslims, traditional Hindus, etc., etc. … heck, look up some of the Dalai Lama’s comments on homosexuality.
Just to make a disclosure here. I’m a Christian, who sees homosexual relationships as sinful but as no more sinful than my own particular sins, and my view on the marriage matter falls in line more or less with the anonymous philosopher’s above. All government should extract itself from the business of marriage and switch to a more common-law situation, allowing for some kind of basic domestic partner contract, that would apply to gay and straight couples and would extend only the most basic benefits necessary to a couple. Marriage itself should be left to churches, mosques, temples, covens and whatever else. That’s my view, but I don’t see it ever happening in America. I just put it out there for conversation’s sake.
Peace.
momesansnom
November 9, 2008 at 3:46 am
momesansnom: Does this mean that straight couples don’t have the right to get married? That is arguable, but I don’t think that’s where many people want to go.
I just don’t accept of the whole “the government/court/liberals can’t oppress me by changing my definition of marriage” argument. If you are worried about definitions, you protest against Webster’s.
You can define your words however you want to, as long as people understand. There are already discrepancies out there: does the Catholic church define marriage the same way as the Lutheran Church? No. They don’t even recognize the other marriage, and nobody is asking them to.
The fact is that for many Americans, for years to come, the word marriage will mean “a union between a man and a woman” no matter what laws are passed. For many others, it will include same-sex couples no matter what laws are passed. Laws are not meant to change language. Laws are meant to control actions.
The question here is “how should gay couples be treated under the law in the United States?”
Not allowing same-sex couples to marry is a clear imposition on a minority of our population — mostly hard working, loyal citizens. They will have different treatment in the tax code, they may not be allowed to adopt children, they will have trouble visiting loved ones when they are ill. These are serious restrictions.
And the only imposition on the “non-sinners” is that one word in their language might have a different meaning. But no law will ever tell you what you have to mean when you say a word.
It just doesn’t add up to me.
By the way, I think same-sex couples have been around much longer than you realize. Have you read Plato? This is not a new invention.
In the end though, I think you are right that
I do see this happening in America. Just think, it wasn’t so long ago that interracial marriage was unthinkable. The great thing about America is that it can fix its mistakes.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 6:09 am
Rolfe said:
I just don’t accept of the whole “the government/court/liberals can’t oppress me by changing my definition of marriage” argument.
*********
Power of story. This is a war of unexamined rival narratives.
I just read a college football rivalry story using the phrase, “perspective routinely trampled by a stampede of emotion.” It doesn’t actually affect my life one bit when “my” team wins, loses, hires a new coach or fires the old one etc — except as I identify with that team in my own mind and choose to adopt that identity as part of who I am.
But it sure *feels* like it affects me personally, like life as we know it depends on my loyal citizenship in Gator Nation, and whether “we” are winning our battles and earning respect from rivals and the media.
JJ
November 9, 2008 at 7:16 am
momesanom said:
All government should extract itself from the business of marriage
***********
Well, of course. All government should extract itself from the business of religion! Period. But that’s not the real goal of the ban gay marriage crowd, is it? In fact, it’s the opposite, to further “enmesh” evangelism and affairs of state.
(Enmesh is Pat Robertson’s word, from his Christian law school set up specifically to flood the government with judicial ideologues passably bearded by “secular” degrees and disingeneous but sufficiently plausible claims to civil, not celestial, purpose.)
JJ
November 9, 2008 at 7:28 am
Religion is just one form of “social capital” —
Ignorance of the basic principles of freedom is dangerous all right, especially in lawmakers . . .
JJ
November 9, 2008 at 7:48 am
Kevin Banks said:
Amen!
momesansnom said:
Amen!
I’m glad this seems to be a point of agreement. But as some of the links JJ provided show, there are a lot of people who want their religion enforced by the state.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 8:02 am
momesansnom: I’m sorry in my first response I was getting a bit nitpicky. I got sidetracked from the real reason I wrote this post.
From your comment, I presume you are sympathetic to if not outright supportive of gay marriage bans. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You are also a Christian, so I presume that you believe you should love your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor (all neighbors, not just Christian ones) as yourself. I’ll also presume you believe that your goal as a Christian is spiritual development — constantly improving yourself to let the Holy Spirit take over and leave the shabby trappings of the world behind. Or something like that. Again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
I know one commenter claimed that Christianity (or at least Catholicism) was just about good behavior, so we don’t all agree.
If my presumptions were correct, could you please tell me how a gay marriage ban helps your spiritual development? I just don’t see it.
And when you support a law that makes life harder on some of your neighbors, ae you saying that is how you want to be treated, since you love your neighbor as yourself? If that is how you want to be treated, shouldn’t you push for a ban on all marriage? Again, this just doesn’t add up.
I don’t see what is Christian about pushing for these laws. Am I missing something?
Is “real American Christianity” actually a worship of tradition, not God? That would be ironic.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 8:13 am
[...] a comment » I was asking recently how anyone could think banning same-sex marriage was a Christian thing to do. It just [...]
Weak excuses « Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Apart from anything else, Proposition 8 is clearly unconstitutional – since the Bill of Rights applies to everyone.
And then there’s that statement of principles called the Declaration of Independence. The bit I am talking about begins “We hold these truths to be self evident …”
What part of that does the religious right NOT understand?
Stephen Rees
November 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Can somebody please explain to me why I’m some kind of gay hate monger simply because I don’t want the definition of tradition marriage to change. I’m absolutely not against gay couples that have some kind of legal status together having all of the rights that a couple in a marriage relationship have…taxes…hospital visitation…etc…
I’m simply not in favor of having one more traditional relationship redefined by those Americans whose world view is solely secular. I don’t believe that people should have a right to discriminate against those of us who maintain the traditional understanding of what the word marriage means and simply want to be able to pass that traditional value on to the next generation.
Why should I have to tolerate hate speech directed towards me and traditional Christianity simply because I don’t want to redefine marriage.
Frankly this doesn’t have anything to do with my relationship with God….this has everything to do with the recognition that the VAST majority of Americans do not want marriage redefined. Are we all haters? It’s time for the far left on the West Coast of this country to understand that they are not the majority of Americans. They are not even the majority of Californians. It’s time for the Christian haters to suck it up and quit crying and realize that they are not going to get their way on this one.
David Betzer
November 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm
David — First of all, I don’t know if you are a gay hate monger. As for your solution, something like that may work but it is pretty clear that “separate but equal” ain’t gonna fly. We’ve been down that road before.
I’ve given my opinion on many of the issues you raised in this post.
Long story short, nobody is going to change what the word marriage means to you, any more than we can make you accept a Roman Catholic, FLDS, or Muslim definition of marriage. This is NO imposition on you, and you belittle real discrimination when you claim you are oppressed.
You also need to understand that we have a constitution to limit the power of majority rule. The founding fathers understood very well that the majority is often cruel and wrong.
I’d appreciate it if some of you other readers could jump in and help me out here too, either here or on the other post.
I see very little hate speech in this discussion, and if you think I am speaking hatefully, I’d like you to point out where.
Finally, if this doesn’t have anything to do with anyone’s relationship with God, then why are the churches wasting their time and money on it?
Rolfe Schmidt
November 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I don’t think a majority of people in favor of gay marriage consider the opposition hate mongers. But just like you see people casting you in that light David, I see the most vocal members against gay marriage damning it as a sin. That gay people themselves don’t deserve rights. So its on both sides of the coin.
The problem with “separate yet equal” is the same problem with black and white schools years ago. Why separate in the first place?
Such a large part about religion is personal. You can learn about God through a holy scripture, but to find God, or religion (I’m from a religion that doesn’t believe in a God), is personal. People have different definitions for God’s will, for who can go to heaven, etc. Why can’t there be different definitions for religion, between religions? A christian doesn’t HAVE to recognize a marriage from Jainism (my religions), but the same, the government should not be able to discriminate. If you remove marriage from the equation and just have civil agreements, think about society that way. You’re having dinner with a gay couple, and say, “We’ve been married for 25 years.” They have to respond, “We’ve been civilly joined for 20 years”? Think about how silly that sounds.
The big problem with “separate yet equal” is that once someone is separate, they are inferior. That’s just psychology. That’s why armies were/are traditional trained to dehumanize their opponents. Separate is never equal. At least not with today’s psychology/sociology.
No Easy Answers
November 9, 2008 at 10:28 pm
As a Christian, I was overcome with a certain kind of rage when I read this post. While there are conservative, bible-thumping bigots out there, many of us, such as myself, believe gays have as much of a right to marriage as straights. While it is alright to address these fanatics on their own, do NOT attack Christianity as a whole. It angers me that you can generalize us like that. Many of us do help the poor and feed the hungry, and do so willingly and kindly, not out of pity or guilt, but out of love. While some Christians choose to ignore this basic principle of love, such as the extremists that very openly supported Proposition 8, many obey it through their entire lives. This article was extremely discriminatory, and you should rethink who you are talking to. Is it Christianity as a whole, including the liberal protestants who support gay marriage, or the fundamentalists?
sigher
November 9, 2008 at 10:47 pm
First of all, I do not hate homosexuals, some of my best friends are homosexuals and they know my stance on it. I do not believe that I am less sinful than homosexuals, nor do I believe that my sins are less than acts of homosexuality. “all have fallen short, etc..”
I like how this argument makes Christians think that Christ was always a lovey-dovey peace-loving hippie. NO! When Christ saw that merchants were perverting the temple by transforming it into a market, he shoved the tables over and basically told the merchants to GTFO. He wasn’t converting souls here, was he? He wasn’t helping the poor, or feeding anybody. So that must mean he wasn’t being a good witness…, oh wait, he’s Jesus. The whole reason Christianity exists.
I just love it how some people believe Christians are supposed to be Mother Teresa every second of their lives just being perfect.
To be a Christian is not limited to loving others, and the measure of a Christian is not how many people they convert. The measure of a Christian is how Christ-like they are. If Christ stood up against merchants (they should have the right to sell stuff, right?) in the temple, then it is not hypocritical for Christians to stand up against gays (they should have rights, right?) in churches. In fact, I argue that it is very Christ-like for Christians to defend the sacred Church. Jesus IS cheering these people on.
This isn’t just about the rights of gay couples, this also interferes with the rights of Christians to have marriage as the holiest and most cherished thing ever. And babies.
I agree with the anon philosophers Idea of splitting marriage into religions and political scenarios. It would certainly allow for a win-win outcome since those against gay marriage are thinking of traditional values, while those in favor are looking for the “rights” that marriage allows.
Do not worry Rolfe, your argument isn’t completely void. Today, some people are out there that go beyond the indignation of supporting tradition to the point where they believe God hates gays (which he does not), and they fight against gay marriage mostly out of homophobia. That’s not good.
This isn’t just Christian tradition, but the tradition of the world as well, for a very long time.
Humphrey Thomas
November 10, 2008 at 12:07 am
not every one believes that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right…
Dave
November 10, 2008 at 1:27 am
Just wanted to let you know I’m not ignoring your questions, Rolfe, I’m just busy. I’ll respond again when I get a chance. The discussion remains interesting.
momesansnom
November 10, 2008 at 4:16 am
Thanks No Easy Answers, I should try to be as even handed as you. And I’ll look forward to hearing back, momesansnom.
Dave: not every one believes that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right… So do we get to vote on what the fundamental rights are? Would you like that system if we had a Muslim, atheist, or Catholic majority? The whle point of the bill of rights was that the people who founded this country knew that majorities could be horribly wrong.
Humphrey: Nobody is trying to stop you from standing up to homosexuals in your church. Jesus did not attack the merchants in the marketplace, this happened in the temple and that is an important difference.
I don’t think I’m so perfect, and I don’t think everything about religion is “lovey-dovey”. If you didn’t notice, I’m pretty PO’ed about this.
And please, tell me exactly how a same-sex couple entering into a committed relationship is going to “interferes with the rights of Christians to have marriage as the holiest and most cherished thing ever”. Exactly how does this happen, how does it diminish your marriage? Which marriage does it diminish? Catholic? FLDS?
Gay marriage is happening with or without these propositions, and it has already been happening for quite a while. If it is going to undermine your marriage, the damage is already done.
And if a marriage is so weak that giving same-sex couples equal treatment makes it fall apart, I don’t think it is worth preserving in the first place.
Yes this happens, and I agree with you 100% here. But my frustration here was with people who are generally well-meaning (I’d like to think that is a good chunk of Christians) doing something that seems unexamined and counterproductive.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about what is sin and what is not. I’m not trying to say what your church should accept or what words should mean to you. I’m just trying to point out that whatever your intentions when pushing these gay marriage bans, the effect is that you are making a group of Americans feel hated, and constraining them to a second-class status. You could be spending your time better.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 10, 2008 at 7:19 am
Most online discussion doesn’t, but this one could actually offer some new insights, new questions, new understandings.
Humphrey Thomas said:
“I agree with the anon philosophers Idea of splitting marriage into religions and political scenarios. It would certainly allow for a win-win outcome since those against gay marriage are thinking of traditional values, while those in favor are looking for the “rights” that marriage allows.”
Anything that seems so obviously right and fair and win-win yet eludes us in practice, must be less simple than it seems, have more going on behind the scenes than we can grasp all at once and address with legal solutions, yes?
I’m in Florida where we the people voted Tuesday for the embodiment of civil rights in the presidential race, AND to codify overt discrimination into our state constitution, to ban gay marriage plus thoughtlessly create various civil rights problems for unmarried male-female couples.
On the radio this morning, the data describing the irony was presented: if black Floridians had not turned out in such overwhelming numbers to support Barack Obama, then the marriage amendment would have failed! I don’t remember the exact percentages but it was something like two-thirds of blacks voted to ban gay marriage while only 52% of whites did. It takes 60% here to pass a constitutional amendment.
This makes no sense in individual human terms. It’s no sensible to think that black (and hispanic) Americans in FL, CA and AZ all voted both for and against civil rights, that all those people are either monumentally stupid or dangerously perverse. There’s a lot more going on in American culture, religion and politics than we can grasp in any one conversation, even with experts. The only thing we CAN keep productively in mind imo, is that we can’t possibly know what we’re talking about most of the time!
I’m thinking I need to bone up on chaos theory and human systems theory and collective consciousness if I want to survive the cognitive challenges of the third millennium. . .wish I’d paid more attention to multivariate analysis in grad school. . .
Rolfe might want to help me think about this but I wonder if it’s like the economy then, how we think we see straightforward patterns and cause and effect, but we don’t, how no one’s in charge and we can’t really explain it with individual human logic, the blithe assurances over the years that the “free market” has a mind of its own and is infallible, self-correcting etc. (I once worked in a field where the same thing was said about elected school board members, and I think we’ve proven THAT one false!)
I’m rambling now and I’ll stop, but I haven’t scratched the surface of what’s really going on with this issue. For once it would be so intellectually exciting to actually explore such an issue rather than just push each other into the sharp edges of it to draw blood.
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 7:41 am
For example, when you’re committed to what you want but your strategy isn’t working to get you there (like McCain’s campaign?) will you change the strategy, give up the goal, or just keep head-butting society insisting it’s your right to take the rest of us down with you?:
This isn’t a rhetorical question. I hope readers will ask it of themselves, on gay marriage bans and anti-abortion just as you would plan a route for the day’s errands that gets you where you want to go rather than getting you mugged or leaving you stranded with no way back.
I ask myself this ALL THE TIME, and adjust accordingly. Even in online arguments.
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 9:44 am
Well… I guess letting people vote for the laws they feel best reflects the society they want to live in is a bit more then some “open minded” people can understand. From what I have read it is because of Obama that all these marriage laws passed. I guess the black community is not open to the gays being set on a level equal to them. The male gay community should have voted for Bush… then again I guess little bush is the last thing most gay men seek.
Mark
November 10, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Nothing here invites that kind of lowminded nastiness. If that’s what passes for intelligent citizenship where you’re from, you’re who Chris Hedges is warning America to protect ourselves from with real education.
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm
EXCELLENT BLOGGING! Keep it up! Arkansas passed the worst civil rightslaw in 50 years banning adoption by gays? IS ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS? IT’S ABSURD! I’m not gay but I’m American and thats all ya need to be to know we need an executive order or amednement to protext the rightsof gays PERIOD end of discussion.
Please support the new non profit social shopping mall http://www.ASocialThing.com after basic operating expenses 100% ofall income goes to organizations that fight these same social issues. There is over 2 million products from the biggest partners on the web. We have grown to over 50,000 friends in social networks in justunder 6 months and we are just getting started. WE NEED YOUR HELP. Share http://www.ASocialThing.com with others. The partners include names like ebay, godaddy, Amazon, CompUSA, Nordstrom, KB toys, and dozens of others! Anythingyou canthink of ….justgo to http://www.ASocialThing.com and bookmark us then use the links when youshop. IT’S THAT SIMPLE TO MAKE A SMALL DIFFERENCE AND IF WE ALL MAKE A SMALL DIFFERENCE IT MAKES A LARGE DIFFERENCE.
Change is what we make of it! Be a catalyst!
http://www.ASocialThing.com It’s a social thing
Ron Lee
November 10, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Working with kids that come from high needs families, it’s amazing to me that many of these households have single moms who often have numerous children in the house from various fathers, and some people don’t see this as not normal. Or, kids living in households where the parents are into drugs or dealing drugs and still there is no outrage? Or, living in households where one, or both, or neither parent works and is collecting social assistance, that is normal? Or, living in households where the parent has not much better than a grade 9 education, and who will not answer a phone call, or be bothered to visit the school to talk about their child’s difficulties in the classroom, that is normal? Still I see many of these people continuing to have many children, and usually without the means to provide for them, is this normal? Come on, if this is “normal” and there is little hope for the child, then many people have screwed up priorities. So, if “marriage” and a “loving family” is supposed to be the result of the union between a man and woman. Then many people better consider what reality is. Who really cares what someone wants to do in life. It’s not hurting you so but out! Consider that I have met many younger children from these low income households who wear crosses around their necks, and go to church Sunday. Why do these parents insist on this????
lester
November 10, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Wondering what”lester” is advocating then, or opposing? Can’t make it out -
JJ
November 10, 2008 at 10:51 pm
dear usurper7 i dont know what church you belong to, but at my church we as christians would never turn ANYONE away who wishes to devote their lives to God. and the God i love and worship would never judge and teaches us to follow by accepting and loving everyone, God made me you and every single person in the minorities your church wont accept. My God loves and accepts us all regardless. SO maybe its you that was so “laughably ignorant”
handring
November 11, 2008 at 10:14 am
See video and full transcript here.
JJ
November 11, 2008 at 11:17 am
Anon Philosopher Christian had it exactly right. The religious right cares about the sacred word, the gays care about their rights.
The problem arises because we have already violated the separation of church and state. There is one very easy answer. The word “marriage” should be eliminated from the government’s vocabulary, and replaced by civil unions for all; I mean literally.
Under current law, we are also discriminating against single people, or orphans – should they not be able to name a sibling or friend to have all the rights now afforded to the married? Should roommates not be able to be rewarded through the tax code for sharing household expenses also?
Marriages should occur only within ones own religious establishments. Gays who are religious go to churches that include that within their worldview.
Please tell me if you know of an interest group out there who would take issue with this solution! Why is this not an easy fix?
One Very Easy Answer
November 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm
One Very Easy Answer: I like it. And I like the way you pointed out that it isn’t just a gay/straight issue. This solution could help a lot of people who think they have nothing to do with the problem.
I’m sure some will take issue with it (a fair number of people actually want the church to be involved in the state), but I think that this is the sort of solution we could build a consensus on.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I agree but only if we figure out what to do with the word. The word “marriage” itself will be a sticking point — as in who gets custody of it now that we’ve divorcing church and state marriage.
You can’t just give sole custody of it to the church.
I say this not to quarrel but from long and bitter experience with the word “homeshcooling” for example, that people get insanely attached to particular words!
So reasonable people could agree on the above exactly as you say, except then both groups will want marriage in their own relationship label but will will object to the other group having it. They will argue only one can have it to prevent “confusion” and their side is entitled to be that one and only Keeper of the Word.
Reasonable people will then propose that churches develop the concept of “covenant marriage” (e.g.) and seculars the concept of “civil marriage” so problem solved, and everyone’s happy, right?
No. Sigh.
The thing we reasonable people know but tend to overlook is that Reason is biologically short-circuited by the lizard brain’s fight or flight mechanism, in humans animals under duress.
JJ
November 13, 2008 at 7:51 am
I do think what’s been confused in language, law and even thought, are the concepts of “covenant” and “contract” — as Rolfe was saying, in society and government generally, not just on this issue.
Covenant and contract, two European traditions so intertwined and mutually reinforcing at our nation’s start that sorting them out now takes real intellectual effort, and a lot of patience and good will.
Why I’m glad Rolfe is the one tackling it.
JJ
November 13, 2008 at 8:04 am
[...] How many souls did you save? [...]
Notes From Planet Earth
November 14, 2008 at 12:31 pm
[...] won’t be left decaying on the table, surrounded by a “traditional” home full of clocks stopped at 20 minutes to Prop 8. But I have to wonder — do we value “the American family” as merely waxwork [...]
Keep Thanksgiving Family Feasts Fresh, Not Frozen in Time « Cocking A Snook!
November 14, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hi, I actually found this on StumbleUpon, and linked it on my blog, I hope that’s ok?
Michael
November 14, 2008 at 12:35 pm
[...] How many souls did you save? [...]
How Many Souls Did You Save? « Notes From Planet Earth
November 14, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Thanks for the link Michael, of course it’s OK. Feel free to link, copy, or redistribute this post however you like.
Rolfe Schmidt
November 14, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Thanks so much Rolfe. That is one of the best posts I have read. Very concise and to the point.
Michael
November 14, 2008 at 3:11 pm
So you think that being a Christian is all about just loving people and letting them do whatever they want??? It is not only loving its also sanding up for God has said. He said homosexuality is wrong and is to not be tolerated.
Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Chris
December 6, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Neither I nor anyone else here has suggested that “being a Christian is all about just loving people and letting them do whatever they want” as you insinuate.
You are misrepresenting what has been said, and I don’t think that is a very Christian thing to do.
While it could be fun to get into a tit-for-tat scripture cherry picking contest, I’d rather just hear someone, anyone, explain to me how Proposition 8 will benefit anybody’s spiritual development.
Or if you could even succeed in making homosexuality illegal, what good would that do for the church?
If you could even control everyone’s behavior and make them live the way you think the bible tells you to behave, but you could not convert them, what good would it do?
I just don’t get it.
I am a Christian, and or me being a Christian is one of the hardest things I do in my life. It is not about doing whatever I want and being lovey-dovey, it is about spiritual development and striving to be Christ-like. It’s hard enough for me to straighten myself out, I wouldn’t deign to start bossing other people around.
Rolfe Schmidt
December 6, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Chris, I just want to clarify your theology here:
You claim that homosexuality is a special sin and that the behavior must be ended before conversion is possible. Is that correct?
You are inferring all of this special status by choosing a very specific, and dubious IMO, reading of the Romans verse?
Can’t that Romans verse be read as a warning against all depraved activity. It certainly seems true about drinking, immorality, and all sorts of things. But your reading is that “It is only homosexuality that gets this special punishment”.
That seems wrong to me, and I believe that verse carries a broad warning but not a rule. I simply do not believe the Christian faith requires behavior before conversion. This is goes fundamentally against what I have been taught about Christianity since I was a young child.
If I am wrong about that, I do want to know. Convince me.
Anyway, do you support banning gay marriage? If so, exactly how much homosexual activity will that stop?
Rolfe Schmidt
December 7, 2008 at 1:51 pm
BRAVO!! I just stumbled across your entry here, and I must say I am quite impressed by your argument. As an evangelical gay Christian , I get so frustrated by the lack of wisdom that so many of my heterosexual brothers and sisters demonstrate in this debate. Even if you (rhetorical “you”) believe homosexuality is a sin, please use wisdom in demonstrating that belief. You cannot expect a non-Christian nation to live to your stringent Christian standards.
Rolfe, I would be honored to provide a link to your blog through mine, and I would be honored if you visited my blog.
http://3crossroadsblog.blogspot.com
Jimmy
December 10, 2008 at 10:25 am
Thank you Jimmy. Sorry for the slow reply, life gets in the way of blogging sometimes. I will drop by your blog.
Rolfe Schmidt
December 13, 2008 at 10:35 am
Thanks, Rolfe. By the way, are you from San Antonio?
That’s my hometown!
Jimmy
December 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Chris said: So you think that being a Christian is all about just loving people and letting them do whatever they want???
Interesting choice of the word letting.
boremetotears
December 15, 2008 at 12:01 am
Kudos, dude. You’ve chased your convictions to their natural conclusions and have stimulated rational discussion of a moral kludge : verifying the wisdom of separation of Church and State in the process.
It is interesting that the root difficulty has surfaced so quickly – religious bigotry on the part of so-called lovers of their fellow men.
There are days I would be ashamed to call myself Christian; were it not a worse fate to leave the field to those who worship HATE.
opit
January 18, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Thanks opit, I’ve been a little uninspired when it comes to blogging lately but this issue got me pretty worked up. I hope the discussion keeps going. Of course that means I should get off my tail and start writing again.
Hope you’re well.
Rolfe Schmidt
January 19, 2009 at 10:47 am
It’s people like Rolfe that would stand a snowballs chance in hell of drawing this former evangelical pastor back to church…. maybe…
Michael
January 22, 2009 at 11:37 pm
[...] would ruin the spirit of this blog anyway. This blog is about picking fights over homeschooling, calling people on their hypocrisy, and cute little “kids say the darndest things” [...]
Changes « Rolfe Schmidt
April 7, 2009 at 11:34 am