Local talk show host Garland Robinette recently accused people who oppose gay marriage of bad faith:
I have one opinion on the gay rights controversy, and I know my opinion is correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those of you actively fighting against gay marriage have waaaaaay too much time on your hands.
I don’t believe your real reason for fighting gay marriage is because you are sooooo concerned about the threat to the institute of marriage. If you were, you’d be protesting people like me. I have been married three times. Elizabeth Taylor and me are the biggest threats ever faced by the sacred institute of marriage.
Let’s not be a hypocrites. You don’t want gay marriage, because you don’t like gays. It’s that simple. You’re frightened by those icky things they do with their sexual parts. But, here’s another hypocritical part … have you ever seen what them-thar “heterosexuals” do with their private parts? Whoa, talk about icky!
How do I know you’re being hypocritical in your “great concern about the pristine institute of marriage?” Well, that’s simple. If you have the ability to take time out from making groceries, taking care of your children, making dinner, worrying about two wars, the economy, crime, schooling, how to pay your bills and Angelina and Brad…then you certainly have time to picket in streets about divorce. You should be screaming to the high hills, ordering the powers-that-be to make marriage as difficult as divorce. I ain’t seen one of you on TV with that sign, with that protest!
Garland Robinette, psychic-at-large. He knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, why I oppose gay marriage. Perhaps he can clue me in where I left my spare car keys as well.
Well, it beats addressing the real concerns of the majority of us, who actually aren’t the hateful, small-minded bigots same sex marriage proponents make us out to be. In fact, there are a variety of arguments one might make against SSM, and the fact that those who make them don’t strenuously oppose divorce does not refute those arguments. I’ve also posted on the hypocrisy of “saving” marriage from gays when even Christians have the same unspeakably high divorce rate as secular folk. But even that does not negate arguments against same sex marriage, nor does it mean that those who make them do so in bad faith.
The simple fact is that the debate over divorce has long been over. It is a complete waste of time to protest in the streets against divorce. It’s done. It’s over. The battle was lost in the 1970s. California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Family Law Act in 1969 establishing no-fault divorce, and that triggered other states to follow. Reagan eventually expressed regret, but it was too late. The time to fight was then. There is no appetite to revisit that battle when the likelihood of success is slim and there are so many other battles worth fighting right now where success is far more probable.
Robinette disingenuously plays the race card on the “slippery slope” argument. Is he willfully ignorant of the fact that polyamorists are champing at the bit for gay marriage to be legal to use as a wedge for marriage between as many partners as they choose? Civil unions between three or more parties were legalized in the Netherlands after gay marriage was legalized. It makes perfect sense. Lee Stranahan summed it up over at HuffPo:
If Melissa Etheridge has the right to marry Tammy Lynn Michaels – and I think she does – then Melissa and Tammy also have the same right to make it official with David Crosby, it they choose to do so. In fact, if they wanted to marry Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Linsday Lohan, Samantha Ronson, Mark Ronson AND Ani Difranco…it’s their choice and their right and it’d make quite a tour, too.
There’s no argument you can make against a poly marriage that wouldn’t work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.
So no, Garland, it’s not about racism. The slippery slope argument actually does have a pretty solid foundation. Even so, that’s not my argument.
My argument is that it will profoundly impact my religious freedom. Disagree with me all you like about the correctness of my doctrine. Criticize me for my imperfect practice of what I believe to be true. (You couldn’t possibly criticize me more for my sin than I do myself.) But don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Conferring the right to marry to same sex couples will have a profound impact on religious rights. As Obama’s pick for head of EEOC, Chai Feldblum admits, it does eventually come down to taking rights away from one group and giving them to another:
Feldblum’s admittedly “radical” view is based on what she sees as a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and the homosexual agenda, where “a gain for one side necessarily entails a corresponding loss for the other side.”
“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.
“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”
Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.
Can my church be compelled to rent the building for a same sex couple’s wedding because they also rent it for hetero weddings? An outlandish idea, perhaps… but these situations have actually happened, even without legalized gay marriage: an Arizona photographer was fined for refusing to photograph a same sex couple’s commitment ceremony because she felt it violated her religious beliefs, a Christian doctor who refused in vitro services to a lesbian couple was sued, and the Catholic Charities organization in Boston chose to shut down instead of being forced to offer adoption services to same sex couples.
Rather than argue that same sex marriage opponents are hypocrites and racists because we have not sufficiently outlawed divorced, how about addressing our real (and valid!) concerns?
And EHarmony even started letting gays on, too
after they got sued, I mean
While I can understand the intent behind the article, and agree that baseless attacks on both sides need to be put aside, at the same time I don’t see how equal marriage rights equates to a loss in religious rights. The Bible says several times quite explicitly things along the lines of judge not lest ye be judged… Shouldn’t services and individuals be inclusive to those outside their faith, rather than exclusive? Preaching to the choir is great for reaffirming beliefs, but it’s the sinners who truly need it most, no?
Closing down services, such as the mentioned adoption agency, and others that have been threatening to close down if states allow unions or marriages… you’re not only denying them to fellow Christians, but also to others who may need those services even more, if you believe their sins or choice of faith puts them at such a disadvantage compared to your own.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, and so long as you’re not infringing on the rights of others I don’t see why any citizen should be made to do things against their beliefs, but the overwhelming theme I’m told by many Christian friends is that, God loves us, every one, just as we are. No one is perfect, not in his eyes nor each others, but the acceptance of that fact and trying to help one another increase the quality of our lives is what’s important, not prejudices or judgments upon our fellows.
If a person is Jewish, we don’t deny them the right to marry. If a person is female, we don’t deny them the right to vote. Being gay is only one aspect of a person’s entire life, it shouldn’t be the sole judgment used to decide their worth or their place in society. <3
I see. So, the morality of the issue doesn’t matter. It’s *easier* to pick on gays than to fight against divorce, which is infinitely more harmful to marriage, so you’ll just do that instead. Good job, buddy. Now, please get your heel out of my eye. Thanks.
Steven, I don’t see how you could know whether it’s infinitely more harmful since we haven’t done it yet. All we know is that it’s probably harmful. Divorce is definitely harmful, too, but there’s no way to compare the levels of harmfulness between the two without first experimenting on our society.
It’s true that God loved the world in the sense that he offered salvation to everyone who believes in Jesus, but ultimately his love can run out. He’s not just about love. If we keep on rejecting him then ultimately we wind up in hell. An argument can even be made that gross sin frequently prevents people from believing in Jesus — because they love their sin too much to bother rationally investigating the claims of Christianity. And so I don’t see how promoting gross wickedness in society could help the Christian cause.
Drew´s last blog ..The end of “Racism”
Steve, do you mean Garland Robinette or me? Can’t tell what’s snark and to whom it’s directed.
Ward, I agree that no citizen should be made to do things against their beliefs insofar as it doesn’t conflict with the law or public safety, etc. For example Mormon sects where young girls are married to geezers who are already married to several other women violate laws which most of us agree are good, rational, and protect people who need protecting.
If two men want to have teh butt secks in the privacy of their own home, that’s between them and God. I don’t want to know about other people’s sex lives and nobody should want to know about mine. What is new about the gay marriage is that it really will remove protections currently enjoyed by religious folk and confer them to gay folk. Again, this isn’t just my opinion: it’s Chai Feldblum’s as well. And she’s spot-on, AND she will be in a position to enforce it if the Senate confirms her. You can disagree with whether Christians ought to believe what the bible says in both the old and new testaments about homosexuality. But it says what it says… people acting in good faith based on their religious beliefs will be punished for things that were previously not a crime. As the photographer in Arizona was. Feldblum is right; it eventually becomes a zero sum game, and if she gets her way I will be made to condone and participate things that are against my faith, or I will be punished by the state. This is new, this is a dramatic change, and this is why the pushback against it is normal and reasonable. It goes far beyond divorce, where my neighbor’s divorce contributed to the breakdown of society but had little direct impact on me personally. In this new scenario, my neighbor can compel my catering business to serve hors d’oeuvres at his divorce party, or have the state punish me for refusing. That goes beyond his right to act; it infringes on my right to NOT act. This is huge.
Incidentally, God does love us as we are, but there is no biblical mechanism for us staying as we are (in our sin) once we become a Christian. Nor, according to the bible, is the goal of Christianity to increase the quality of our earthly lives.
While I can understand in the examples, I’m not certain how they apply to homosexuality. If your catering company doesn’t handle divorce parties, then it doesnt. The government isn’t going to make you suddenly take on dealing with gay ones, but say you don’t have to worry about straight ones still. Whether gay marriage went through or not, it wouldn’t affect that in the slightest. As to having religious reasons for not wanting to serve the gay community, again I can understand it, but how is hanging a sign out front saying “No Gays” any different from putting one out front saying “No Blacks” or “No Jews”? Religion in the US for a long time was against interracial marriages as well. This year in fact a judge in Louisiana refused to marry a couple for that very reason out of ‘fear for the sake of any children they might conceive’. Not wanting a business to serve a certain function is fine. Not wanting to serve a specific minority when you still would others is the textbook definition of prejudice. In the matter of churches and faith based organizations it makes a certain degree of sense, but when you’re a public business or franchise it just doesn’t any longer.
And, I’m not at all disagreeing that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. But the Bible also quite clearly in Deuteronomy and Leviticus endorses slavery, sets out guidelines for the selling of daughters, and outright encourages a person to beat their children with stones if they disobey or to commit murder if you think they or someone else you know might be of a different faith. While religious myself, I understand that all religions have some degree of prejudice in them. It’s part of the whole ‘ours is the one and only way to salvation’ part, as saying so immediately invalidates anyone elses opinions. My point is, we -all- need to learn a degree of tolerance. Let God do the judging on who’s right or wrong, and lets us worry about making the best of what’s around us.
Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Man… peace on earth isn’t when only one viewpoint remains. That’s subjugation. Peace is learning to live harmoniously beside those we may disagree with. Good will isn’t about prejudice or fear, it’s about helping those around you regardless of race, creed, nation or religion make the best of the situations they find themselves in.
I’m gay. I don’t think that innately makes me a bad or evil person. I would like to be able to adopt one of the countless disadvantaged children in the world and help to give them the life they deserve. I’d like to be able to tell the person I fell in love with publicly that my commitment to them is life long. When they’re on their deathbed, I’d like the right to be able to be beside them at the hospital to hold their hand. I know the thought of these things upset, anger, and sicken some people. I don’t ask for these things with the intent to hurt or harm others. I don’t ask them to mock anyone’s religion. Without marriage being legal, the costs are over ten thousand dollars to afford something remotely resembling the same legal protection as marriage.
I know I’m in a minority, and I know what I do is something others disagree with… but it makes me happy. It makes my partner happy. It’s not something we’re ashamed of. Telling us not to marry is akin to telling us ‘You should be, because the rest of the country certainly is, so keep it hidden’. I’m not angry. I’m just tired of having to hide.
Ward, if this continues as we expect it will – it will not be enough for me to ignore my neighbor’s homosexuality. I will be compelled to endorse it. I will not have the right to provide my services according to my own religious code and churches will not be permitted to restrict its staff and leadership according to the church’s creed. In the UK legislation is now pending which will do precisely that. Just as Arizona decreed that the AZ photog did not have the right to refuse, in spite of her religious views. The state punished her to the tune of over $6k for her *failure* to take pictures. Even though other photographers were available and one did, in fact, take the pictures. This is like the prospective MA Senator Coakley suggesting that Catholics just shouldn’t work in the medical field. And it’s part of the whole debate about what concessions Muslims can wring from society for the practice of their faith. For me, this is about religious freedom, not any particular sin. The only reason it’s coming up now is the perfectly understandable movement on the part of gay folk to demand full acceptance from society. I get that, and I’m not angry about it. But I can’t give it. Increased freedoms for you mean fewer freedoms for me. Right, wrong or indifferent, that’s the simple truth of it.
And incidentally – although I do not agree with the comparison to race, which is about appearance, not behavior, I DO think that laws compelling a private business to act a certain way (aside from health and safety issues) are wrong. Societal pressure should have been brought to bear – boycotts, shaming, etc. – rather than the force of the state to regulate how private businesses conduct themselves. As for religion being against interracial marriage, those arguments were always specious. Moses and many other patriarchs – including ancestors of Jesus – married interracially. They were fighting the wrong fight and I think strategically it was a huge mistake which still has repercussions today. It would have taken longer but it would have provided a less contentious and more permanent solution which provided more freedom for everyone. /Just sayin’.
As for the OT – that’s really not relevant. While the OT is good and useful in that it reveals things about God, history, (it is informational about the nature of sin) etc. we are not bound by its codes to respond to sin a particular way. (Incidentally God instructed the Jews to kill certain groups of people under specific circumstances; the goal was to eradicate evil and take possession of the promised land. War, not murder. He did NOT – as Islam has – open wide the gates to subjugate and kill unbelievers wherever we find them.) However, it is the New Testament which is relevant in terms of how we are called to act today.
How does it invalidate anyone else’s opinion? It’s just disagreeing. Each one of us thinks we’re right and it is not wrong to assert that. You thinking you’re right in no way lessens my confidence in what I believe to be true or my right to say so. I really do hate the postmodern speech convention of denying what we actually believe to be true with the faux-tolerant “what’s true for me might not be true for you,” as if nothing has any real meaning. I welcome debate. We *should* duke these things out, and I think it’s inherently good to challenge people’s views and have my own challenged. I’m very thankful for Pat Condell and Chris Hitchens, and I’m delighted to be able to talk to you about this. Here’s the thing, though: I really don’t know how this can be resolved, where you get what you want and I keep what I have. I’ve come out in favor of civil union/religious marriage, as it is practiced in France. I would be happy for government to get out of the marriage business entirely. But that won’t resolve the sorts of issues that will come before the EEOC, and that’s the sticking point for me.