The most significant thing about the new, anti-gay "Manhattan Declaration" is not that scores of Christians are against gay rights. It's that, recognizing they're on the wrong side of history, they tie themselves in knots insisting they're not anti-gay. And in doing so, they reveal the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their obsessive persecution of gay people.
The Declaration, released last week and signed by over 150 Christian leaders and social conservatives, identifies abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty as the three most important issues facing modern Christians, and pleads with both believers and non-believers to stand up against the first two and in defense of the third.
Christians, says the Declaration's preamble, were the ones who rescued abandoned babies in trash heaps in ancient Rome, tended to the sick during the plagues, ended slavery in the West, uplifted the poor, created the conditions for democracy, and ushered in women's suffrage. Their bizarre self-righteousness in claiming the mantle of all the great things that have happened in history makes you wonder if these modern moral crusaders have a pathological need to feel that they are good people, which is usually the first sign that they have reason to worry they are not. (Sure enough, one of the three drafters of the document is Nixon's former special counsel, Chuck Colson, convicted of obstructing justice surrounding the Watergate scandal.)
Claiming the rather quaint authority not only of Holy Scripture but of "natural human reason" and "the very nature of the human person," the signatories proclaim themselves vigilantes called to protect "marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society."
The drafters seem to go out of their way to present themselves not as garden-variety right-wing hate-mongers but as highly educated Christian rationalists who have mastered the art of hating the sin and loving the sinner. They seem braced for the smarter folks they sometimes encounter in their daily lives to say, "WTF are you talking about -- why are you spending your energy rationalizing your homophobia instead of putting that behind you so you can focus on resolving the far more legitimate concerns you may have about the moral state of modern society?" They insist preemptively that "it is out of love (not 'animus') and prudent concern for the common good (not 'prejudice'), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman." And they claim they have no choice: "How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant." Funny -- the Bible also teaches that divorce is absolutely prohibited, but there is no movement to take the right to divorce away (just to make it a tad harder). And where's the battle to pass a law requiring that adulterers get stoned to death?
Support for gay marriage, say the signatories, "reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage," which apparently only Christian conservatives truly know. It would "lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life."
For decades now, religious moralizers have cast marital heterosexual intercourse as the zenith of virtuous self-sacrifice because it sometimes results in the nifty creation of another human life. I admit this is pretty cool, and I sometimes wish I could do it too. But sexual intercourse is also the epitome of self-indulgence, the embrace of one of the most intense experiences of carnal pleasure of which humans are capable. This pleasure, and the fraught relation we have to it in the Western world, is of course the very reason we've created a purifying religious narrative of redemption -- to tell ourselves that the act that many find dirty, messy, and guilt-inducing is really the highest, noblest, most selfless act there is -- so long as something greater than the sum of its parts comes out of it, something to balance out its highly selfish component. While homosexuals and their allegedly exotic acts of sexual pleasure are cast as the epitome of narcissism, what could be more narcissistic than reproducing yourself -- the only kind of sex that conservative Christians endorse?
So social conservatives hang the privileging of heterosexuality on the assertion that an act which might produce a life can't be all that bad, no matter how fun it might be; and a really fun act which can't produce a life must be either outright bad (gay sex) or merely tolerated (infertile heterosexual sex). Bracing for the retort that any reasoning that allows marriage for infertile straights must also allow marriage for gay couples, the signers of the Declaration are ready with prose that is more horrendous and meaningless than the worst translation of Hegelian philosophy. It deserves to be quoted in its entirety:
Marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being - the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual - on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.
Here's what's going on here: Religious opponents of gay marriage don't have a good understanding of why a modern state should recognize civil marriage in the first place; they view marriage primarily as a religious tradition that has made their lives satisfying and secure and so they are most comfortable justifying it in terms of what's been -- this is one of the roles of a religious narrative. If they thought honestly and rigorously about the civil, rather than just religious, reasons why the state recognizes marriage today, they'd see that gay unions fit into those reasons in the modern world. But, vaguely to ardently anti-gay, they can only view gay rights as a symbol of "anything goes" hedonism. Some purposely deploy the "slippery slope" tactic to try to win the argument. But many others are simply not willing or able to think that maybe there are actual reasons why gay marriage makes rational sense while group and incestuous marriages don't. So to paraphrase a recent presidential candidate, they cling to gays and God to defend a way of life that's familiar.
Only if you don't have a good reason for defending the existence of marriage would you be this insecure about sharing it. When your only defense of the status quo is to suggest it's always been this way and any change will ruin it, you know you're out of reasons to defend the status quo.
So let me give the defense-of-marriage crowd a few good reasons to defend marriage that don't rely on sectarianism: it can provide a stable place to raise kids, if you have them; it channels the boisterous, undirected energy of young singles into unthreatening domestic bonds; it encourages individuals to take care of each other so the state won't have to; and it helps society recognize and enforce the caretaking commitments people have made to one another. All these functions gay couples can share in.
Says the Declaration: "Just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage." This is great news. If you're really interested in sacrificing for marriage, stop opposing the righteous tide of history, speak out for the honest reasons that marriage matters for all of us, and quit leaning on the superficial gratification of heterosexual privilege to make yourself feel more Godly.
Dan Collins: Albany: No Profiles in Courage
The culture of Albany betrayed gay marriage. In the NY legislature, everything that comes up for a vote wins. If there isn't enough support, the leadership doesn't bring the bill to the floor.
I think that the best argument is the one he makes toward the end to the effect of saying that Christians and others who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are implacably hostile to the state. Most commonly, they omit any mention of the state's role in sanctifying marriage contracts (drafting contracts, etc.). The same people also seem to think that free exercise is the only relevant part of the 1st amendment as evidenced in their hostility to efforts to remove the ten commandments from courthouses and other public centers. Apparently, freedom of religion is only a one-way street to these people. News flash, the state has a role in ensuring that shifting beliefs on morality do not infect the body politic because one of the first and most important components of any legal system is a form of stability that allows people to live their lives in accordance with the law.
The longer an agency is around (read: organized religion), the longer the natural tendency for both good and bad stuff to manifest. Especially when that agency has hundreds of thousands, even millions (over time) of members. Christianity is no different. Christian abolitionists were fighting against slavery at the very same time Christian slave-owners were using the bible to justify their stance. The problem with organized religions is this: "Well, he's not a real Christian. Jesus wouldn't condone the ownsership of slaves." The ability to dismiss the opinions or behavior of your own church members as "unChrist-like" does not absolve the entire organization of what a few or many of it's professors are doing. Stand up, you who call yourselves "true Christians" and save your own organization.
go here: www.faithinamerica.com
Help fight the harm caused by religious bigotry.
1. the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
3. Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
I read about this the other day and I also read an article about Focus on the Family's website fighting retailers who don't "endorse Christmas". http://standforchristmas.com/
I am so done with "Christianity" and it's hypocracy. We are in America. A country filled with folks from all around the world. I thought we had something called freedom of religion. These people want everyone to conform to what THEY BELIEVE. They want us ALL TO BELIEVE what they understand to be truth. Gay marriage is fine with me. Happy Holidays is fine too. I am so sick of people, many hypocrits, talking this big talk but when youu look closer, they certainly don't walk the walk. I've watched it all my life. People are who they are. People believe what they believe. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL because you will never ever succeed.
God's in control, right?
Oh please. If Blacks were calling for them to pay less taxes than whites, and said it was a civil right, would the people who oppose it be against black rights? NO. Quit being silly. They don't want the definition of marriage changed. PERIOD.
NOTE: The statement, often made, that marriage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman is a lie. Flat out a lie.
Read history - including the period of time (close to a thousand years) when two men or two women could be joined by the church and IN the church, but mixed sex unions were only allowed outside the church since they were unions of two families for the combining of wealth - and not for love.
In addition, we have separation of church and state meaning that religious reasons for civill laws are not adequate. Note that you cannot get married in a church without FIRST showing a marriage certificate issued by the local government. Marriage is not a religious matter. It's civil. Period.
Marriage is about LOVE, not babies.
It is about equality.
Heterosexuals can marry the person they love, why deny that to homosexuals??
In the same way the solution to this mess is obvious. I think the bible bashers should find another word for their kind of marriage. Call it Godarriage or something! That way there is a strictly religious form of marriage for those who want it and another form for all the rest of us. Only the most holy and devout can be Godarriged while the rest of us sinners are left with simple marriage which is thus relieved of its need to be for procreation only and can include same sex..
The debate is over.
Americans are not interested in approving "Gay Marriage".
Nor were they in approving interracial marriage, but it was still made legal. Sorry, this is NOT something you will have a final say in.
It was still marriage the way we've always understood it. Marriage being racially pure was the belief of some, not most, and not all.
My love for my husband is not wrong, and shame be upon those who think evil of it!
One of the biggest problems is their contempt for science when it challenges fundamentalists’ beliefs. They won’t accept peer reviewed scientific studies that indicate homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality, that gays can be happy, that lesbians can be good parents. Many of them can’t accept the overwhelming biological, paleontological and geological evidence the earth is 3.4 billion years old and that modern life evolved from different forms of life that existed before us and was mostly very different from life on the planet now. Heck, Carbon dating shows the earth is far older than the Bible says it is, as it can be used to date organic specimens in the 50,000 year old range before the measuring systems we have can no longer detect Carbon 14’s radiation. I’m surprised they attack “Darwinism” in the declaration.
Yes it is OK for them to scoff at inconvenient science, but fundamentalists are happy to rely on science when they get sick, drive to work or type on a computer. Most don’t even realize one of the fathers of the digital computer was Alan Turing, a gay man who was persecuted by the British court system (after he made the mistake of telling a police officer he had had homosexual relations with a young man who had subsequently burgled Turing’s house).
However, I know this will never happen, fundamentalists are avid cherry pickers.
- from Jesus parable in Matthew 20, in which he uses a landowner's rights over his own property as an illustration of God's sovereignty.
Skipped History a lot, did you?
Do away with those three things, and all those other things will take care of themselves as the "real" Christians, the Reformation Third Wave, pillage the middle class in this country.
Personally, I feel like stopping abortion would increase a lot of those things wouldn't it? At least child abuse...
As for Jesus not mentioning same-sex practices -- it is entirely misguided to attach such great "importance" to this. Jesus didn't specifically condemn incest or bestiality, which are condemned literally right alongside homosexual practices in Leviticus, but this hardly means that He would not have regarded these things as serious sins. The most reasonable explanation for him not mentioning such things was the absence of any significant campaign among the people to whom He was ministering to approve of them.
To second what JohnJames wrote, no, there aren't plenty of injunctions against h. in the New Testament. And Christ's gospel was one of inclusive love. Those of us who follow Christ (as a Christian--capital C--is supposed to) subscribe to no gospel of hate. Those who do have grossly misunderstood Christ's central command to us.
Re the crack about moving "christian faith" further from the center of national life, it's in no such place. Not even remotely. Otherwise, name our state church. Name the dominant branch and/or denomination. Religion rules nothing. After eight years of alleged pandering to conservative C. by President Cheney, abortion is still legal, the First Amendment remains in place, prayer is still not allowed in public school, and secularists do their annual carrying on about any official acknowledgment of our culture's central holiday. If religion ever were to occupy the "center of national life" in our country, you'd have no idea where you were. Frankly, I don't know which brand of hysteria is less logical--the standard secular swipes at faith (in a democracy designed to nurture religion, no less) or the conservative gripes about Christ being kept out of Dec. 25 and such.
The rest of us understand that our democracy has room for both the sacred and the secular. I guess we paid attention in school.
Nurture religion? Hardly.
The point was to remain neutral- so not one religion dominated. To imply that the intent was to "nurture" is completely specious.
It is not a crime to "dress inappropriately", even if to do so in public would cause no end of social problems.
It is not a crime to refuse to pray 5 times a day, even though that is required of devout Muslims.
It is not a crime to eat or drink privately in your own house during Ramadan, even though that is against the teachings of Islam.
So yes, there are many things (including drinking of alcohol of course) that are outlawed due to religion but even in an extreme, intolerant, religious country the laws of the land are far from totally religion controlled.
In no way is any Western country even close to being dominated by Christianity - and a good thing too!