You get the sense, observing the shifting cultural landscape, that we've reached a point on gay rights that is similar to that moment in a football game, or an election, or a relationship, when you know it's over even though it's not over.
It appears increasingly obvious that social acceptance of gay men and lesbians and insistence on their equal rights are inexorable. If the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" weren't enough to signal the turning point, or the classification of several gay-resisting Christian right organizations as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, there came news that Exodus International was ending its involvement in the anti-homosexuality "Day of Truth" in U.S. high schools. "We need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace," Exodus President Alan Chambers explained, "while treating their neighbors as they'd like to be treated, whether we agree with them or not."
Add it up, and you see a decision point at hand for socially conservative Christian groups such as the Family Research Council that have led resistance to gay rights. Do they fight to the last ditch, continue shouting the anti-gay rhetoric that rings false and mean to the many Americans who live and work with gay people, or who themselves are gay? Or do they soften their tone and turn their attention to other fronts?
Prayerful discernment and simple Christian decency would strongly suggest the latter. The alternative looks worse by the day -- a quixotic battle more likely to discredit its fighters and their fine religion than win any hearts and minds for Jesus. Christianity has far worthier causes than this.
For all its drama and rally-the-troops appeal, "fighting to the end" is a sure loser. More and more Americans -- young people in particular, Christians very much included -- know gay men and lesbians and see how the anti-gay talking points and caricatures fail to square with the reality under our noses.
But the Bible Says...
"Young Christians increasingly have family members who are gay, have people in their lives who really matter to them who are gay, and that changes how they approach these issues," says Gabe Lyons, author of the new book The Next Christians and a leader and chronicler of the new generation of evangelicals. "This doesn't mean their convictions on the matter have changed, but in this new environment, people don't want to see their friends being discriminated against; they don't want them labeled as someone who should be feared and blamed."
Of course, rubbing some people the wrong way is of little concern if you're convinced you're representing the Straight from the Bible, Capital-T Truth, as conservative Christian organizations are quick to assert. The problem is that such a stance is increasingly difficult to maintain as society begins taking a more complex look at what the Bible says and doesn't say about sex, and as growing ranks of unchurched Americans ask why it even matters what the Bible says.
Boston University biblical scholar Jennifer Wright Knust demonstrates in her new book, Unprotected Texts, that the Bible's lessons on sex and marriage are highly nuanced, heavily contextualized and often contradictory. The writings of the apostle Paul and modern interpretations of the Sodom and Gomorrah story guide much of conservative Christian thinking on sexuality. But other parts of the bible veer in dramatically different directions, Knust points out -- appearing to legitimize polygamy or sex with slaves or, 180 degrees in the opposite direction, elevating celibacy as the proper Christian practice. Knust says it is highly misleading for marriage traditionalists to portray their stance as the biblical stance. "When read as a whole," she writes, "the Bible provides neither clear nor consistent advice about sex and bodies."
In explaining its withdrawal from the "Day of Truth," Exodus International outlines a smart way forward for conservative Christian groups -- one that does not require that they sacrifice their core beliefs. Note that Alan Chambers did not announce a change in his organization's philosophy that people can be saved from homosexuality through faith in Christ. What he did signal, though, was a change in tone and emphasis, and in doing so he invoked a foundational Christian principle: Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Contrast that with the words of certain other Christian right leaders. Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins continues his steady drum beat of dark warnings that homosexuals are radical, unwell and out to destroy Christianity and the family. Chuck Colson, best known for his admirable prison ministry work, has described same-sex marriage as "the greatest threat to religious freedom in America."
Is Colson claiming that the religious liberty of a subset of Christians is abrogated if those Christians do not get to dictate the law of the land on marriage? It's doubtful that many people outside the conservative Christian camp will hear much truth in that assertion. And as Colson's recent experience demonstrates, maintaining this stance can only paint you into a corner in the new context.
Colson is a leader of a project called the Manhattan Declaration, which is mounting a vigorous defense of conservative values. A key plank in that, as you might guess, is opposition to gay marriage -- and that has become the bone of contention in a news-making brouhaha over Apple's decision to ban the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app.
The Cultural Tide
After the app's initial launch, Apple started receiving protests that the declaration promoted hate and homophobia and decided to remove it from the virtual shelves. Say what you will about the fairness of those charges -- Does opposing same-sex marriage automatically constitute "hate"? -- this is the jam in which gay-rights fighters increasingly find themselves as they strive to withhold a cherished right from a certain group of Americans based on their identity.
Conservative Christian leaders ought to be very careful about their rhetoric going forward -- careful not to continue giving the impression that being Christian is in large measure about opposing gay rights, and careful not to let the public expression of their faith become primarily associated with something that looks, sounds and feels like hate to growing segments of the population.
Fighting to the end might sound gallant, but it's not a road to glory so much as a ticket to infamy -- an infamy akin to that borne by the likes of Bull Connor, George Wallace and other villains of civil rights history. Is that any hill for Christians to die on?
This column originally appeared in the USA Today.Tom Krattenmaker, a writer specializing in religion in public life, is the author of the award-winning book 'Onward Christian Athletes.'
Keli Goff: Does the New "Free" Egypt Mean Freedom for Gays & Lesbians There?
LGBT rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Byron Williams: African-American Community Should Embrace Gay Rights
frontline: assault on gay america | PBS
A Short History of Gay Rights in America
Exodus International Releases Control of Day of Truth Back to ...
Exodus from 'Day of Truth' | Christianity Today | A Magazine of ...
Exodus International Drops Day Of Truth, Its National 'Ostracize ...
Christian group pulls support for event challenging homosexuality ...
Doctrinally speaking, I can't agree with homosexuality. The Bible, despite what the article's author might believe, is uniform in it's opposition to gay relationships and speaks to their sinfulness in both the old, and new, testaments. (Romans 1:26-28, Leviticus 18:22)
As a follower of Christ, I am commanded to not cast a stone against those who have sinned. Instead, I am to show them the love and grace Christ displayed in John 8 when he sent away the prostitute's accusers and encouraged her to: "go and sin no more".
Politically speaking, why does the government get to decide who marries and who cannot? To those who are politically liberal, who often complain about a separation of state and church, the church has performed marriages for over a century and did so without much complaint.
And to those who consider themselves Christian and politically conservative, it is not the government's job to protect marriage. It is the Church's responsibility.
Equality is for every human being…how unintelligent are some of these leaders to compare beastiality and children marrying older men as a comparison for gay equality. Don’t they know we are talking about equal rights for adult human beings! What do animals and children have to do with adult equality? Next it will be against policy for the ill to marry a healthy person! Most people agree that we are all creations of God. Aren’t we a proud nation?!!!!
***************************************
My partner and I thank you:-)
Presidents throughout history have declined to enforce statutes they viewed as unconstitutional. Some recent examples:
George H.W. Bush Administration Chose Not To Defend "Must-Carry" Measures
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-11-06/business/fi-1371_1_cable-operators
Clinton Administration Refused To Defend Amendment Requiring Dismissal Of HIV-Positive Troops
http://archives.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/?u=020996-press-briefing-by-quinn-and-dellinger-on-hiv-provision.htm
Where was your outrage then?
"Please name one state that VOTED to approve same sex marriages. None has passed to approve same sex by a legal ballot."
Please name one state that voted to legalize interracial marriage. (Hint: a majority of the U.S. didn't "approve" of interracial marriage until 1991.)Does the fact that *no* state voted to legalize interracial marriage -- or that 73% of Americans disapproved of it at the time -- mean that the 1967 Loving v. VA decision was an incorrect one?
"Also, remember what I posted from the Letter to the Romans Romans…"
Irrelevant. We're discussing the law.
Yet, you keep coming back to it.â€
I keep coming back to it because you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that if a law does not serve a secular purpose and is based solely on religious belief, it is tantamount to imposing religious beliefs on people, which is unconstitutional. Whether or not a person's beliefs change as a result of a religious belief being imposed on him/her is irrelevant. Your argument is a straw man (and a very obvious one at that).
To date, same-sex marriage opponents have failed -- completely -- to produce any compelling arguments against same-sex marriage that are not religiously based. So miserably have they failed, in fact, that in the recent Perry v. Schwarzenegger case in California, the defendants' own testimony was used by the plaintiffs to prove that the defendants’ case was based on animus towards gay people.
usaville:"So, what do you have to say to an atheist that is against gay marriage?"
To the 20% (or less) of atheists who oppose same-sex marriage, I would say, "what compelling reason do you have for denying tens of millions of Americans a right that is enjoyed by everyone else?"
**"What you are confused with is the difference between my religious belief and my moral belief, regardless if one can influence the other.
Not all professing Christians have the same moral belief. In the same way, not all non-ChristÂians have the same moral belief."**
The defense in this case only needs to put on the stand one of the anti gay marriage atheist and a pro gay marriage Christian to put the religious based bias to rest. The compelling reason against gay marriage is simply the breaking down of their moral value.
Wrong. Pew Research Center's data.
http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Same-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx
"Not all professing Christians have the same moral belief. In the same way, not all non-ChristÂÂians have the same moral belief."
Of course they don't; I never claimed they did. However, a belief need not be held by absolutely *every* believer for it to be religiously based.
"The compelling reason against gay marriage is simply the breaking down of their moral value."
Whose moral values? The 42% of Americans who support same-sex marriage, or the 48% who don't? This question is academic anyway, because in the U.S., we don't deny people their rights based solely on a particular group's morals being offended. If we did, interracial marriage would have remained illegal until 1991, the year that a majority of the U.S. population finally "approved" of it.
Your lack of understanding of how our government works is appalling.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
He was very clear multiple times that while he appreciated and respected religion, even calling himself "religious" at times, he in no way embraced the personal God of the three abrahamic religions.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214
Wow! STOP the presses ! ! !
Really ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
In the comments section of this article, a few posters are now claiming that there's no such thing as imposing one's religious beliefs onto others, because "it's impossible to change what people believe." It seems they fancy themselves wiser than the authors of our Constitution, who believed the concept of religious freedom so important that they enshrined it in the First Amendment.
This argument smacks of the the same deeply flawed, grasping-at-straws logic of "taking away my right to discriminate is discriminatory" -- another recent inane response that the right wing has used in an attempt to justify their demonization of gay people.
It's novel, I suppose, but asinine nonetheless.
The assertion you have identified (that "it's impossible to change what people believe") is empirically not true. It happens all the time.
But Dr. Bullinger showed how that the prophets foretold that this "homosexual" practice would engulf the world at some future day just prior to the return of Christ:
"Many proofs abound to show some similar system will yet be revived, and quickly and universally take hold upon the whole world, unite all communities...and even the worst of characters, by making all, thus, to even become religious, and yet able to degrade and gratify the base instincts of human nature under the guise of religion"
He went on to say: "Nor can we conceive any form of corruption which would mark off the people of God more effectually, and cause them to be separated from the abounding wickedness around them!"
And of course, we as Christians today, like to believe that the form of Idolatry those ignorant Israelites practiced was merely falling down to worship statues of stones, but they were actually all the things we accept today as the gay lifestyle.
Also, I hope you don't expect to get into Heaven if you eat shellfish.
Didn't you get an invitation?
May I just sniff it?
And His dire warning was never given to the Corporate Church, or to so-called Christendom in general, so it is also immaterial whether Conservative denominations organized around some particular view or doctrinal position embrace homosexual lifestyes or not. For Jesus was speaking to individual believers...because those churches don't go to heaven, us believers do.
Many modern Bible teachers who seek to soften or even undermine what the Bible actually says about homosexuality address it in the same fashion as they do abortion: its not wrong because abortion is not in the Bible. Of course, the Bible never said abortion was wrong because pregnant women in Biblical times simply had no advance medical techniques to safely abort a child. these wealthy women got rid of their inconvenient babies by offering them to Baal.
by the same token the word "Sodom" came to represent Homosexuality in the Bible as Baalism the murder of children.
Keep in mind that there are no arguments against gay marriage that have or can stand up to any legal scrutiny. I would suggest viewing a transcript of the Prop 8 case - the arguments the defense came up with were a pathetic joke. Please feel free to fight all you want, I find it amusing.
one of our University scholars here has called the form of Evangelical Christianity that is so wide-spread in America, a "white, middle-class apple pie civil religion" having almost nothing to do with authentic, and genuine Biblical Christianity, and I believe that just about says it all.
(unbiblical) politicized Christian groups that seek to use the legislative means to fight against Gay rights groups, are laboring under the very false assumption that any country, including America, could be God's country", because, the Bible refers to all countries as "wild beasts" that have no owner and obey no master, which never exercised their sovereignty for God but for the will of man.
The laws of the United States are only as righteous as the men who write them, and the polity that demand them to do so.
From our point of view here in Europe, you poor Americans are sinking ever deeper into moral degeneracy and debauchery, and it won't be long before you'll be passing laws strictly forbidding traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and that protect the rights of people to have sex with animals and children, if this frightfully insane slide continues unchecked.
All Jesus said to us was, "let them not be once named among you!"
"From our point of view here in Europe, you poor Americans are sinking ever deeper into moral degeneracy and debaucheryÂ, and it won't be long before you'll be passing laws strictly forbidding traditionaÂl marriage between a man and a woman, and that protect the rights of people to have sex with animals and children, if this frightfullÂy insane slide continues unchecked."
What are you talking about here? Are you against the idea of gays getting married? That is what I infer from your comments. You appear to ape the ridiculous comments of a slippery slope that most right wing religious nuts here in America make to support their reasoning against gay marriage.
Actually, here in America, with the national trend supporting gay marriage, we are not heading toward any moral debauchery at all. In fact we are heading toward social and legal equality for all our citizens, which is a great thing. I will celebrate the day when gay marriage is legal in the US!!
Xians can do whatever they want as they are quickly charging to irrelevancy in the 21st century.