The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges passed its four-year anniversary a few days ago. Let’s check in with a conservative Christian declaration published just before the case was decided. How well do their warnings hold up four years after the decision?

Their “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage” outlines an inept argument against such a ruling and threatens unspecified consequences if the Supreme Court makes them mad. Let’s explore that jeremiad pledge and an advertisement that went along with it.

(Time hasn’t been kind to this argument when we notice that the original links are no longer valid. Perhaps these conservatives realize that this project isn’t something they want to be reminded of. Let’s shove their faces in their dirty laundry.)

God has spoken!

First, the ad wants to make clear who’s the boss.

We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman.

Is there a “clear biblical understanding of marriage”? Not really. Not only do you disagree on same-sex marriage within your own religion, the Bible says much about all sorts of embarrassing marriage customs and prohibitions sanctioned by God: a prohibition on interracial marriage, concubine sex, sanctioned rape, genocide while keeping the virgin girls, slave marriage, levirate marriage, and of course polygamy. You still want to go with “clear biblical understanding”?

You can believe whatever you want, just don’t imagine that your beliefs will be taken into account when making laws. You need a secular argument in a land governed by a secular constitution.

What Would MLK Do?

From the ad:

We affirm that any judicial opinion which purports to redefine marriage will constitute an unjust law, as Martin Luther King Jr. described such laws in his [1963] letter from the Birmingham Jail.

Not quite. Let’s look at what Dr. King actually wrote about just and unjust laws in that letter. He said, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” King’s work was exclusively aimed at expanding rights and privileges for those who had been discriminated against. You want to follow his advice? Then in the debate over same-sex marriage, look to what ruling would “[uplift] human personality” and what would degrade it.

There’s not love enough in your heart to expand the institution of marriage so that other loving couples can share it? You complain about easy divorce and raising families outside of marriage, and yet you snub a group that wants to embrace marriage? Rethink your position.

Dr. King added, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” Here again, the “defense of marriage” faction that hopes to repurpose Dr. King finds that he isn’t cooperating. Law that restricts marriage to two straight people suits these Christian conservatives just fine. They can marry whomever they love, though it doesn’t work that way for homosexuals. The majority seeks a law that it “does not make binding on itself.”

To take this further, some conservative Christians say that their church would embrace homosexuals, as long as they’re celibate. This sounds like an enormous burden they thoughtlessly impose on others with no concern for the cost. What I want to see is such a Christian walking the walk. That is, I want to see a 20-something straight Christian who commits to a celibate life to demonstrate that it’s a reasonable request. They declare how much they love their homosexual brothers and sisters. Surely there are thousands of Christian men eager to make this pledge—no?

Apparently, marriage is all about the sex. Who knew?

The Pledge says:

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children.

Flailing around for an argument, these conservative Christians want to imagine that marriage is about nothing but children. But of course there’s nothing in the traditional marriage vows about making babies: “To have and to hold, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” Nor is there an obligation in a state’s marriage license about making babies. Nor are married couples ever penalized for not having the correct number of babies (more).

That they’re forced to shoehorn marriage into this “making babies” mold proves that playing politics is their goal, not guarding the sanctity of marriage.

What fraction of the population is homosexual? What fraction of that will get married? And what fraction of that will bring new children into the marriage? This is a very small percentage of all children. If caring for children were actually a goal, they’d focus on helping the millions of children in imperfect homes—those with just one parent or poor medical care or a dangerous neighborhood or not enough income. A mixed-gender couple isn’t mandatory for children; rather, a healthy family environment is what’s important.

This is not their focus, and caring for children is obviously not their goal.

The Court had better know its place

Back to the ad:

No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.

That ship has already sailed. There’s Davis v. Beason (1890), which stomped on the Mormons’ biblically based right to polygamy. There’s Loving v. Virginia (1973) that threw the Bible in the garbage by declaring that mixed-race marriage was legal in every state. Divorce has been made easier. Adultery has been largely decriminalized. Marital rape is now a crime. “Head and Master” laws, which put the man in charge of a household’s assets, are gone.

You do know that the Bible doesn’t call the shots in a country with a secular constitution, right?

The sky is falling! Marriage will be destroyed!

No kidding—that’s what they really claim will happen.

We will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love.

My, aren’t we dramatic! I think someone needs some pearls to clutch.

It’s been four years for the country and fifteen years for the first state, Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage is legal in about 30 countries. Has marriage been destroyed? It seems to me that this fight has only enhanced the reputation of marriage as a desirable and valuable institution at a time when it’s seen as optional to many.

Punch line: don’t infringe my right to discriminate

This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights.

Yep, just like before. And the state will prevail over religious prejudice, just like before. The Mormons lost their fight for polygamy. Racists against mixed-race marriage lost their fight for racial purity. I’m all for people’s right to their religious beliefs, regardless of what I think of those beliefs, but that right ends when society declares that it infringes on something more important.

As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.

In the U.S., the Constitution runs the country, not the Bible. If that’s a problem for you, I can help you find the door.

We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.

Seriously? This is the hill you want to die on—the right to discriminate? To restrict rights? You worship a god whose prejudices mirror your own?

Remember that Martin Luther King was universally trying to expand rights. Don’t you get tired of always being in the same bin as the KKK? Can’t you pick an important issue to focus on?

Go ahead—hold your breath to try to get your way. Your view is becoming more extreme. It will look even more so tomorrow.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 6/17/15.)

Image from James Dobson’s Family Talk
.

Larry Tomczak of the “Here’s the Deal” blog is mightily concerned about this whole gay thing. In a post from 2015, “Church Is Facing a Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment,” he says it’s the church’s great test.

Here’s what the church faces:

Opposition to Christianity is becoming more aggressive and hostile. Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of natural marriage and sexual purity.

I’ll grant that opposition to Christian stupidity can be aggressive, but where Christians expect no more than the U.S. Constitution grants them, I support their rights as strongly as I do mine. That attitude is widespread in the atheist community.

As for “natural marriage” and sexual purity, it’s an odd world where the sky is falling on Christians and yet they aren’t being forced to do anything.

Same-sex marriage

Tomczak works himself into a frenzy as he imagines modern Christians in the same position as Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

After 5,000 years of Western civilization defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, we are on the precipice (barring miraculous intervention) of the Supreme Court imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states.

Allowing someone else to have consensual sex in a way that’s not your cup of tea is not an “imposition.” Same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide, and no thoughtful person is surprised that the sky hasn’t fallen.

You want an imposition? Remember Bonhoeffer, the man you reference in your post. He was hanged in Flossenbürg concentration camp in Germany just weeks before the end of the war for working with the Resistance. That’s an imposition.

As for your anxiety about marriage being redefined, it’s redefined all the time. Just in my lifetime, laws forbidding interracial marriage have been struck down, divorce is much easier, adultery has been redefined, and marital rape is illegal. Don’t pretend that it’s been unchanged since God invented it.

Recently the largest Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church USA, changed the wording of its constitution to fully embrace sodomy-based “marriage.”

So what kind of marriage do you have, Larry? A screwing-based “marriage”? I guess I’m old fashioned, because I thought love was a major part of it. Marriage vows say nothing about making either whoopee or babies. Instead they have a promise “to have and to hold, from this day forward; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; until death do us part.” But perhaps Larry has no use for traditional interpretations of marriage.

I think I’ll stick with my version of marriage. It’s based on reality instead of hysteria.

Scary times ahead

Apparently it’s time to circle the wagons, because he tells us we’re in the “perilous” end times foretold by the Bible.

We are facing a “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment.” You recall that he chose civil disobedience and disobeyed Nazi law that stated that protecting Jewish people was against the law. He was hung for his stand. He also said prior to his death, “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

It’s hard to believe that he’s doing it even as he’s doing it, but Tomczak is equating these two things:

1. Christians speaking out against same-sex marriage in the West, which is not especially perilous, given that Tomczak has freely done it, and
2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s standing up to the Nazis, protecting Jews, returning to Germany in 1939 when he had been safe in America, working to overthrow Hitler, and getting executed.

Our host next translates this into examples of biblical heroes obeying God at the risk of their lives: Daniel and his three friends, Esther, the disciples of Jesus.

Take deep breaths, Larry. Maybe a cold compress on the forehead. Tell yourself that it’s just the vapours. You’re back in America, where you can avoid getting gay married all you want.

You’re confusing (1) being imposed upon with (2) being allowed to impose your views on the rest of the country by law. No, you can’t do that. Don’t expect an apology.

Two things stand out here. First, of course, is the arrogance of equating the difficulties of anti-gay Christians today with those of Bonhoeffer in the 1940s. It’s his own example, and it demolishes his position. Unlike Bonhoeffer, Tomczak can say or write or hand out on the street corner just about anything he likes.

And that brings up the second point. He has the freedom to say these things because of the U.S. Constitution. The secular U.S. Constitution, the one that tells Congress not to make laws based on how they would please God. But the same secular public square that protects me from Christian excesses acts the other way as well. How about a little appreciation for that?

In one final failure of this argument, according to a 2015 biography, Bonhoeffer was likely gay.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 4/1/15.)

Image from Wikimedia, CC license

.

In part 1, we reviewed an inept attempt to prove the hypocrisy of same-sex marriage proponents. You say it’s wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake? Let’s see how you like it when the tables are turned! So they surveyed pro-gay bakers and asked them to bake a wedding cake for a straight wedding.

Kidding! There’d be no story in that case, because the bakers would’ve all been happy for the business. And why not? Same-sex marriage advocates (going forward, I’ll sometimes call them “liberals”) are embracing marriage, not disparaging it. No, the experiment was actually to ask pro-gay bakers to bake a cake with the slogan, “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” I discussed the problems with this experiment in part 1.

Blogger Tom Gilson has wrestled with problem of why the anti-same-sex (“conservative”) position has done poorly.

Six steps to a stronger conservative position.

How do the conservatives improve their strategy? Gilson offers some suggestions.

“First, we need to do our homework.” He encourages his side to study the argument thoroughly.

No, he doesn’t want to reconsider his position.

Or consider that same-sex marriage expands marriage rather than attacks it.

Or observe that it does absolutely nothing to harm the marriages of straight people and that if straight people don’t like gay marriage, they can just not get gay married.

Or wonder if maybe there are far bigger problems in the world that deserve their attention or ask what Jesus would do.

No, he just wants to double down on the conservative position and work on positioning the message with better PR.

“Second, we need to identify the other side’s rhetorical weakness.” The pro-same-sex marriage side shows a sympathetic face when arguing for their position, he says, but they’re nasty when attacking the conservative position. He gives some examples of weak points in his opponents’ position.

2a: Liberals say the conservatives are haters. But when they disagree, they’re just as hateful.

We can say that disagreement = hatred, and with that definition the two sides would be symmetric. But the goals are different, and expanding marriage is a far more loving goal than making it a gated community. Your rhetorical problem remains.

2b: Liberals blather on about marriage equality, but they don’t really believe that. They put constraints on marriage, too.

A definition makes clear what is included as well as what is not. Obviously, everyone puts limits on the definition of marriage just like they do for every other word. Gilson imagines that “marriage equality” must mean no constraints at all and that it accepts incestuous, bigamous, and other controversial unions. A quick look at how the term is used makes clear that this disingenuous complaint is groundless.

And note that his examples are arguably harmful options. Same-sex marriage isn’t harmful to anyone, not even to Christians. If it makes Jesus sad, he should let us know.

“Third, we need to be wiser about finding points of rhetorical symmetry.” Instead of demanding that gay bakers make hateful cakes (which he never sees the rhetorical problem with), he says that it would be rhetorically more productive to ask them to cater conferences for the anti-same-sex marriage position. “If they refuse, then that’s clearly discriminating.” Gotcha!

No, it doesn’t work that way. U.S. federal law recognizes protected classes that can’t be discriminated against. A business that provides public accommodation must (with few exceptions) serve all the public and can’t discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, and other categories. States have added additional classes. For example, Colorado made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in 2008. This was the law broken in the 2012 Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which a Christian baker refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Retail stores have rights to free speech and can limit their customers, but those rights have limits. They violate the law if they refuse to serve someone simply because they’re in a class that’s protected. You can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re a Christian, a woman, or a Mexican, and (at least in Colorado) you can’t refuse to serve someone because that person is homosexual. On the other hand, a baker breaks no law when refusing to cater a National Organization of Marriage conference against same-sex marriage or a Westboro (“God Hates Fags”) Baptist Church picnic.

Again, I make the challenge: ask pro-gay bakers to bake wedding cakes for straight weddings. Show me one who won’t make an inoffensive wedding cake for a straight, Christian couple, and I’m on your side.

“Fourth, we need to put real faces on our position.” He suggests finding adult children of same-sex couples who have bad stories to tell.

Sure, you can find people who had a bad experience growing up with same-sex parents. But you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who had problems growing up with straight parents. What does that tell us? Seems to me that it says that marriage in the real world is imperfect. If you want to fret about marriage, focus on the social conditions that put pressure on all marriages.

“Fifth, even though it’s an uphill battle, we need to continue to explain and defend moral truth.”

Your “moral truth” is looking pretty hateful right about now; that’s why it’s an uphill battle. You still want to go with that as your final answer? Thirty years from now, the predominant Christian message on this subject will celebrate Christian leaders who took the tough stand to embrace homosexuals and accept same-sex marriage. History is listening.

“Finally and most importantly, we need to bear in mind that there is a spiritual asymmetry here as well.” The point here seems to be that Christians can’t forget the biblical reasons to reject same-sex marriage.

First, biblical reasons mean nothing in the secular public square. U.S. local, state, and federal government can’t make laws to advance a religious goal. In this domain, an argument that has only a Christian justification has no justification.

Second, the biblical argument against same-sex marriage is nonexistent (here, here). The Bible is a Rorschach test, and you read yourself into it. Don’t pretend that the Bible speaks unambiguously on this subject.

Look around you. There are millions of Christians happy to accept the liberal position. Two adults want to celebrate their love for each other—what’s not to like? These Christians feel no tension with their religious beliefs. What does it say about you that you can’t go there?

Some points of agreement

I think there’s more common ground than Gilson wants to admit. Obvious fact #1: the definition of marriage has changed over time. Biblical marriage, with its polygamy and other weird rules is a distant memory, and marriage continues to change today. Just in my lifetime, laws in the U.S. restricting marriage to people of the same race have been eliminated, divorce has become much easier, adultery is being decriminalized, and marital rape is now illegal. Even today, there are subtle differences between states’ definitions of marriage—different ages of consent, different restrictions on whether cousins can be married, different eligibility requirements, and so on.

Obvious fact #2: a definition imposes limits. Whether same-sex marriage is legal or illegal, there is no slippery slope problem. Conservatives don’t want to broaden marriage so that someone can marry their sex toy, and neither do liberals.

When you drop the fantasy that marriage is an unchanged institution since Adam and Eve, the same-sex marriage position seems a lot more reasonable. I doubt this will be persuasive, though. I think that Gilson is stuck with his position and doesn’t care which side has the stronger argument. He uses his substantial intellect to defend the conservative position, right or wrong.

A final jab

Gilson concludes his article by doubling down on the original message.

Before [this] experiment, no one ever seems to have thought of doing anything so thoughtlessly rude, except for the gays who asked conservatives to make cakes for their celebrations.

Seriously? Gays are thoughtlessly rude to expect equal access in public accommodation? Understand the law.

Gilson wants to know what the big deal is. So Straight-laced Christian Cakes won’t serve “your kind”? Not a problem:

I thought about the reported responses the conservatives gave: respectful, offering advice on other places people could be served, and compared it to [the angry responses] reportedly heard in response to [the request to bake “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cakes].

Are you also okay with a baker telling the Chinese couple or mixed-race couple that he didn’t approve of their marriage, but that there were other bakers in town without his high standards who might stoop to serve them?

And if same-sex marriage doesn’t exist for you, then what’s the problem? As far as you’re concerned, this is just a cake for a party. (h/t commenter Kodie)

While we’re offering “respectful” advice, let me offer some: if a wedding cake baker can’t follow the law, they can bake something besides wedding cakes or find another job.

And then I thought, Why do they accuse us of being the haters?

A trick question, perhaps? In this case, it’s because the experiment you applaud was hateful! And I keep coming back to the central issue. We’re not talking about a cake sculpture illustrating a lynching, a massacre, or the Kama Sutra. It’s a cake for a wedding! I can hardly imagine a worse event for conservative Christians to line up against.

You’re trying to improve your PR, but you’re still stuck with opposing a wedding cake. And you’re baffled why you’re labeled as haters?

Think about it for a minute.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/28/15.)

Image credit: andrluXphoto, flickr, CC

.

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative Christian radio host Frank Turek provides most of the arguments. (Part 1 here.)

12. It’s a slippery slope!

Today same-sex marriage; tomorrow, who knows what?! Frank demands:

Why are [homosexual activists] so “bigoted” to rule out groups and other arrangements they disapprove of? The same logic that seeks to justify same sex marriage—“I should be able to marry whomever I love”—can be used to justify any preferred arrangement.

We don’t need to worry about what would happen if the definition of marriage changed since it already has changed—for example, in the cases of mixed-race marriage, no-fault divorce, and laws against marital rape. Frank makes clear that he’s glad that it changed to allow mixed-race marriage. With no concern about change, where’s the problem?

Frank says that everyone puts limits on the definition of marriage, and again we agree. No definition of marriage would make sense if it weren’t clear what things were not included in that definition. Since the conservative and liberal positions are now symmetrical—both limit the definition and both accept that the definition changes—how does he imagine that the slippery slope problem applies only to liberals? When there is a critical mass demanding another change to the definition, let’s consider it. Until then, this is just an irrelevant red herring.

The slippery slope hypothetical put forward by conservatives usually involves incest, pedophilia, or other relationships that cause harm. Yeah, I get it—things that cause harm are bad. Let’s continue to prohibit harmful relationships. Since consensual homosexual sex or romance cause no more problems than the heterosexual kind, this objection fails. (More here and here.)

13. The gay argument defeats itself!

Frank opens a can of logical whoop-ass on same-sex marriage proponents. So there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, you say? Then consider this:

If men and women were really the same, the activists would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it. The very reason they are demanding same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different.

Yes, men and women are different, and homosexuals are romantically attracted to one and not the other, just like you.

14. Don’t like divorce? Same-sex marriage will make it worse!

Before no-fault divorce, one party in a marriage had to show that the other had committed adultery, abandonment, a felony, or a similar offense to get a divorce. Frank prefers those good old days.

[No-fault divorce] laws make dissolving a family too easy and should be repealed. They also help teach people that marriage is only about the desires of adults, not the needs of children. If marriage is all about my happiness and not the needs of children, then I should get divorced if I’m not “happy.” . . . Making marriage genderless through same sex marriage will further hurt children by annihilating their connection to marriage completely.

Marriage is about a lot more than children, as we discovered in argument 5. Sometimes a bad marriage should be endured for the sake of the children, and sometimes it’s best for everyone if the marriage ends. I’m surprised to hear a conservative like Frank advocate for a nanny state solution, where laws tell people how to live their lives, rather than encourage them to be responsible adults and decide for themselves what’s best.

Divorce laws aren’t the reason why marriages suck. They’re a symptom, not a cause. And at last we’ve stumbled across something that actually is an attack on marriage. Why not focus on the social conditions that injure marriage rather than on homosexuals, a category of people trying to embrace marriage?

Same-sex marriage is a celebration of marriage, not an attack. It’s divorce (actually, the poor conditions that bring on divorce) that is the attack on marriage. Go worry about that.

15. Homosexuality causes health problems!

Frank doesn’t want to hear that homosexual sex is about love.

What’s loving about sexual activity that creates numerous health problems, increases medical costs to everyone, and reduces the lifespan of homosexuals by 8–20 years? . . . If the sex act is medically dangerous, the best way to love the other person is not to have sex with him. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.

Presumably the issue Frank vaguely alludes to is AIDS, but he seems to imagine that AIDS is a gay men’s disease. No, it’s a sexually transmitted disease. Worldwide, almost as many women as men are HIV positive.

But let’s find the silver lining here. Frank is encouraging everyone to practice safe sex, and that’s good advice. There you go, Frank—problem solved.

But what’s that last line, the one about “most of our loving relationships are non-sexual”? When Frank’s “marriage is all about screwing and making babies!” argument is inconvenient, he suddenly becomes reasonable. That’s right, Frank—the relationship between two loving adults is important and should be supported by society.

16. There goes free speech!

According to [homosexual activists], same sex marriage is now not only a “right,” no one has the right to oppose it. This new right is so powerful it has completely wiped out the old rights that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

I suppose Frank’s breathless anxiety helps wind up his supporters, but Constitutional freedoms are still firmly in place. Frank frets that the right of free speech is gone and same-sex marriage can’t be criticized . . . while he’s speaking freely and criticizing same-sex marriage.

Tell you what, Frank: you show me any instances where your free speech on this subject has been prohibited, and I’m on your side. When your free speech rights are curtailed, impositions on mine are likely to follow. Note, however, that public critique of your position doesn’t count, getting your feelings hurt doesn’t count, and not being able to impose your will on others by law doesn’t count.

Liberals can’t justify why same-sex marriage is right. Nevertheless, they want to legislate it as a right and will convict you of heresy if you fail to bow to it.

It’s amusing how Frank is all a-flutter with fears that he will be imposed upon. In fact, legalized same-sex marriage does nothing to him. He won’t be forced to have gay sex or get gay married. The only risk of imposition is his eagerness to impose his views on others and constrain others with his definition of marriage.

Concluded in part 6.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/19/15.)

Image credit: Wikipedia

.

Larry Tomczak of the “Here’s the Deal” blog is mightily concerned about this whole gay thing. In “Church Is Facing a Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment,” he says it’s the church’s great test.

Here’s what the church faces:

Opposition to Christianity is becoming more aggressive and hostile. Nowhere is this more evident than in the areas of natural marriage and sexual purity.

I’ll grant that opposition to Christian stupidity can be aggressive, but where Christians expect no more than the Constitution grants them, I support their rights as strongly as I do mine. That attitude is widespread in the atheist community.

As for natural marriage and sexual purity, it’s an odd world where the sky is falling on Christians and yet they aren’t being forced to do anything.

Same-sex marriage

Tomczak works himself into a frenzy until he imagines modern Christians in the same position as Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

After 5,000 years of Western civilization defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, we are on the precipice (barring miraculous intervention) of the Supreme Court imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states.

Allowing someone else to have consensual sex in a way that’s not your cup of tea is not an “imposition.” If same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide, you won’t be constrained in any way.

You want an imposition? Remember Bonhoeffer, the man you reference in your post. He was hanged in Flossenbürg concentration camp just weeks before the end of the war for working with the Resistance. That’s an imposition.

As for your anxiety about marriage being redefined, it’s redefined all the time. Just in my lifetime, laws forbidding interracial marriage have been struck down, divorce is much easier, and marital rape is illegal. Don’t pretend that it’s been unchanged since God invented it.

Recently the largest Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church USA, changed the wording of its constitution to fully embrace sodomy-based “marriage.”

And what kind of marriage do you have, Larry? A screwing-based “marriage”? I guess I’m old fashioned, because I thought love was a major part of it. Marriage vows say nothing about making either whoopee or babies. Instead they have a promise “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”

I think I’ll stick with my version of marriage. It’s based on reality instead of hysteria.

Scary times ahead

Apparently it’s time to circle the wagons, because Tomczak tells us we’re in the “perilous” end times foretold by the Bible.

We are facing a “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Moment.” You recall that he chose civil disobedience and disobeyed Nazi law that stated that protecting Jewish people was against the law. He was hung for his stand. He also said prior to his death, “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

It’s hard to believe that he’s doing it even as he’s doing it, but Tomczak is equating these two things:

1. Christians speaking out against same-sex marriage in the West, which is not especially perilous, given that Tomczak is freely doing it, and
2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s standing up to the Nazis, protecting Jews, returning to Germany in 1939 when he was safe in America, working to overthrow Hitler, and getting executed.

Our host next translates this into examples of biblical heroes obeying God at the risk of their lives: Daniel and his three friends, Esther, the disciples of Jesus.

Take deep breaths, Larry. Maybe a cold compress on the forehead. It’s just the vapours. You’re back in America, where you can avoid getting gay married all you want.

You’re confusing (1) being imposed upon with (2) being allowed to impose your views on the rest of the country by law. No, you can’t do that. Don’t expect an apology.

Two things stand out here. First, of course, is the arrogance of equating the trials of anti-gay Christians today with those of Bonhoeffer. It’s his own example, and it demolishes his position. Unlike Bonhoeffer, he can say or write or hand out on the street corner just about anything he likes.

And that brings up the second point. He has the freedom to say these things because of the U.S. Constitution. The secular U.S. Constitution, the one that tells Congress not to make laws based on how they would please God. But the same secular public square that protects me from Christian excesses acts the other way as well. How about a little appreciation for that?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
— Martin Niemöller (1892–1984),
who spent the last seven years of the war
in German concentration camps

Image credit: Wikipedia

In a Christian Post end-of-year survey of “intolerant liberalism,” half of the 33 examples had to do with same-sex marriage or acceptance of homosexuality. Why is this issue so persistent?

I recently speculated how the conservative anti-gay fight might change (“Having Lost the Same-Sex Marriage Fight, What Will Opponents Do Now?”). I keep thinking that conservatives will throw in the towel and begin to worry about other issues, maybe ones that actually matter. How about energy independence or improving conditions for America’s poorest citizens? If voters reward conservative posturing, couldn’t we trust them to reward conservative politicians who actually address some of society’s problems?

Some conservatives may be dropping the issue, but not all. Let’s take a look at one who’s keeping the anti-same-sex marriage candle burning. Frank Turek is one of the fish in this “traditional marriage” pond, but the pond is drying up. I’d like to preserve what he says today so that it can be used to plague him tomorrow.

Much of the following is in response to a few of his recent articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Let’s consider some of the popular arguments against same-sex marriage.

1. Activist judges! In Frank’s dictionary, “activist judge” seems to mean “a judge who doesn’t do what I want.”

Activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states!

Yeah, that’s how the legal system works sometimes. Very few laws are put in place by direct vote of the citizens, and sometimes judges are the last step in the process.

Frantic Frank imagines the sky falling with these “unelected judges” rampaging through society, but the Constitution defines the separation of powers that form the checks and balances between the branches of government. Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by senators who are elected. Judges can be impeached. The Constitution can be amended. I’ll believe that “activist judge” isn’t simply a convenient slur for when he doesn’t get his way when he applies it to conservative decisions.

For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

But surely that’s not true for Frank. He’s okay with public opinion—which is good, because a recent CBS News/New York Times poll showed the public strongly in favor of same-sex marriage by 56% to 37%, with the gap continuing to grow. Look at the trend from the Gallup poll:

2. But we’re already equal! Frank next denies that there’s a problem.

Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Compare with this: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person” from the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Sounds like the same deal—the white folks were constrained just like everyone else. That’s fair, so what’s to complain about? I wonder how Frank can fault the logic in the racial category but not in the sexuality category when we’re talking about people in both cases.

It’s amazing that he anticipates no consequences from his base after saying something so bigoted, but then George Wallace’s “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” from 1963 didn’t have major negative consequences.

Not immediately, anyway.

Frank’s assurance that things are fair and he’s not prejudiced sounds hollow when his proposal doesn’t inconvenience him. He wants to shut off an option that could help millions of Americans, but that’s okay because he’s not one of them. Here’s an idea, Frank: how about if people with odd Social Security numbers can only marry people with even numbers and vice versa? Everyone is constrained by the same rules, so it’s fair, right? Is someone you care about inconvenienced yet?

If you say that that’s a stupid rule, you’re getting an idea of what some people say about your claim above.

3. But you can’t redefine marriage!

Been there, redefined that. Don’t imagine that marriage has been a constant since Adam and Eve. The last major change (just considering marriage in the U.S.) was in 1967 when rules against interracial marriage were struck down in 17 states.

Even now, rules vary by state. What’s the age of consent? Can you marry your cousin? Is a blood test or Social Security Number required? What’s the waiting period? Residency requirements? Requirements for divorced persons? Let’s not pretend that marriage is fixed.

4. I’m not a bigot! Frank rejects the comparison of laws against same-sex marriage with racist or sexist laws.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage.

We can agree that laws that precluded citizens from voting were wrong. They thought it was okay back then, but society changes. Frank clearly has no problem with society evolving and improving. That’s good, because it’s changing again to accept same-sex marriage.

Continue with Part 2.

Heterosexuality is not normal,
just common.
— seen on the internet

Image credit: Wikipedia