Texas, gay marriage, and the Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases involving same-sex marriage could provide yet another indication of how isolated Texas politics has become from the national mainstream. As James Carville pointed out on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday, Americans’ opinions on same-sex marriage have changed with astonishing rapidity — but not here. (George Will said that the opposition to gay marriage is “literally dying” — meaning that the opposition is increasingly limited to old people.)
Readers will recall that in 2004, Karl Rove got Republicans in key states to hold referenda on the issue in the expectation that they would boost GOP turnout and reelect George W. Bush. But Texas still wants to tell its citizens whom they can marry. We are behind the curve in social mores, and our politics tracks our society. A national Pew poll in October showed proponents of same-sex marriages outnumbered opponents by 49% to 40%. In 2008, just one election cycle ago, only 39% favored gay marriage and 52% were opposed. The rate of change is inexorable, but I fully expect our state officials to complain about judicial activism (and let’s not forget the Tenth Amendment) when the Supreme Court busts DOMA, both the state and federal versions, as it surely will.
A nineteenth century American humorist named Finley Peter Dunne wrote a book titled “Mr. Dooley in Peace & War” featuring the observations on American life of a fictional Irish barkeep named Mr. Dooley. Mr. Dooley’s lasting contribution to American politics is his commentary that “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.” It is no coincidence that Maine and Maryland voted to legalize same-sex marriage on November 6, just a few days before the Supremes agreed to hear the cases on same-sex marriage.
As I point out in my column in the January issue of TEXAS MONTHLY, which will be available online a week from Wednesday, Democrats like to call their winning formula “COTA,” short for “coalition of the ascendant” — that is college-educated women, blacks, Latinos, gays, and young people Nothing lasts forever in politics, but at the moment, Democrats are much closer to the demographic cutting edge than Republicans are.
Here is a paragraph from ScotusBlog by Neal Devins and Tara Grove on the Court’s decision to hear the two cases:
Windsor and Perry are likely to be two of the most important constitutional decisions in our lifetimes. If (as we suspect), the Court reaches the merits of each case, we believe it will advance the cause of same-sex marriage by invalidating both DOMA and Proposition 8. But, in our view, the Court’s jurisdictional rulings — on the power of a single chamber of Congress and private sponsors of ballot initiatives to defend federal and state measures — will also have important implications, informing the scope of the constitutional separation of powers at both the federal and state level.
I agree with the analysis. History does not move backward. Society is not going to block a union of consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. DOMA is another of the social issues that is killing Republicans. Government should get out of people’s private lives. Legislative bodies should not determine who should marry whom. What God has made, let no politician rent asunder.
Tagged: DOMA, gay marriage
guest says:
So are California and Oregon, which also supported referenda to ban gay marriage, also behind the curve? Stop peddling the tired line that Texas is an isolated cultural backwater. If you don’t like it here, go practice your pathetic journalism at some rag in Vermont.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Oregon and California recognize civil unions / domestic partnerships, which Texas does not and can not, because of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment that passed here. That amendment wasn’t limited to same-sex marriage. Paul and George Will are correct, opposition to gay marriage / civil unions is collapsing, particularly among educated, upwardly mobile voters, including among Republicans. Expression of anti-gay sentiment is a marker of ignorance and déclassé status, just as expression of racist sentiment has become. And that’s a good thing.
And Vermont is a lovely place, or so I’m told. I won’t go in the winter – icy air is bad for a fine mustache like me.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
I don’t always agree with Mustache, but I sure like when he (it?) uses words like “déclassé.”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“What God has made, let no politician rent asunder”…,,
.God did not make gay marriage
Reply »
Anonnymoose Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
OK, then let’s finally get rid of God.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
How do you know that God did not make gay marriage?
Was it the devil that did it?
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Like god, the devil is a figment of your imagination, similar to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
I was referring to marriage generally … not just same-sex marriage.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
He made gays.
Reply »
Just another joe says:
Burka, when you are right I extend to you the courtesy of such recognition. And on this topic, you are right.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
What God has made? Those are fighting words in today’s Democratic party. Only idiotic morons believe in God. Come on, Burka!
Reply »
Willie Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
What is right is right. Burka is right on this one.
Reply »
Antonio Villaraigosa Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Did someone say God and Democrats? No mas!
Reply »
Willie Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Clear thinking people believe that matter of God and religion are best kept personally, out of government and personal choice be allowed. Democrats, for the most part seem to be very tolerant of ones choices, believing in the freedom to choose and think for ones self. Republicans hypocrasy over religion and social politics has branded them as Taliban-like
Reply »
Cincinnatus says:
“Government should get out of people’s private lives.”
Sorry, but that ship sailed looooooong ago. Gov’t intrudes into EVERY part of our lives, the only debate is over how it will do so. If SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage in a way that doesn’t establish the primacy of freedom of religion, then gov’t will darn sure be all up in the lives of everyone who does not agree with the anointed “ascendants.”
Gay “marriage” is just another “freedom for me, but not for thee” issue that turns on political power, nothing more. The only thing that will change is whose ox is being gored.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Government in our lives? Three little words – trans vaginal probes.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 8:56 am
I think that’s only two words. When did trans become its own word?
Reply »
Jorge says:
Again my prediction is that our fearless leaders, Perry and Cruz, will double down on this issue. They will fight same sex marriage even harder. And they make matters even worse for the Rs. They can’t help themselves. Again you’re right on this point.
Reply »
Patriotone says:
Texas won’t adopt same sex marriage for a while but it doesn’t really matter. This ship has sailed. Almost everyone under 30 is astonished that this is an issue. 40 years from now we will look back in wonder at those who fought it just as we look at those ugly images outside the schools in Arkansas or the Admin building at Ole Miss. WE almost feel sorry for their ignorance. Texas will skulk into gay marriage while no one is looking and we are way behind the curve. (Or when we want to attract an Olympics or Super Bowl) that won’t come because we discriminate.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
My brother is gay. I love him. He and his longtime partner are at every family gathering.
This being said, I am not for using the term “marriage” for the legal union of a gay couple. Just call it something else, afford them all legal rights affored married heterosexuals, and move on. For many who still consider themselves part of the Republican Party, or those like me who consider themselves conservative independents, the resolution is this simple. Why make it so difficult?
The majority of the U.S. wants social issues removed from politics. Let’s get ur done.
Reply »
K Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 10:00 am
This is a self-defeating argument. If the word “marriage” is so valuable that straight couples don’t want to share it, then obviously it’s something we want. It’s clearly not “just a word.”
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Is your argument with me? Not sure I get your drift. Are you saying that affording gays all the legal rights and benefits that straight married couples have is not enough if the word “marriage” is not in the package?
Reply »
K Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Right. If it’s important enough for you to deny, it’s important enough for us to fight for. We want equality.
Dan C says:
The state as a whole may be way behind the rest of the country; but Dallas, Houston, and Austin are not. As “the triangle” where everyone lives continues to grow, and the rural areas recede in significance, we’ll catch up.
Reply »
Palmer says:
WAIT! I am an older, conservative, (almost republican leaning)Texan. But,I am not opposed to gay marriage. I don’t care who or what you love!
I am however tired of having others (including lib journalists) in may face about it.
Jeez, there are so many real issues with which we need to deal.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 7:58 am
It is not the journalists pushing it but the conservatives. News crews, for the most part report on what is happening and what is of relevance. Conservatives make social politics and issue, news reports.
Reply »
austin dissident says:
If you are so sure about your historical ascendancy, why not let the issue be determined by the elected representatives of the people rather than imposed by the Court? Much less divisive and upholds legitimacy of political institutions.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Local elected officials gave us “separate but equal.” Not a good plan . . .
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Like black codes?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Thank goodness for the courts which set limits on what the electorate can impose on individuals.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I know right – like ruling that separate but equal was not ok.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Texas will always be a conservative state and gay marriage is a SIN against God and the conservative values of traditional Americans.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
tell that to the residents of FW who keep electing joel burns to city council.
Reply »
K Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Why don’t you go back to weird non-sequiturs?
Reply »
Robert says:
I’ll take my backwater Texas culture any day over the “progressive” life in other states. That’s why I live here. Why do you libs stay? That’s the real question.
Reply »
Dan C Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Because we see it changing before our eyes in the parts of the state where people actually live — the places that will determine the state’s future. Houston has a gay mayor and is the most ethnically diverse city in the country. Dallas has elected a black mayor, gay city councilpersons, gay judges, and has a lesbian sheriff. Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio are growing by leaps and bounds. Tyler, Wichita Falls, and places like that, not so much.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Looks like you need to be lookin for a place to go Robert as things are changing.
Reply »
JW Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 8:00 am
Well, Robert….there is always South Carolina or Arizona. This new generation of Texans won’t allow us to remain backwards and embarrassing. We will get rid of Perry and Cruz and move forward.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Cruz is staying in the US Senate for two terms and Perry is likely leaving the Governor’s Mansion once his 3rd full term ends on January 20, 2015 (NOT running in 2014).
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Because we like it, although my friends in blue states think I’m crazy.
Reply »
K Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 10:01 am
Why don’t you move to Iran?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Fatwas, that’s why.
Reply »
K Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 9:35 am
I’m talking to Robert.
Anonymous says:
Freedom of religion does not mean that one religion gets to affect all matters of public policy, and then have its supporters complain when other factors start to influence public policy. But what do you expect from people who think Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Reply »
Cincinnatus says:
I WISH
Reply »
Cincinnatus says:
(sorry, errant return there.)
I WISH Jesus rode a dinosaur–I would’ve paid much closer attention in Sunday School!
Ignorant stereotyping of religion aside, however, the problem with gay marriage as a “right” is that it directly conflicts with another right already enshrined in the 1st Amendment. When two rights collide, which prevails? That is the question that most gay marriage supporters either haven’t considered or refuse to answer.
I speculate that most gay marriage supporters would be fine if religious/conscientious objections were preserved, but they aren’t the ones filing lawsuits. Instead, it’s the militant gay rights advocates who will litigate the issue down everyone’s throat and who are quite willing to sue people out of business or out of town for daring to not toe the “ascendant” progressive line. For proof, witness the repeated (and illogical) ad hominem tarring of conscientious objectors to gay marriage as the equivalents of Nazis or Bull Connor racists. These are arguments made not to win hearts and minds, or to rationally discuss the issue, but to shut down debate. How “liberal” of them.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Cincinnatus, I’ll work on the assumption that the First Amendment conflict to which you refer is with freedom of religion, and I’ll further assume you’re concerned that allowing gay marriage in the civil society will infringe on the free practice of any religious tradition that does not wish to recognize gay marriage. But:
1) no one is talking about MAKING the Catholics perform or recogize gay marriages. As far as I know, that has not happened anywhere where gay marriages are permitted in the civil sphere; and, 2) the freedom of, say, Catholics to not recognize gay marriage is not the same as a freedom to impose their belief upon the civil society and everyone else.
Reply »
JW Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 8:02 am
Like the militant right to lifers?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Which right does it conflict with in the 1st amendment?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 10th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
I think he refers to freedom of religion. But the amendment also implies freedom from religion. If you don’t want a same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex.
I have been married for 47 years. Many situations have challenged my marriage, but gay marriage is certainly not one of them.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, folks. Zip. Nada. Nothing. Give it a rest.
Reply »
Antonio Villaraigosa Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Jesus is my brother and works in a factory in Pomona. Leave him out of this Miss Pearl. Have you no sense of decency?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Nope.
Blue Dogs Reply:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Why don’t you do your job as Los Angeles Mayor and try to salvage whatever horrible legacy you’re leaving the city ?
rw says:
But it wasn’t a legislative body in California – the people actually voted on the issue. It didn’t pass there either – are they also out of touch with the mainstream?
If we really want gay marriage for everyone in every state, then we need a Constitutional Amendment for it. If you’re going to argue that 50 legislative bodies shouldn’t decide it, then I’m going to argue that 1-2 judges shouldn’t decide it either. Let Congress decide.
After all, if Texas politics is really backward and stupid and out-of-touch, and everyone else is in the ‘mainstream’, then the Amendment should pass with no problem.
Reply »
ghostofann says:
Get with the times, folks.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Werent’ black codes established by state legislatures?
Reply »
Patriotone says:
Remember, San Angelo had a gay Mayor who left the city to go to Mexico to be with his partner. He was, and still is the most popular mayor in the history of the city. Go figure. This issue has been decided and is only a few more funerals away from being relegated to the dustbin of history.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
race, homophibia, and gender bias, libs jeep beating the drum as the nation’s debt clock shoots past 16 trillion heading for 20.
Reply »
JW says:
Thank goodness yu are home from the night shift and weigh in with such brilliance.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Debt? What debt? Come on! Just raise taxes on the richest two percent and all will be fine.
Reply »
Jed says:
awesome. gay marriage has come up in every campaign season since i can remember, as a wedge issue, and it was not the democrats bringing it up.
but now that the crackerjacks have a new rallying cry (deficits are a crisis! ever since 2009!), let’s don’t distract them with the wrong red meat!
Reply »
Texan Born says:
As far as the Bible goes and homosexuality, not any of you know what you are talking about. God created man & woman. Read Deutoronmy (Old Testament). God said it is a SIN for a man to lie with a man,period! And homoseuality is in the Bible. Try reading it, you might learn something.Also, have any of you ever heard of Lot, and Sodom and Gohmorah?? Homosexuality is a SIN, and thats the final truth!! Amen and Praise the Lord.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
I stopped needing imaginary friends a long time ago.
And what are we supposed to learn from a book of ancient Jewish fairy tales, exactly?
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 12:27 am
so is eating shellfish. im not giving up shrimp, sorry. and being around my wife if shes on her period. not giving her up either.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
You’re supposed to lock her in a shed for five days. But then who would cook your supper?
Reply »
Pat Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
According to Leviticus, touching a pigskin on Sundays is punishable by death. So give my regards to Tony Romo, because we’re going to have to execute him during the halftime show this weekend…
Texan Born says:
Oh, and further more….if you dont like the way Texas is, then get out! Texas is the greatest state there is, are ever will be. We have alot of great history here. Is there any more born and bred Texans anymore?
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“Is [sic] there any more born and bred Texans anymore?”
Yes, there ARE, as a matter of fact. I’m one. 6th generation. Blue-blooded. My mother’s family arrived here with Stephen F. Austin.
Now my turn to ask rhetorical questions. What, exactly, is your point? Is it that in order to be a “born and bred” Texan one has to be a bigoted, Bible-thumping asshole like you? Why don’t YOU go to Oklahoma or Mississippi, and leave a better Texas for the rest of us?
Reply »
Texan Born Reply:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:34 am
Shame on you! There is no need for name calling. Grow up! You need to re-read my comment. And Yes, I should not have used the word more. That was my error in typing. My point is, that homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage should not be allowed anywhere. God Bless America & God Bless Texas.
Reply »
jerry only Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Your screeds will not change the minds of anyone, bigot.
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Texas is a great place! It has a much more interesting history than the midwestern states. It has beauty, wonderful people, the food is good, a real innovative spirit. But it’s not heaven. No place is.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Indiana is also conservative, has been historically and now the GOPers run all levels of state government despite a Democratic US Senator in Joe Donnelly, but will he be a one termer ?
Is Evan Bayh going to run for Prez in 2016 or be Hillary’s VP ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
I sure hope Evan stays away from politics.
Old Charlie says:
Paul, I don’t know what I said that was so abhorrent that my e-mails are no longer published. So far as I know I have never said anything personal about anyone. I would like to comment occasionally so if there is something I can do to be allowed to comment again I will do it. I do not know of any other way to contact you except perhaps by snail mail and if this is not successful I will do so. I am really mystified about what I might have said that caused me to be banished. I am not a Robert Morrow kind of guy.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 11th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
I have sent a number of JBB’s comments about Democrats to trash. Otherwise, I haven’t done a lot of policing comments.
Reply »
Old Charlie says:
OOPS!!!!!! Although there is a notation that MY MAIL WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED beside my e-mail address window at the Leave A Reply window, it was published. My face is RED!!!!!!!NEVER MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I’m a Southern Baptist. I have this question for some of you other Christians. The Ten Commandments are very explicit and listed what the Lord felt were the most important guidelines for living a life pleasing to Him. Correct?
If the homosexuality issue were high on His list, wouldn’t it have replaced one of the ten, or at least been listed as the eleventh?
Number 3, dictates that we not use his name in vain. Number 4, directs us to set aside the Sabbath for rest and praising Him. How many GD’s do you spit out every day? How many athletic events do you skip church to lug your kids to?
My point is…why do you continually try to impart your own emotional and spiritual feelings on others through force and civil dictates? Why not take the true Christian route and convince non-believers to join us by just setting a good example…by allowing them to see how happy we are, how at peace we are when the “wheels come off” and bad things start happening?
After all, how many people have you ever won over by yelling in their faces or calling them names? By trying to cram civil laws down their throats?
If you are trying to turn people off, you are doing a good job; if you are trying to muster converts, you are going at it the wrong way. Reevaluate.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
You’re a terrible Southern Baptist. Homosexual acts are condemned so often in scripture, it’s comical to even suggest going to scripture for supporting a pro-homosexual stance. There’s just not enough room in this combox to list all the passages denouncing those acts both explicitly and implicitly.
You offer the ten commandments. How do the sixth and ninth commandments not automatically exclude homosexuality to you? You interpret setting narrow limits on male-female relationships as somehow leaving male-male or female-female relationships unfettered? Seriously?
All statutory law is a derivative of moral law. Shall we strip away laws against murder and theft and fraud because I’m trying to cram my emotional and spiritual feelings on the fifth, seventh, and eighth commandments down the throats of murderers, thieves, and swindlers?
Some of us actually believe in God doesn’t like sin will punish those who a.) practice it, b.) look the other way when we could speak (or act) against it, and most importantly, c.) implicitly promote it by enshrining the permission of the practices in the law of the land.
Hence, our support for the statutory outright prohibitions against the more intolerable sins.
You know, since -you- brought up the Christian thing.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
So you believe in Old Testament religion as opposed to New Testament religion. Is that it? An eye for an eye? Slashing and burning? In you face type stuff? I believe that is what you are promoting, is it not?
Well, the New Testament, and Jesus in it, promotes going the “set an example” route. The apostles did not travel about promoting civil insurrection. They did not get up in people’s faces; they did not gather in converts by first calling them derogatory names. They simply told others how accepting Jesus Christ had changed their lives and went about displaying these distinct changes in the love they showed for others…regardless of the lifestyle they were living.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. This is the Christian religion I am familiar with…not the one you and many others seem to be latched on to these days.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 12:57 am
Civil insurrection by the apostles is debatable. Certainly, there was no violent insurrection pushed by them, but they obviously ran afoul of the law wherever they went – of the twelve apostles present at Pentecost and Paul, only one died a natural death – the other twelve were martyred.
Regardless, I don’t think I called for civil insurrection. Nor did I call for or promote “getting in people’s faces” and “first calling them derogatory names.” Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I merely said that the moral law should be enforced by civil law, when feasible. I gave you an example in the case of murder, theft, and fraud. But if you think the only way the moral law can be enforced is through eye-for-an-eye, slash-and-burn methods, then have fun with your hyperbole.
Three new testament references should be enough for now:
Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7.
Again, I used the Old Testament, because you called out Christians on the Ten Commandments with regards to homosexuality.
The Ten Commandments narrowly restrict male-female relations with the prohibitions against adultery and lustful envy. That leaves you with two options on homosexuality, because it’s not explicitly mentioned : either homosexuality is fully permitted or fully proscribed. Anybody with an ounce of knowledge of ancient Hebrew belief knew topics such as homosexuality were considered so abhorrent as to be completely off the table.
If you want early Church fathers, I can dig those up, too. And trust me – their prescribed disciplinary response to confirmed practice of homosexual acts is only a teensy bit more moderate than what Leviticus called for.
We can continue on down through the middle ages, and even unto the present day. You should do a google search on what Catherine of Siena claimed was revealed to her by the Lord on the topic of homosexuals. Interesting reading, to say the least.
John Johnson Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:01 am
Let’s reduce this to lowest denominator. Homosexuality appears to be listed in the Bible under “sexual immorality”. It is given no more importance than adultery, drunkeness, or slandering. Am I mistaken?
Some, it seems, have decided that it deserves more severe in your face type criticism and punishment. It would appear to the secular world that to Christians adultery is one thing; being gay another.
I think gays are born gay; adulterers are not born adulterers.
Now back to the New Testament…Jesus uttered not one word about homosexuality. As pointed out, his message was “hate the sin, love the sinner”. There is no love or compassion being shown by radical Christianity today. An “in your face”, “cram it down your throat” style is being utilized and it is turning others off and turning them away. It is an Old Testament style of religion and it is wrong.
Are there current laws on the books against eating bacon, shrimp? How about getting tattooed or wearing our hair a certain way? Why aren’t your up in arms about these obvious OT sins?
Quietly go about pushing your agenda by walking the walk with a pleasant countenance, not by yelling and screaming “You’re going to Hell!”
This is where I think we should be. We obviously disagree.
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
JJ> [Homosexuality] is given no more importance than adultery, drunkeness, or slandering. Am I mistaken?
Yes, you are. Entire cities weren’t wiped out with fire for rampant drunkenness and slandering. Very few classes of sin had capital punishment as an offense under Mosaic law.
JJ> I think gays are born gay
You’re entitled to your opinion.
JJ> Now back to the New Testament…Jesus uttered not one word about homosexuality.
Incorrect. While He didn’t mention it explicitly, He did speak of Sodom and its sins. And not in a friendly or merciful way.
And that’s to say nothing of His basic ratification of the Decalogue and the Genesis view of marriage.
Some have speculated that the reason why you find nothing explicitly from His mouth on the topic is because He was among the Jewish people who had a zero tolerance policy on the subject. There were likely few, if any, public homosexuals in ancient Judea.
However, the apostles were among the Greeks and Romans who had them. Which is why you find active condemnation in the Pauline letters. It’s an interesting theory.
Let’s try this another way – can you find a quote from the mouth of Our Lord where He supports the practice of homosexuality or endorses civil law which tolerates it?
JJ> Why aren’t your up in arms about these obvious OT sins?
Because they no longer apply. The covenants with Abraham and his descendants were fulfilled, along with Mosaic law, except for the basic principles neatly espoused by the ten commandments. The old law (Decalogue excepted) was replaced with new teachings from Christ, as captured in scripture and handed down through His apostles and their successors.
Most Christians believe this and know it. I’m surprised, as a practicing Southern Baptist, you do not.
JJ> Quietly go about pushing your agenda … This is where I think we should be. We obviously disagree.
Yes, we disagree. You seem to think evangelization should be little more than whispered suggestions and discussed only behind closed church doors.
The irreligious also share that sentiment.
John Johnson Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Well…I’ll first start by asking you to get your nose out of the air. I almost laughed out loud when I read your last retort. There is no need for highbrowing here, anon-p.
I’m no Biblical scholar, but I’m no neophyte either…In fact, I was an Episcopalian acolyte when I was growing up. I switched to my wife’s Southern Baptist religion when we got married. I have turned down being a deacon several times over the years because I still have some radical viewpoints, like the ones shared here, but they still allow me to enter the doors and even asked me to serve as their Treasurer.
My younger brother and I grew up in a loving household. Reflecting back, I can remember even in the earliest years that my brother showed some effeminate tendencies when it came to choices he made with regards to toys and play. The entire family was athletically inclined, but not my brother. He was more attracted to arts, crafts and music. He was born gay. I am convinced of it, as is he.
Your inital post is much different than you last couple. Your comments still reflect an Old Testament mentality, even as your words try and deny it. Your take on how the OT and NT all fit together is your opinion, not mine. The apostles were not “in your face” radicals. Jesus mentioned not one word about homosexuality. I have heard, in fact, that the Hewbrew word for same is not found in the orginal Hebrew Bible. True or false? I don’t know. The point is, I am not arguing with you about the Bible calling it a sin; I’m just questioning you and others assigning it a higher “bad” level than drunkeness, adultery and other named sins.
With regards to how we promote ourselves…was Ghandi a quiet little lightweight. Did he go quietly into the night? Did he get the job done? Did people respect him for his non-violent, practice what you preach mode of getting his point across? Was he successful? We should mirror our march to draw people to our religion in the same manner. Based on the number of Christian church closings and rapidly declining membership, I would suggest that your methods just aren’t working very well.I would like to see us being much more inclusive (without watering down our core beliefs, and much less judgemental.
Futhermore, I agree with you that civil laws are based on moral laws. The debate today seems to be over whose moral laws have precedent over others. You seem to think that our Christian laws override others, but even though most of the founding fathers were Christians, our constitution was not written solely to protect Christian religious principals. Right or wrong?
Finally, I’ll repeat the “Love the sinner; hate the sin” synopsis of the NT. We aren’t showing much of that these days. Our actions show more of a “hate the sin, and the sinner” mentality …and, in doing so, we are, in fact, rapidly making the words “Chrisitan” and “hypocrite” synonymous.
This is my take on the subject, anon-p. It was not written to convert you. I have chosen to share it because I want others to know that all Christians don’t think like you do.
John Johnson Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I wrote the above post. Failed to load my name.
I will take this one step further and ask you to give me an example of all these New Testament references to homosexuality. The key words here, of course, are “New Testament”. What did Jesus have to say about it?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Nothing. Not a word.
He send plenty about treating others as you would want to be treated.
BCinBCS Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
@Anonymous at 1:39
I’m a Pastafarian and as a believer in the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster I do not have a dog in this fight but I do find other’s religious beliefs interesting.
In that vein, how do the Commandments “Thou shalt not kill” (#6) and Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (#9) “automatically exclude homosexuality”?
Just wondering.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 1:01 am
BC,
Catholics number the ten commandments differently.
Enjoy your pasta.
BCinBCS Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Thanks Anon-p, I didn’t know that about the Catholics. My nieces are Catholic, so I can ask them about it.
As an aside, though, don’t you think that the different way that religions handle the order of the Ten Commandments might be a metaphor for the different way that religions handle the gay issue?
BTW, the pasta is great – tender, somewhat pliable yet structural.
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
If there is a metaphor, I don’t see the connection.
The commandment numbering difference is a disagreement with labeling and grouping approaches, not substance.
et says:
So, we are backwards and intolerant if we don’t buy into the homosexual’s way of life when they don’t seem to be too tolerant of the method used of propagating our very race ?
Without us old fashioned dudes there would be no race.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 11:40 am
That’s what you got out of my post, ET? I stated absolutely nothing about your buying into anything. I suggested that it is none of our business what “they” do unless they are trying to force us to try it. That is not the case, is it? Remove social mandates from the political agenda…that is all I am suggesting.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
socials mandates cannot be removed from the democrat agenda, because they will then be exposed as the taxNspend dems that they are. Thats why the democrats fabricated their “war on wimmen”/”war on gays”/”war on minorities/racism” to keep the discussion off the stumbling economy and the ever increasing debt.
Bernake has now printed $1 trillion 4 years in a row to spend. Debt has grown $6 trillion under democrats.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
i dont think theres any danger of running out of us “old fashioned dudes” and i have yet to meet a gay person who is intolerant of a straight relationship.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anon-p, ever heard the expression, “Hate the sin, love the sinner”? I didn’t think so.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 1:07 am
Ever hear the phrase, WWJD?
Well, freaking out and flipping tables is a viable option.
Silence and complacence are sins, too.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:13 am
wait, joining the conversation late.
are you comparing jesus turning out the money-changers to contemporary efforts to ban gay marriage?
interesting. how do you feel about money-changers?
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:51 am
I’m not really making a strong comparison there. It was mostly for comedic relief.
Although, if somebody suggested an ATM be placed in the vestibule of my church, I’m sure the pastor would frown upon it.
Mr. Bill says:
Well I guess we will be able to marry our dog or sister soon.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 12th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Mr. Bill, I would suggest you go with the best looking one.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Where are you, annon-p? I was looking forward to your reply.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 12:25 am
I’m here. The paying job required my attention until now.
This blog is not really the place to get into a detailed religious discussion. But I couldn’t let you just put it out there unchallenged that the “private” religion approach is not only perfectly acceptable, but preferred.
It reminds me of the Cuomo/Kennedy approach. There’s a joke for that – their religion is so private, they don’t even impose it on themselves.
I’ll respond up above.
Reply »
Harley N. says:
“DOMA is another of the social issues that is killing Republicans.” Maybe so, but you do know DOMA was the Democrats’ idea, right? And that bill Clinton enthusiastically backed it?
Reply »
Pat Reply:
December 13th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Correct! But they’ve made a 180 since then, largely in response to Republicans doubling-down on anti-gay issues during the Bush era. Very similar to the Republican apostasy on individual mandates: they were for it, until the other guy was, then they were against it.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Democrats have three tenents they bring up to divert the discussion of their true agenda taxNspend and it’s the fictious “war on wimmen”/”racism”/”homophobia”.
Most are suckered by this and fall for it every time.
I don’t care what color your skin is, I don’t want to hear about who’s buggering you, and I’ve noticed right away women can bear children.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
I love how JBB put racism in quotes. Its not racism, its “racism”. Wow. Just wow.
Reply »
JK says:
Paul – You say that eventually, society will not restrict a “union of consenting adults”. Presumably you agree that this is the right thing for society to do. Hence, I presume that you would allow unions consisting of more than two people, something that is actually common today in some parts of the worlds and which has been historically a part of world societies since Biblical times. What about an adult brother and sister? OK for them also? Two adult brothers? A man and his adult daughter? Please explain why these are “legally” different (without using the word “moral”), or state that you concur that they are logical extensions of the “consenting adults” concept.
Reply »