References to the shenanigans of Kevin Swanson, the Religious Right figure who's currently being schmoozed with by GOP hopefuls Huckabee, Cruz, and Jindal (http://goo.gl/sCxTtM), led me to a rumor I'd managed to not hear before: that Disney's movie Frozen is all about coming out as a Lesbian.
To which some of you are saying, "Wha–?" and others of you are saying "Well, of course" (approvingly or disapprovingly).
The article linked to below seems to be one of the more prominent writings to have taken that theory and pounced on it as a proof that Disney is out to corrupt our kids. I poured through it looking for some actual concrete indications of why this was seen as a thing. Had I missed something watching the film? A hidden song, a coy reference, a rainbow flag over the ice palace, a guest appearance by Ellen, something concrete?
Nope.
Bottom line, Elsa is being accused of being a Lesbian because she:
1. Is rebellious 2. Is desperately hiding a secret that she fears will turn others against her 3. Has no boyfriend
This last one seems to be the most important. If Elsa doesn't have a boyfriend, then obviously she's gay.
Wha–?
So here's a cool thing about a good story: you can map your own feelings and experiences and meaning into it.
He o’er the words of Shakespeare A hundred hours spent; And found a million meanings That Shakespeare never meant. — Tom Pease
So some people watch Gone with the Wind and empathize with Ashley. Others picture themselves as Rhett Buttler. Still others follow along with Scarlett O'Hara — maybe about their own pursuit of love, maybe about times when they were hungry, maybe about a setback their family had when growing up, or maybe about that crazy ex-girlfriend they once had.
No, neither the book nor the movie was written about them. But the human experience is many-splendored, and there are ways to relate to each of the characters as aspects of one's own life, even if those aspects are different from those of the person in the next seat.
Could Elsa be a Lesbian? No particular reason why not. Can her experiences be taken as a metaphor in some fashion for the gay experience? I guess so. Apparently so, in fact, since both gay critics and actual gay people have read that meaning into it.
Is Frozen some sort of not-so-cryptic advancing of the "Gay Agenda" by Disney? Um … seems sort of unlikely.
I mean, turn it around. Is the theme of keeping a secret about yourself from others applicable in more than just a homosexual way? Is feeling rejected by your family and friends an experience only gay people go through? Do straight teens ever feel constrained by expectations and disapproval, and then break through into a moment of rebellion and independence where they blossom into who they were meant to be?
A look at the movies of the last, oh, six or seven decades argues otherwise.
Heck, I can look at Frozen and think of how I was unpopular as a teen, involved in goofy, geeky stuff, but how I eventually decided, "To heck with the high school social conventions as to what is acceptable stuff to be involved in: I'm a Trekkie and I'm proud of it! Let it go!"
I suspect a lot of people can relate to that story arc in their own lives without it touching on their sexual orientation.
But Elsa doesn't have a boyfriend!
That's the clincher argument. Read it again. Elsa must be gay because she doesn't have a boyfriend.
Not that she has a girlfriend. Or any hint of a girlfriend. Or any hint that she's ogling any girls. But she doesn't have a boyfriend, so something must be wrong.
Never mind that there's plenty of heterosexual relationship shenanigans going on with her sister. It's not like there's a lack of boys in the movie (good, bad, and indifferent), or that the only hints of romance we see are hot girl-on-girl action. There's none of that.
No, Elsa — who is busy dealing with a whole mess of problems and conflicts and difficulties in her one-half of the movie — doesn't have a boyfriend. What's wrong with her?
Yeah, that sounds more like several dozen other movies over the last several decades. "Honey, look at you, why are you so obsessed with your career / music / vocation — you want to grow up an old maid? Find a boy!"
Because it seems the only place a woman can find true fulfillment in her life, career, and super-powers is by being swept off her feet by a man. And if she isn't — well, she must be waiting to be swept off her feet by a woman. QED!
Except, of course, that's absurd.
Could Elsa be gay? Sure. There's no reason to think she isn't (and no reason to think she is). But the movie is not about Elsa's romantic life, any more than Finding Nemo is about finding Nemo a girlfriend.
If some Lesbians find Elsa a role model or inspiration, more power to them — again, that's the power of storytelling. But I really don't think that means it was the specific goal of Disney in producing the movie, whether you think such a goal is a laudable aspiration or a nefarious plot. It seems to me that interpreting a non-romance-driven female protagonist as some sort of conspiracy to promote the "Gay Agenda" says more about one's obsession with sex than about the character in question.
Assuming the survey results are i the general realm of accuracy, what I think you're seeing here is not the Creeping Spread of Teh Gayz, or Evil Recruitment by Sodomites, or Proof Positive that Homosexuality is a Choice. In a society (especially among younger cohorts) where same-sex attraction isn't subject to major legal and social punishment, people are able to answer more honestly (to others and themselves) these kinds of questions.
Call it the "Free Market of Orientation," if you like. You're free to seek the product — or products — you like with consenting adults.
So, yes, you're going to see an uptick in people who identify as something other than purely straight. You'll probably see an uptick in people who actually pursue relationships on that basis, too. That's not a matter of licentiousness or the collapse of morality as much as freedom, and a recognition that sexuality is a lot more complex of a subject than our political process has painted it to be.
I stopped (reluctantly, from a taste perspective) going to Chick-fil-A back in 2012 when it became clear that the company was involved in far-Right shenanigans, particularly with company profits going to fund anti-gay causes.
That controversy has died down some, but the Denver City Council, faced with a franchise application at Denver International Airport, has had concerns over it bring the proposal to a halt.
On the one hand, I'd rather the social aspects of the matter were handled more directly by people choosing (or not) to visit the hypothetical Chick-fil-A. Having the government penalize someone for their religious / political opinion is not a good thing (whether I agree with that opinion or not).
On the other hand, the government is involved here, not as censor, but as landlord and marketer. It may not be legit for them to say, "We don't like your beliefs so we will not do business with you," but is it legit for them to say, "We are concerned with how this reflects on the airport and how some visitors might feel about it," and reject it on that basis?
(Leaving aside the service level concerns over Chick-fil-A being closed on Sundays.)
I dunno. I just know that if they open up, that will be one more place where I don't go to Chick-fil-A.
The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld (again) the ruling that a Lakewood baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple wanting to celebrate their (Massachussetts) wedding is guilty of discrimination under Colorado law.
'The appeals court wrote that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act "does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation."
Making a cake for a same-sex couple does not force the cake shop to convey a message supporting marriages between same-sex couples. But the law does prohibit the bakery from "picking and choosing its customers based on their sexual orientation."'
Yes. This.
Religious disapproval of something doesn't trump the law. "Free exercise of religion" doesn't mean being able to play the God card to avoid doing anything you don't like. Whether it's paying taxes that go to things you don't approve of, to hiring someone whose race your creed thinks you shouldn't be mixing with, to baking a cake for someone whose marital practices you don't think are morally correct — the right of religious objection is not absolute. If it were, would there be any legal barrier to human sacrifice, or smiting the heathen, or all the religious savagery of Europe that the Founders sought so diligently to avoid?
If Mr Phillips cannot bring himself to bake cakes for gay individuals — or blacks, or Jews, or veterans, or people in wheelchairs, or women — for reasons he considers religious, perhaps he should consider a change in business. That's not nice, or easy, but nobody ever said having the courage of your convictions was either.
Rick Santorum, as interviewed by Rachel Maddow last night. Two thoughts:
1. Yes, we live in an America where the "American people" (or, more precisely, a majority of same) have the final word. And if the American people want to legally ban marriage equality, or homosexuality, or pretty much anything you can name (alcohol, Christianity, wearing white after Labor Day) … by amending the US Constitution, which was intentionally set up as being something deucedly difficult to do. Because making fundamental legal changes at a whim is an awful way to run a country.
(The other way they can is equally difficult — over time, the majority can elect enough presidents and confirming senators to get enough Supreme Court justices on board to rule the way they want on an issue. Santorum kind of alluded to this, and it's a tactic the Right has been fairly successful with over time, aided and abetted by GOP gerrymandering in 2010.)
2. The idea of Congress just passing laws that won't pass constitutional muster because maybe the justices will have changed their mind … is exactly what I would expect a Republican member of our present Congress to suggest, given how they've legislated over the past several years.
3. Santorum seems to suggest that we shouldn't deem sexual orientation as genetic because that opens up the possibility of abortions to select against it, which he thinks would be a bad idea. And I agree that would be a really bad reason to have an abortion, but it's also a bad reason to make a scientific judgment.
I have no doubt that Santorum will not be the GOP nominee this year. That his ideas are out there at the moment and part of the GOP debate (and, honestly, not drawing any criticism from within the GOP) is a lot more bothersome. Maybe, after this election cycle, he'll go away.
In the wake of the Obergefell ruling, conservatives in Congress have whipped up a lovely little bill called the "First Amendment Defense Act" (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2802). Under the banner of religious liberty, it basically provides a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for any "person" — including non-profit and for-profit companies — who breaks any labor law or regulation if they are acting based on a belief in "traditional marriage". More specifically.
'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.'
Want to fire that guy in Accounting because he had the nerve to (legally) marry another guy last weekend? Have at it. Want to dump that gal on the assembly line because she's (legally) pregnant but doesn't have a ring on her finger? No problem. Just be morally outraged, thump your Bible a few times, and you're covered under FADA.
An even better irony is that the bill is being touted as promoting "tolerance" (see http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/16/want-religious-freedom-then-lets-pass-the-first-amendment-defense-act/ as an example). Its preamble even notes, "Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society."
I.e., if you let us discriminate based on our religious beliefs, then everyone will have to tolerate us. Even if we don't have to tolerate people who do naughty things in our eyes.
It seems unlikely this bill will actually pass (or even get out of committee), but it's engendering a ton of press in the right-wing circuit, as well as calls for donations to ostensibly lobby for its passage, all under the martyrdom banner of "religious freedom." Does anyone else see the irony of a "religious freedom" law that doesn't protect religious freedom in general, but two specific religious dogma in particular? What about my religious belief in transubstantiation? Shouldn't I be able to fire one of those dirty Baptists who denies the presence of the Lord in the consecrated bread and wine without fearing government retaliation? Why not? Why is my particular religious belief less worthy of protection from the evils of the Obamanation than these? Why won't you tolerate my beliefs?!
In a 3-2 decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which oversees federal discrimination actions — says that workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title VII, barring discrimination based on sex.
Which, after a moment of thinking, makes sense. If you decide to fire a John because he's dating Bob, but wouldn't fire Susan if she were dating Bob, then you're treating John differently from Susan _based on John's sex._
Now, that said, this merely means that the EEOC will now bring discrimination suits in court based on this decision. It will remain for the federal courts to agree.
One interesting note is the reference in the decision to the 1998 SCOTUS ruling in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., which extended Title VII protection even against harassment by the same sex. (It was a unanimous decision, with the opinion written by Scalia of all people.):
'We see no justification in the statutory language or our precedents for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII. As some courts have observed, male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed. Title VII prohibits "discriminat[ion] … because of … sex" in the "terms" or "conditions" of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.'
It's an odd thing for a so-called originalist like Scalia to write, but there it is, and it seems to provide a clear justification for this EEOC ruling.
… helped crystallize the realization that we all select / affect accents and intonations and vocabulary and such to align with the group(s) we identify with. People get a baseline imprint from their surroundings, but sometimes reject that local norm in whole or in part for how they want to identify with others. I know I, myself, latch onto words and pronunciations that are not standard Colorado (or California), just because of the associations I make with them and the "tribal" affiliation I want to express (e.g., "Hey, look, I'm an Anglophile and pedant and proud of it!").
Given that, it's not at all surprising that there's a "gay guy" voice, just as there's an "academic" voice or a "just plain folk down-home" voice or a "black" voice or "rich people" voice or a [insert region] voice, or a …. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing. There's nothing particularly natural about any given accent, just, at most, a sense of what is majority / normative. The only issue I see is the degree to which we let such lingual tribalism divide us, the extent to which it is something that is used to define Others ("You sound different, therefore you are bad") vs defining Us ("Hey, I sound like you, we have a connection!").
If there was one person, Bryan, whom I could count on to approach the issue of religious liberty in a diverse society in a calm, insightful, and level-headed fashion, I knew it … well, it probably wouldn’t be you. Your screed at OneNewsNow exemplifies the best of compassionate, contemplative, and Christ-like attitude that has prevailed in this debate thus far.
Christians are the new Dred Scott
Or not.
Frankly, Bryan, I don’t see the resemblance.
So, tell us, Bryan, how are Christians — a majority population in this country, mind you — suddenly in the position of Dred Scott, victim of a pernicious Supreme Court ruling leading up to the Civil War, which stripped him and his family and, in fact, all African-Americans, from a claim to citizenship in the US, and declaring slavery as a constitutional right that could not be regulated by the federal government? Do tell!
Religious liberty is being squashed in America at a frightening pace. The Supreme Court decision tyrannically and unconstitutionally imposing sodomy-based marriage on the entire country against the will of its citizens has only accelerated the trend to warp speed.
Whoa, a lot to unpack there, Bryan. Let’s see …
Well, we’ll assume the “squashing” of religious liberty will be spelled out further on.
The 14th Amendment … you may have heard of it, Bryan.
Whence the Supreme Court’s tyranny, though, or its unconstitutional actions? It found that, under the clear language of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (established, ironically, to protect former slaves like Dred Scott and his family), that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law: that neither the federal nor the state governments can treat people differently without a compelling reason for doing so.
Both the argument and the power of the SCOTUS to make such a ruling is Constitutional Law 101, Bryan. Railing against it as “tyrannical” or “unconstitutional” is about as coherent as, say, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue.
Your labeling of same-sex marriage as “sodomy-based marriage” is a charming nuance, but a bit goofy. It’s like calling traditional heterosexual marriage “vaginal intercourse-based marriage”. If that’s the primary foundation of your particular marriage, Bryan, my condolences to Mrs. Fischer.
Not quite tyrannizing over the entire nation
Your analysis of “imposing … on the entire country against the will of its citizens” is also interesting, Bryan, from both truthiness and a propriety perspectives. First, it’s clearly not an imposition on the entire country; there were already states that had chosen to support marriage equality, and others that accepted the rulings of federal and state courts in the matters without pitching a hissy-fit. There’s also been plenty of indication, from public opinion polls that, despite the rush of anti-gay marriage laws several years back, a majority of the nation (slim, but there) actually now favors marriage equality.
Are there particular states and regions that aren’t gung-ho on the prospect? Sure. But that brings up an important consideration, Bryan: the Supreme Court (any court, for that matter) is not out to do what is popular and widely supported. Indeed, when it comes to civil rights, that’s when they are least needed. Instead, they are to rule based on the law. If the courts worked on popularity … well, then we wouldn’t really need them, as we already have legislatures.
The problem of the shrinkage of religious liberty was bad enough before the Supreme Court meddled in it, and now religious liberty is on pace to vanish any place outside the four walls of a church building or a home. And it may not even be safe there.
Yes, clearly you are being oppressed in your ability to speak out and worship as you choose, Bryan. QED.
Liberal pundit Sally Kohn, after attacking me, Todd Starnes, and Rod Dreher by name in a piece in the Daily Beast, expresses her fervent wishes for our complete marginalization: “Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized? I sure hope so.”
Social ostracism is one thing. This means not being invited to parties and social clubs and being snubbed by neighbors.
But political ostracism is another thing entirely. Political ostracism means being excluded from the political sphere. It means being excluded from participatory democracy. As I wrote last week, it means in time that Christians will be forbidden to hold public office, or serve in any public capacity, including fire chief (ask Kelvin Cochran of Atlanta all about that) or even school teacher.
You know that whole “personal responsibility” thing that conservatives are so hep about …?
Ostracism is generally a social thing. It’s people deciding, “Y’know, Joe-Bob over there is an outspoken racist. I’m not going to invite him to my party. I’m also not going to vote for him for city council.” That’s not a law thing, Bryan, with Joe-Bob being shot by police when he tries to vote. Instead, that’s how democracy works.
Fifty years ago, an openly gay man would have been socially and politically ostracized. Heck, fifty years, an openly Catholic man faced political ostracization because of his religion. You’ve certainly suggested that gays, and Muslims, to name two populations, should be ostracized. Heck, you’ve gone further and suggested that Muslims should be required to renounce their religion or be denied civil rights (including freedom of religion, which you’ve asserted in the past doesn’t apply to Muslims anyway). Before you start accusing others of having motes in their eyes, you might consider that beam in our own.
Um … no, not it’s not.
As for Mr Cochran, when you are a manager over personnel, you are required not to create a hostile environment for your employees. You can’t hang Penthouse centerfolds on the brak room wall. You can’t use racial epithets in the locker room. You can’t make jokes about Jews at the water cooler. And, surprise-surprise, you can’t hand out your self-written book talking about how homosexuals are naughty and evil and abominations before the Lord to your employees, and proclaim the goal of your department to establish God’s Kingdom on Earth.
Subscribing to pro-homosexual orthodoxy will become the new criterion for participating in society at large.
Just like subscribing to pro-Japanese-are-humans-too orthodoxy is (in most civilized places in the America) a criterion for participation in society at large. Egads.
Readers are by now familiar with Aaron and Melissa Klein, who were fined $135,000 by a bureaucrat (no trial by jury, no judge, no right to confront accusers in open court, etc.) for politely declining to violate their own Christian conscience in the conduct of their business.
Ah, the “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” case. I might suggest this as a bit less jaundiced rendition of the case and a discussion of the “politely declining.”
Sweet Cakes
No, the fines were not in a court of law. They were, like quite a bit of law, based on administrative law and regulations. A company that get fined for refusing to hire women? Yeah, that’s administrative. A company that gets fined for dumping toxic liquids down the drain? That’s administrative, too.
As to the size of the fine — well, that same agency recently gave an even larger award to a Christian woman whose boss was harassing her into going to a Scientology conference. I didn’t hear you criticizing that “bureaucrat” for not holding a trial by jury, judge, or open court, Bryan.
To add constitutional insult to constitutional injury, this bureaucrat slapped a gag order on the Kleins so they are not allowed even to talk to anybody about this travesty. Their right to the free exercise of religion, gone. Their right to free speech, gone. Their right to free association, gone.
In other words, this bureaucrat just issued a binding decree that the First Amendment applies to everybody in America except Christians. Christians, according to this man, have no First Amendment rights of any kind.
For what it’s worth, Bryan, Oregon would have fined and “gagged” these people, too.
Yes, that would indeed be an outrage, Bryan — if true. In fact, the judge ordered “Sweet Cakes” to not advertise that they would not serve gays; that’s part of Oregon law, and it’s the same thing that keeps a racist from putting a “Whites Only” sign on the restaurant window. There is nothing stopping the Kleins from talking to whomever they want about the legal case, their Christian beliefs, etc.
A baker in Colorado, Jack Phillips, is going to court today for similarly declining to use his expressive gifts to bake a cake which included a message of support for same-sex marriage. For his effrontery, having the nerve to actually believe the First Amendment applied to him, he too has been fined, ordered to bake cakes that violate his conscience, sent to re-education camp, and ordered to provide quarterly “compliance reports” to show that he is sufficiently servile to the lords of political correctness.
Yes. He violated the law, the same as if he decided God told him not to bake cakes for Women, or Baptists, or the elderly, or Chinese. Claiming it’s a religious belief doesn’t trump every other consideration, any more than if he decided that Jesus wanted him to kill all the Muslims.
So, yes, he’s been told if he’s baking cakes for straight couples, he has to bake cakes for gay couples. He needs to train his employees about public accommodation law. And he has to demonstrate that he’s complying with the law he has to provide reports on the people he turned away and on what basis.
I have said from the very beginning of the debate about special rights based on sexual deviancy that it is a zero sum game. Every advance of the homosexual agenda has to come at the expense of religious liberty. Every time the homosexual cause advances, religious liberty is forced into retreat.
Remarkably enough, Bryan, life and liberty aren’t quite as clear-cut as this.
Y’know, Bryan, there is, remarkably enough, a nugget of truth there. To the extent that someone has religious beliefs in opposition to gays, rights and protections recognized for gays restricts how those religious beliefs can be expressed.
But that’s true for anyone. The First Amendment pushed forward the “Baptist agenda,” meaning you couldn’t run Baptists out of town on a rail or throw them in jail for not paying a preaching fee. It infringed on the “religious liberty” of the previously established churches and their members. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed on the religious liberties of people opposed to the “black agenda” and the “Jew agenda” by preventing discrimination in employment and public accommodation.
The more we see ourselves as a society, the more we value freedom and liberty for all, the “liberty” of the majority to keep people out of society is diminished. That seems to me, by and large, to be a good thing. In the end, it’s not a zero sum game because we all, win, both from the benefits of diversity and because, in one way or another, we are all minorities.
Religious liberty will only at last find refuge inside the four walls of church buildings, if it is even allowed there. Tax-exempt status may soon be stripped from every church that will not toe the line, churches may be forced to host gay weddings, and pastors may be forced to conduct them.
Pastors that teach a biblical view of homosexuality from the pulpit may soon be brought up on hate speech and hate crimes charges. While you may think this is an exaggerated fear, it most certainly is not. It’s already happened in Sweden and has happened to street preachers in the UK. It’s only a matter of time before it happens here.
Because if there are re-education camps to be opened, Bryan, you know who they’ll be opened by.
Yes, Bryan, we know, and next come the re-education camps and the mandatory gay marriages. Let me know when it does happen here (as opposed to, say, after the Loving decision, which similarly and controversially said that states could not prevent interracial marriage, even though many citizens opposed such a decision, and many people spoke out about how it violated their religious beliefs to mix the races). Pastors have never been forced to perform a sanctified wedding (or any other sacrament) by law. Nor have they been silenced for refusal to do so. (Yes, yes, I read the Sweden case above, and disagree with it — but until Sweden takes us over, I’m not worried.)
Jazz Shaw, a sodomy-based marriage supporter who writes for the supposedly conservative website Hot Air, is stunned at the rapidity with which religious liberty is vanishing in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. He did not see it coming, and now it’s too late.
“I don’t regret my long held position that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, but I admit yet again that I didn’t foresee how wide the litigants would push the door in the other direction if they prevailed in proving that it was…
“When two ‘rights’ conflict in the eyes of the court, one of those sets of rights will have to give way. And the courts have shown repeatedly that they are generally willing to be a reflection of political winds of change rather than adherence to founding principles. The way the breeze is blowing today, if it comes down to a choice between that crusty old freedom of religion and the newly discovered right to marriage, the new broom sweeps clean. It’s a very ugly thing to watch unfolding before our eyes.”
Well, Mr. Shaw, we did see it coming. This is what we warned you about from the beginning of this controversy.
If by this you mean that the freedom to be a bigot in employment, service, or any other endeavor, whether regarding gays or women or other faiths or races, using religion as the excuse, is likely to give way, then, yeah, I think that’s probably accurate. And the only ugliness I see, Bryan, is from the folk who think Jesus gives them the authority to snub others.
The abominable new reality is that Christians have been stripped of every meaningful constitutional right under the First Amendment.
Yes, Bryan, an enslaved minority man stripped of his citizenship and freedom is precisely the same as members of the majority religion being restrained from discrimination in public accommodation.
Let me know when you are arrested for your column, Bryan. I’ll pitch in for your defense fund.
Bottom line: the Christian man has no rights which the liberal man is bound to respect. We are the new Dred Scott.
I have to say, Bryan, the “we are Dred Scott” theme is a bit fresher than the “the other side are Nazis” shtick you’ve used for years, but no less offensive.
And, though I know you’d hate to agree to it, “liberal” is not the antonym for “Christian.” You no more speak for every Christian than I do.
Again, be sure and let me know when that knock on the door in the middle of the night comes, Bryan. You’ll be in my prayers.
It's not just a matter of so-called political correctness, but of conveying, accurately, what one means. As a cause, I prefer the term "marriage equality," as that captures what is at the heart of the matter. When talking about the event, however, or the how to refer to the married state, where the genders of the people is considered germane, I tend to go with "same-sex marriage" vs "gay marriage" (since the marriage is same-sex, not gay), though that makes it sound different from marriage (which, the point is, it is not), so when it doesn't seem too awkward, I'll refer to "marriage between a same-sex couple" or "marriage of a gay couple."
"Same-gender marriage" might work, too, but that starts getting into sensitivities and debate over gender meanings, so it probably clouds the issue.
Ultimately, as noted, I think it will be (and should be) just "marriage". But since marriage between two people of the same sex is currently under separate discussion, choosing distinctive (but accurate) terminology is important.
Gay Marriage? Same-Sex Marriage? How Should We Talk About Marriage Equality?
As the Supreme Court prepares to hand down a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, how should we refer to the matrimonial institution they are poised to accept or deny? The front-runner terms are “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage,” often used interchangeably. The question has real stakes—in politics, every word counts….
People are moving to Texas because of its anti-gay stance? Sounds fine to me. Please, let's concentrate them in one place, minimize their national political power, and then sadly nod our heads when they decide to secede again.
This article looks at some mass social changes and their timeline of acceptance (based on state laws then federal laws/rulings), including women's suffrage, abortion, prohibition, interracial marriage, and now same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization.
This Is How Fast America Changes Its Mind
As the Supreme Court considers extending same-sex marriage rights to all Americans, we look at the patterns of social change that have tranformed the nation.
It happens so often that not only is it approaching cliché status, but makes me really wonder about some of those other, most stridently anti-gay voices. And is it that the only way to advance in the GOP is to denounce people like (secretly) yourself, or is it just self-loathing, or what?
There are all sorts of threads going on here — about tourism and the vision of what a place stands for and fear of change. But those strike me as a separate matter from the anti-discrimination law in question. Unless they are really looking to draw Christian tourists specifically as "The Town Where Its Okay to Discriminate Against Gay People."
I find this essay fascinating; the author is far more conflicted about gay relationships than I am, certainly, but the conclusion he reaches is, to my mind, a critical one.
'Perhaps now is the time for Christians to focus more on our responsibilities than our rights. Our responsibility is to love others like Christ. Our responsibility is to lay down our lives for another. Our responsibility is to give grace with same reckless abandon that put Christ on the cross. Our responsibility is to comfort the hurting, mend the brokenhearted, and stand up for the oppressed – even if we disagree with their theology, lifestyle, and choices. In this case, our responsibility is to listen. Which may mean our rights have to take a back seat.'
Which calls to mind (through some odd veering and weaving) 1 Corinthians 8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+8&version=NRSV), which focuses on dietary laws, but has the interesting passage, "Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." Just because one has the right to something doesn't mean that exercising that right is always the correct thing to do.
In Paul's case, he's referring to eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols — something that's okay for a Christian, he asserts, but that might cause a weaker or less enlightened brother to "stumble" into sin. I have to wonder if a Christian, who feels righteously entitled to freely exercise their religion and so decline to serve a gay individual or couple in some way might not similarly provide a cover for someone who similarly discriminates out of fear or hatred or disgust to stumble in acting on their non-religious passions.
Christianity has never been obsessed with standing on its rights. That's largely been because, for the past 1600-odd years, that hasn't been an issue (except to claim them against other persecuting Christians). Perhaps those of us who claim to follow Christ should consider carefully what demanding the religious right to discriminate means for our faith in the future.
The Bible-based laundry list in the article of reasons not to serve someone at your place of business is amusing, but it serves another point: such discrimination seems highly unlikely to happen because, well, you couldn't stay in business, right? Exclude divorcees, people with tattoos, anyone who illegitimate (or has illegitimacy in their family tree going back generations)? Potential customers would laugh in your face (or spit in it) for asking, and your doors would shortly close.
No, the only time such discrimination works is when a majority chooses to take a "principled" stand against a minority — where it won't hurt too much, won't alienate too many others, won't overly damage the bottom line, where there are plenty of Our Kind around to fill in the gaps and maybe even reward us for our moral behavior with additional custom.
That's a big part of what's pernicious about the "religious freedom" law in Indiana, and, to similar laws when proposed: they provide a vehicle for not just (to be charitable) for person religious expression, but for the majority to safely discriminate against a minority who can't strike back, e.g., gays.
It's not a sign of moral courage, but of bullying.
"Federal court rulings? We don't need no stinking federal court rulings!" Because state nullification worked so well last time.
And for such (pardon me) bullshit rationales:
The Alabama court ruled state bans on gay marriage aren't discriminatory since they ban both men and women from marrying people of the same sex, and it said the laws have a rational basis because they are meant to recognize and encourage ties "between children and their biological parents."
And laws against blacks and whites intermarrying weren't discriminatory because they applied to all blacks and whites. And, in a surprise move, Alabama will halting all adoption proceedings, too, _and_ requiring all new marriages to show offspring within two years or be declared null and void.
Yeesh.
Alabama Supreme Court halts gay-marriage licenses
The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, saying a previous federal ruling that gay-marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution does not preclude them from following state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
So there's the whole "We don't serve their kind here" kind of discrimination. And there's the "I feel that to bake you a wedding cake would make me complicit in your sin" kind of discrimination.
But for a doctor to refuse treatment? And not just treatment of, say, a gay patient, but of the baby of a lesbian couple?
And to do so based on "much prayer" (coupled with an odd "I would never judge" addendum)?
I'm really trying to figure how this Christian (presumably, in context) can reconcile this action, not just with her medical oath, but with Jesus own words. From the Parable of the Good Samaritan (http://goo.gl/GBGuGR), to Matthew 25:31-46 (http://goo.gl/3g4Ie7), this just seems so antithetical to Christian teaching, no matter what one feels about whether homosexual behavior is sinful.
I can understand hate. Or fear. Or revulsion. Or a desire to stay ceremonially pure. I just don't understand how Dr. Roi can turn that into a prayerful Christian action.
Doctor refuses treatment of same-sex couple’s baby
“The first thing Dr. Karam said was ‘I’ll be your doctor, I’ll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won’t be able to care for Bay,” Jami said.
