Get E-Mail Updates

The Sad State of Dialogue on Civil Unions

I am an evangelical Christian who attends church regularly, so I was surprised to see a worship service on the grounds of the Hawaii state capitol this past Sunday. What struck me even more was the purpose for the service itself: to attempt to prevent the state of Hawaii from granting equal civil rights to members of our society.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage. My interest was piqued when I heard of my own home state of California's passage of Proposition 8. So when I received an invite by Facebook to a public hearing before Hawaii's House Judiciary committee to discuss House Bill 444 (HB444), I enthusiastically clicked "will attend."

Basically, HB444 extends the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union. For the most part, I am still undecided about how I feel concerning same-sex marriage, but that may be due to my diminished view of the state's role in sanctioning marriage in general. It seems to me that renaming a legally recognized intimate relationship to allow the religious-industrial-complex to retain its continued hold on the title "marriage" could be a decent compromise in the eyes of the law. I was (and admittedly may remain) very uninformed on the rationale for supporting or opposing the measure, so I was expecting an invigorating debate.

What I got was something much less. The opponents of the bill relied primarily on a 1998 vote to amend the state's constitution, which defined marriage as being between a man and woman. Furthermore, at least two opponents stated it was simply against their party's platform to approve civil unions (way to think for yourselves, folks).

What I found entirely unacceptable, as a citizen and especially as an evangelical, were a few self-described Christians basing their opposition on the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of people "like that." For those who have succumbed to the misconception that Sodom and Gomorrah's downfall was caused by homosexuals, I turn your attention beyond Genesis 18 and 19 (which indicates simply that 10 righteous people could not be found) to Ezekiel (16:49-51), where the Lord says that Israel's sin was worse than Sodom's:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done (emphasis added).

Furthermore, under closer scrutiny of Genesis 18 and 19, one will find that sexual immorality is nowhere described as the cause of the downfall of the city, but merely as a condition present at its destruction. Instead of proof-texting our beliefs, perhaps we may try walking humbly alongside our neighbors, honoring the Image within each of us regardless of our orientation. Shouldn't we allow fellow Image-bearers to sort out their OWN salvation with fear and trembling? Must we insist on sorting it out FOR them with fear and trembling?

As for the belief that such a practice "destroys the fabric of society," I am not sure that it ranks at all close to threats such as poverty, violence, and consumerism. Let's focus some of our energy there before wasting such precious resources on things like Prop 8 (the amount spent on that bill only failed to exceed the spending for the actual race for president).

HB444 currently is before our state senate, approaching its final reading. The bill's opponents are mounting a last minute go-for-broke campaign of calls and e-mails. It is my hope that their talking points have evolved past comparing the morality of same-sex couples to pedophilia, rape, and polygamy (yes, that did in fact occur in the public hearing). If it passes, Hawaii will become only the fifth state to allow civil unions. I personally support the measure, though I am not certain that I even support the government's jurisdiction in such intimate spiritual matters like marriage to begin with. However, seeing as the state has already sanctioned unions between two individual citizens, it stands to follow that such recognition never be granted or withheld based solely on race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Too often, well-intentioned biblical literalism has justified all kinds of evil committed by the state, not the least of which being slavery, the oppression of women, and total war. I do not doubt that each protester at the Capitol Sunday was sincere, nor do I doubt the sincerity of those who decried abolitionism as working against the will of God. I only doubt their moral courage and biblical literacy. To the impartial observer, it should be clear that civil unions restore justice to our society by providing equity under the law. It is my hope that our state legislators recognize this as well and vote accordingly, but ultimately I hope the church is able to learn from her troubled past and move forward with contrite hearts.

Logan LaituriLogan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and has co-founded a faith-based veterans assistance initiative called Centurion's Purse, which seeks to provide financial and spiritual relief to fellow service members in need. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

i fully support you in not responding, i just thought it was in response to the feeling of being pigeonholed by the framing, which i know you are too able and generous to be confined by that. i think your point about "manifest[ing] a loving compassion greater than our judgments" is pointing in the same direction of the predicament i named. i like the way you said it, and i appreciate that immense honesty.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-27-2009 @ 8:09am

I bought my computer from Marcion

by: BlueDeacon

03-05-2009 @ 3:13pm

God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah ...

Biblically incorrect. Not homosexuality proper but haughtiness brought down those cities, and in fact those weren't even the only two places targeted.

by: WaveTossed

02-26-2009 @ 4:23pm

As a libertarian-inclined Gay person, I believe that the government should stay out of marriage/civil unions between consenting adults altogether. Marriages/civil unions/whatever should be private contracts between the consenting adults involved. Divorces, child custody arrangements, property, etc. can be spelled out specifically in such private contracts. Breaches of the provisions of private contracts can be handled by the judiciary (a legitimate government function).

However, as a practical person, it looks like government is going to stay involved in private affairs between consenting adult partners. In that case, perhaps ALL such partnerships should be labeled "civil unions" and let "marriage" be defined by the religious institutions involved according to their beliefs.

On another marriage-related issue: I have found people opposed to all and any Gay relationships to the point where they cry out "they are damned to eternal perdition" and even would advocate the death penalty for Gays. Some of these same people have no qualms whatsoever about heterosexual marriages between adult older people and teen-agers or children.

I have not heard any such outcry against these sorts of abusive child "marriages" from too many of those who scream and shout about consenting adults in same-gender relationships. This sort of hypocracy rises up to Heaven. Jesus told us, from the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 18: "5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Pretty strong words about offending or abusing a child.

As for loving relationships among adults, Jesus gave us the Two Great Commandments. Matthew 22: "37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " Nothing here about loving any neighbors only if they are of a different gender. The words are "Love your neighbor."

by: canucklehead

02-27-2009 @ 6:01pm

no, that was Marconi

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-26-2009 @ 4:31pm

Gotta love the unattributed two-word quote -- "like that". God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah -- or at least those are the words that somebody, "like that" or not, wants to put in the mouths of gay marriage opponents.

If Logan Laituri wants to know why the debate over gay marriage is so uncivil, he might want to take a look in the mirror. Pretending to be undecided while butchering the arguments of gay marriage opponents is a total cheap shot.

Next time, try quoting whole sentences, and see if you can attach them to actual people who uttered them. You might find that the dialogue is more productive.

LV

by: neuro_nurse

02-26-2009 @ 4:57pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

I sincerely hope that you are speaking in hyperbole.

"As for the belief that such a practice "destroys the fabric of society," I am not sure that it ranks at all close to threats such as poverty, violence, and consumerism."

Spending so much time and energy fixating on a peripheral issue is a way of making a lot of noise, convincing oneself that s/he is 'doing something' without accomplishing anything (other than making oneself look like a jackass), while conveniently ignoring real suffering.

Personally, I find consumerism to be one of the most destructive forces in our country. I can't see how homosexuality/same-sex unions is anywhere near as evil as making a buck off of sexualizing prepubescent girls.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 5:23pm

Been dare. Done dat. Based on our experience in Canada where gay marriage was legalized in 2005, the issue is simply a red herring for those who would have us still believe that the foundations of the Roman empire crumbled in large part due to rampant homosexuality. Regardless of which side of the issue one comes down on, most of us here were simply happy that all the public attention to who's doing what with whom in their private life went away so that we could watch the evening news again w/o having to explain to our six-year olds what "buggery" and "sodomy" was.

The fact of the matter is that, at least in what is visible in daily life in Canada, NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed. Gay couples are not walking down the street hand-in-hand, arm-in-arm, and, to date, no one has been arrested for attempting to sodomize a minor on the street corner. Informed Americans do well to realize that much of the rhetoric regarding the end of civilization as we know it should gay marriage or civil-unions be legalized is speculative at best and simple fear-mongering at worst. From what I can tell, Jesus wasn't much into either of those pursuits.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 5:35pm

I would be pleased to comment to Logan's post although I am having a little trouble deciding which point to address:

Equal civil rights
Civil unions
Same-sex marriage
State's role in marriage
religious-industrial-complex hold on 'marriage'
Constitutional definition of marriage
Debating points
Why Sodom was judged
Proof texting beliefs
Walking humbly with our neighbors
Honoring the image of God within each person
Freedom of 'Image-bearers'
The fabric of society
Poverty
Violence
Consumerism
State recognition of unions based on race, sex, or ethnicity
Well-intentioned Biblical literalism justifying state evil
Slavery
Oppression of women
Total war
Lack of moral courage of protesters
Equity under the law

And before I could get to these, WaveTossed adds:

Consenting adults
Private contracts
Death penalty for gays
damnation too eternal perdition
Heterosexual marriage between adults and children
Lack of outcry about abusive hetersexual marriages
Command to "Love your neighbor" legitimating same-gender intimacy

I am not sure I can comment on any of these points if my point of view on one is going to be inferred as having meanings ranging from the destruction of human society to using the Bible to support Total War.

Logan, you raise the issue of the nature of the debate when you went expecting to hear an invigorating debate. You heard nothing of the kind. So does that mean invigorating debate is not possible???

The conclusion of your post is that there is one conclusion available to the impartial observer. The other choice is to take an uncourageous stance for slavery, oppressing women, total war, and something other than your impartial conclusion.

I appreciate clearly stated positions with clear rationales. My observation on this blog is that the original piece helps shape the nature of the subsequent comments and dialogue. When you stake out territory that pits "my conclusion" versus "evil" -- it doesn't leave a whole lot of room. It is somewhat like the amount of space you saw the witnesses at the hearing to have.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 6:23pm

"NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed"

Then why make the change?

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 6:35pm

c'mon, i would not think you would perceive being boxed in so easily. or is this a thorny issue where the tide has turned, where instead of the christians telling others to be more loving and accepting, it is others telling the christians to be more loving and accepting? that is a predicament indeed, and perhaps the reason for this response. whether you think your stance is the most loving and accepting (or whatever other measure you take for being the most appropriate christian response) one or not, i think we all must be mindful of the turning of the tables on this issue for many christians, where someone else has claimed the base ethic of "love god & love neighbor." so the response must either be more nuanced ('loving god & neighbor requires this position because..." which i have yet to see much of) or more blunt & unsatisfying ('it is in the bible!'), though it often passes right over these & moves right into demagoguery. i understand that you feel attacked here, but would you agree that maybe this predicament is a cause of heightened sensitivity? i am always interested to hear from christians who oppose civil unions among loving and consenting adults as to how the enactment of civil unions (or even gay marriage in our churches) would somehow do personal, spiritual or social harm like other things we continue to consider sinful. maybe you think logan was heavy-handed in his approach, but i wouldn't think that cause for taking your toys & leaving the sandbox, though your point of the original piece shaping the nature of the comments is not lost on me. i just read it as a guy working out his feelings on the issue, not as a rebuke of people who disagree w/ him. peace to you,

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 6:45pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

Of course, it's the conservatives who only focus on abortion and same-sex marriage.

"What I found entirely unacceptable, as a citizen and especially as an evangelical, were a few self-described Christians basing their opposition on the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of people "like that." "

Since "like that" is in quotes, why not attribute the quote to it's source and place it in context? Unless, of course, Logan just made it up, in which case it shouldn't have quotes around it.

Either way, Logan is only tackling the weakest possible argument in opposition to gay marriage. The strongest arguments are these:

1) Legalized gay marriage is only the first step toward eradicating a church's to recognize or not recognize a couple as married. Gay rights leaders have admitted as much. If Prop 8 were overturned, step 2 would be to send gay couples to mormon churches to insist upon a ceremony. Step 3 would be to head to Saddleback to do the same.

Step 4 is to work to legally restrict dissemination of scripture, on the basis that it argues against "civil rights". Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one.

2) Since the above actually creates a constitutional crisis, the only way to reconcile the competing interests will be to end governmental recognition of marriage. While this might be inevitable, and perhaps even desirable, it validates the weaker (though more influential) argument that gay marriage represents a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

Taking on the Sodom and Gomorrah canard is fine, but it doesn't get you close to addressing the arguments above.

by: nuclearferret

02-26-2009 @ 6:47pm

Maybe the church should just get out of the marriage and morality business altogether, eh? Confine itself to supporting political agendas that involve fostering dependency on what government can provide to the individual, especially when someone else is paying the bill.

The argument is often made, as it is here, that precious time and resources shouldn't be wasted on the discussion of the issue. Typically, this means "shut up and approve the issue and move on." If it is such an auxiliary issue, why do proponents give up and move on? Because, to those people on either side of the issue, it matters. Instead, the approach is to have a minority of people ram their agenda through against the majority, rather than go through the effort to win hearts and minds.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:01pm

hope you don't read Scripture the way you read blog comments; Marcion would be proud of your "cut and paste" approach

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:05pm

"Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one."

"speculative at best"

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 7:08pm

Yep.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:01pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: SisterMarie

02-26-2009 @ 8:00pm

Well, there's actually a precedent for the road to perdition that kevin47 described above. Just as soon as we adopted the amendment that gave women to right to vote, we imposed the same requirement on the Catholic Church and required them to start ordaining women priests, and we told the Southern Baptists that they could not exclude women from the clergy. The civil rights laws that were adopted during the 60s mandated that the Mormons would have to immediately extend equal status to African Americans. As soon as the states began repealing their miscegenation laws, the students at Bob Jones University initiated interracial dating.

Yeah, you really have to keep a tight rein on those gays. The next thing you know, they'll be wanting to pastor our churches.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:07pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

i fully support you in not responding, i just thought it was in response to the feeling of being pigeonholed by the framing, which i know you are too able and generous to be confined by that. i think your point about "manifest[ing] a loving compassion greater than our judgments" is pointing in the same direction of the predicament i named. i like the way you said it, and i appreciate that immense honesty.

by: squeaky

03-01-2009 @ 5:19am

I thought it was Macaroni...mmmm....cheese...

by: neuro_nurse

03-01-2009 @ 4:42pm

No, no - Marconi - the guy who invented the telephone.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-27-2009 @ 8:09am

I bought my computer from Marcion

by: canucklehead

03-02-2009 @ 6:33pm

I thot Al Gore invented the telephone

by: canucklehead

02-27-2009 @ 6:01pm

no, that was Marconi

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 8:20pm

No, haven't you had your recommended daily allowance of right wing propaganda?

Al Gore invented global warming!

by: squeaky

03-01-2009 @ 5:19am

I thought it was Macaroni...mmmm....cheese...

by: neuro_nurse

03-01-2009 @ 4:42pm

No, no - Marconi - the guy who invented the telephone.

by: canucklehead

03-02-2009 @ 6:33pm

I thot Al Gore invented the telephone

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 8:20pm

No, haven't you had your recommended daily allowance of right wing propaganda?

Al Gore invented global warming!

by: BlueDeacon

03-05-2009 @ 3:13pm

God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah ...

Biblically incorrect. Not homosexuality proper but haughtiness brought down those cities, and in fact those weren't even the only two places targeted.

by: WaveTossed

02-26-2009 @ 4:23pm

As a libertarian-inclined Gay person, I believe that the government should stay out of marriage/civil unions between consenting adults altogether. Marriages/civil unions/whatever should be private contracts between the consenting adults involved. Divorces, child custody arrangements, property, etc. can be spelled out specifically in such private contracts. Breaches of the provisions of private contracts can be handled by the judiciary (a legitimate government function).

However, as a practical person, it looks like government is going to stay involved in private affairs between consenting adult partners. In that case, perhaps ALL such partnerships should be labeled "civil unions" and let "marriage" be defined by the religious institutions involved according to their beliefs.

On another marriage-related issue: I have found people opposed to all and any Gay relationships to the point where they cry out "they are damned to eternal perdition" and even would advocate the death penalty for Gays. Some of these same people have no qualms whatsoever about heterosexual marriages between adult older people and teen-agers or children.

I have not heard any such outcry against these sorts of abusive child "marriages" from too many of those who scream and shout about consenting adults in same-gender relationships. This sort of hypocracy rises up to Heaven. Jesus told us, from the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 18: "5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Pretty strong words about offending or abusing a child.

As for loving relationships among adults, Jesus gave us the Two Great Commandments. Matthew 22: "37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " Nothing here about loving any neighbors only if they are of a different gender. The words are "Love your neighbor."

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-26-2009 @ 4:31pm

Gotta love the unattributed two-word quote -- "like that". God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah -- or at least those are the words that somebody, "like that" or not, wants to put in the mouths of gay marriage opponents.

If Logan Laituri wants to know why the debate over gay marriage is so uncivil, he might want to take a look in the mirror. Pretending to be undecided while butchering the arguments of gay marriage opponents is a total cheap shot.

Next time, try quoting whole sentences, and see if you can attach them to actual people who uttered them. You might find that the dialogue is more productive.

LV

by: neuro_nurse

02-26-2009 @ 4:57pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

I sincerely hope that you are speaking in hyperbole.

"As for the belief that such a practice "destroys the fabric of society," I am not sure that it ranks at all close to threats such as poverty, violence, and consumerism."

Spending so much time and energy fixating on a peripheral issue is a way of making a lot of noise, convincing oneself that s/he is 'doing something' without accomplishing anything (other than making oneself look like a jackass), while conveniently ignoring real suffering.

Personally, I find consumerism to be one of the most destructive forces in our country. I can't see how homosexuality/same-sex unions is anywhere near as evil as making a buck off of sexualizing prepubescent girls.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 5:23pm

Been dare. Done dat. Based on our experience in Canada where gay marriage was legalized in 2005, the issue is simply a red herring for those who would have us still believe that the foundations of the Roman empire crumbled in large part due to rampant homosexuality. Regardless of which side of the issue one comes down on, most of us here were simply happy that all the public attention to who's doing what with whom in their private life went away so that we could watch the evening news again w/o having to explain to our six-year olds what "buggery" and "sodomy" was.

The fact of the matter is that, at least in what is visible in daily life in Canada, NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed. Gay couples are not walking down the street hand-in-hand, arm-in-arm, and, to date, no one has been arrested for attempting to sodomize a minor on the street corner. Informed Americans do well to realize that much of the rhetoric regarding the end of civilization as we know it should gay marriage or civil-unions be legalized is speculative at best and simple fear-mongering at worst. From what I can tell, Jesus wasn't much into either of those pursuits.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 5:35pm

I would be pleased to comment to Logan's post although I am having a little trouble deciding which point to address:

Equal civil rights
Civil unions
Same-sex marriage
State's role in marriage
religious-industrial-complex hold on 'marriage'
Constitutional definition of marriage
Debating points
Why Sodom was judged
Proof texting beliefs
Walking humbly with our neighbors
Honoring the image of God within each person
Freedom of 'Image-bearers'
The fabric of society
Poverty
Violence
Consumerism
State recognition of unions based on race, sex, or ethnicity
Well-intentioned Biblical literalism justifying state evil
Slavery
Oppression of women
Total war
Lack of moral courage of protesters
Equity under the law

And before I could get to these, WaveTossed adds:

Consenting adults
Private contracts
Death penalty for gays
damnation too eternal perdition
Heterosexual marriage between adults and children
Lack of outcry about abusive hetersexual marriages
Command to "Love your neighbor" legitimating same-gender intimacy

I am not sure I can comment on any of these points if my point of view on one is going to be inferred as having meanings ranging from the destruction of human society to using the Bible to support Total War.

Logan, you raise the issue of the nature of the debate when you went expecting to hear an invigorating debate. You heard nothing of the kind. So does that mean invigorating debate is not possible???

The conclusion of your post is that there is one conclusion available to the impartial observer. The other choice is to take an uncourageous stance for slavery, oppressing women, total war, and something other than your impartial conclusion.

I appreciate clearly stated positions with clear rationales. My observation on this blog is that the original piece helps shape the nature of the subsequent comments and dialogue. When you stake out territory that pits "my conclusion" versus "evil" -- it doesn't leave a whole lot of room. It is somewhat like the amount of space you saw the witnesses at the hearing to have.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 6:23pm

"NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed"

Then why make the change?

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 6:35pm

c'mon, i would not think you would perceive being boxed in so easily. or is this a thorny issue where the tide has turned, where instead of the christians telling others to be more loving and accepting, it is others telling the christians to be more loving and accepting? that is a predicament indeed, and perhaps the reason for this response. whether you think your stance is the most loving and accepting (or whatever other measure you take for being the most appropriate christian response) one or not, i think we all must be mindful of the turning of the tables on this issue for many christians, where someone else has claimed the base ethic of "love god & love neighbor." so the response must either be more nuanced ('loving god & neighbor requires this position because..." which i have yet to see much of) or more blunt & unsatisfying ('it is in the bible!'), though it often passes right over these & moves right into demagoguery. i understand that you feel attacked here, but would you agree that maybe this predicament is a cause of heightened sensitivity? i am always interested to hear from christians who oppose civil unions among loving and consenting adults as to how the enactment of civil unions (or even gay marriage in our churches) would somehow do personal, spiritual or social harm like other things we continue to consider sinful. maybe you think logan was heavy-handed in his approach, but i wouldn't think that cause for taking your toys & leaving the sandbox, though your point of the original piece shaping the nature of the comments is not lost on me. i just read it as a guy working out his feelings on the issue, not as a rebuke of people who disagree w/ him. peace to you,

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 6:45pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

Of course, it's the conservatives who only focus on abortion and same-sex marriage.

"What I found entirely unacceptable, as a citizen and especially as an evangelical, were a few self-described Christians basing their opposition on the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of people "like that." "

Since "like that" is in quotes, why not attribute the quote to it's source and place it in context? Unless, of course, Logan just made it up, in which case it shouldn't have quotes around it.

Either way, Logan is only tackling the weakest possible argument in opposition to gay marriage. The strongest arguments are these:

1) Legalized gay marriage is only the first step toward eradicating a church's to recognize or not recognize a couple as married. Gay rights leaders have admitted as much. If Prop 8 were overturned, step 2 would be to send gay couples to mormon churches to insist upon a ceremony. Step 3 would be to head to Saddleback to do the same.

Step 4 is to work to legally restrict dissemination of scripture, on the basis that it argues against "civil rights". Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one.

2) Since the above actually creates a constitutional crisis, the only way to reconcile the competing interests will be to end governmental recognition of marriage. While this might be inevitable, and perhaps even desirable, it validates the weaker (though more influential) argument that gay marriage represents a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

Taking on the Sodom and Gomorrah canard is fine, but it doesn't get you close to addressing the arguments above.

by: nuclearferret

02-26-2009 @ 6:47pm

Maybe the church should just get out of the marriage and morality business altogether, eh? Confine itself to supporting political agendas that involve fostering dependency on what government can provide to the individual, especially when someone else is paying the bill.

The argument is often made, as it is here, that precious time and resources shouldn't be wasted on the discussion of the issue. Typically, this means "shut up and approve the issue and move on." If it is such an auxiliary issue, why do proponents give up and move on? Because, to those people on either side of the issue, it matters. Instead, the approach is to have a minority of people ram their agenda through against the majority, rather than go through the effort to win hearts and minds.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:01pm

hope you don't read Scripture the way you read blog comments; Marcion would be proud of your "cut and paste" approach

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:05pm

"Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one."

"speculative at best"

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 7:08pm

Yep.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:01pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: SisterMarie

02-26-2009 @ 8:00pm

Well, there's actually a precedent for the road to perdition that kevin47 described above. Just as soon as we adopted the amendment that gave women to right to vote, we imposed the same requirement on the Catholic Church and required them to start ordaining women priests, and we told the Southern Baptists that they could not exclude women from the clergy. The civil rights laws that were adopted during the 60s mandated that the Mormons would have to immediately extend equal status to African Americans. As soon as the states began repealing their miscegenation laws, the students at Bob Jones University initiated interracial dating.

Yeah, you really have to keep a tight rein on those gays. The next thing you know, they'll be wanting to pastor our churches.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:07pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: WaveTossed

02-26-2009 @ 4:23pm

As a libertarian-inclined Gay person, I believe that the government should stay out of marriage/civil unions between consenting adults altogether. Marriages/civil unions/whatever should be private contracts between the consenting adults involved. Divorces, child custody arrangements, property, etc. can be spelled out specifically in such private contracts. Breaches of the provisions of private contracts can be handled by the judiciary (a legitimate government function).

However, as a practical person, it looks like government is going to stay involved in private affairs between consenting adult partners. In that case, perhaps ALL such partnerships should be labeled "civil unions" and let "marriage" be defined by the religious institutions involved according to their beliefs.

On another marriage-related issue: I have found people opposed to all and any Gay relationships to the point where they cry out "they are damned to eternal perdition" and even would advocate the death penalty for Gays. Some of these same people have no qualms whatsoever about heterosexual marriages between adult older people and teen-agers or children.

I have not heard any such outcry against these sorts of abusive child "marriages" from too many of those who scream and shout about consenting adults in same-gender relationships. This sort of hypocracy rises up to Heaven. Jesus told us, from the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 18: "5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Pretty strong words about offending or abusing a child.

As for loving relationships among adults, Jesus gave us the Two Great Commandments. Matthew 22: "37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " Nothing here about loving any neighbors only if they are of a different gender. The words are "Love your neighbor."

by: WaveTossed

02-26-2009 @ 4:23pm

As a libertarian-inclined Gay person, I believe that the government should stay out of marriage/civil unions between consenting adults altogether. Marriages/civil unions/whatever should be private contracts between the consenting adults involved. Divorces, child custody arrangements, property, etc. can be spelled out specifically in such private contracts. Breaches of the provisions of private contracts can be handled by the judiciary (a legitimate government function).

However, as a practical person, it looks like government is going to stay involved in private affairs between consenting adult partners. In that case, perhaps ALL such partnerships should be labeled "civil unions" and let "marriage" be defined by the religious institutions involved according to their beliefs.

On another marriage-related issue: I have found people opposed to all and any Gay relationships to the point where they cry out "they are damned to eternal perdition" and even would advocate the death penalty for Gays. Some of these same people have no qualms whatsoever about heterosexual marriages between adult older people and teen-agers or children.

I have not heard any such outcry against these sorts of abusive child "marriages" from too many of those who scream and shout about consenting adults in same-gender relationships. This sort of hypocracy rises up to Heaven. Jesus told us, from the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 18: "5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Pretty strong words about offending or abusing a child.

As for loving relationships among adults, Jesus gave us the Two Great Commandments. Matthew 22: "37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " Nothing here about loving any neighbors only if they are of a different gender. The words are "Love your neighbor."

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-26-2009 @ 4:31pm

Gotta love the unattributed two-word quote -- "like that". God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah -- or at least those are the words that somebody, "like that" or not, wants to put in the mouths of gay marriage opponents.

If Logan Laituri wants to know why the debate over gay marriage is so uncivil, he might want to take a look in the mirror. Pretending to be undecided while butchering the arguments of gay marriage opponents is a total cheap shot.

Next time, try quoting whole sentences, and see if you can attach them to actual people who uttered them. You might find that the dialogue is more productive.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-26-2009 @ 4:31pm

Gotta love the unattributed two-word quote -- "like that". God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah -- or at least those are the words that somebody, "like that" or not, wants to put in the mouths of gay marriage opponents.

If Logan Laituri wants to know why the debate over gay marriage is so uncivil, he might want to take a look in the mirror. Pretending to be undecided while butchering the arguments of gay marriage opponents is a total cheap shot.

Next time, try quoting whole sentences, and see if you can attach them to actual people who uttered them. You might find that the dialogue is more productive.

LV

by: neuro_nurse

02-26-2009 @ 4:57pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

I sincerely hope that you are speaking in hyperbole.

"As for the belief that such a practice "destroys the fabric of society," I am not sure that it ranks at all close to threats such as poverty, violence, and consumerism."

Spending so much time and energy fixating on a peripheral issue is a way of making a lot of noise, convincing oneself that s/he is 'doing something' without accomplishing anything (other than making oneself look like a jackass), while conveniently ignoring real suffering.

Personally, I find consumerism to be one of the most destructive forces in our country. I can't see how homosexuality/same-sex unions is anywhere near as evil as making a buck off of sexualizing prepubescent girls.

by: neuro_nurse

02-26-2009 @ 4:57pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

I sincerely hope that you are speaking in hyperbole.

"As for the belief that such a practice "destroys the fabric of society," I am not sure that it ranks at all close to threats such as poverty, violence, and consumerism."

Spending so much time and energy fixating on a peripheral issue is a way of making a lot of noise, convincing oneself that s/he is 'doing something' without accomplishing anything (other than making oneself look like a jackass), while conveniently ignoring real suffering.

Personally, I find consumerism to be one of the most destructive forces in our country. I can't see how homosexuality/same-sex unions is anywhere near as evil as making a buck off of sexualizing prepubescent girls.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 5:23pm

Been dare. Done dat. Based on our experience in Canada where gay marriage was legalized in 2005, the issue is simply a red herring for those who would have us still believe that the foundations of the Roman empire crumbled in large part due to rampant homosexuality. Regardless of which side of the issue one comes down on, most of us here were simply happy that all the public attention to who's doing what with whom in their private life went away so that we could watch the evening news again w/o having to explain to our six-year olds what "buggery" and "sodomy" was.

The fact of the matter is that, at least in what is visible in daily life in Canada, NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed. Gay couples are not walking down the street hand-in-hand, arm-in-arm, and, to date, no one has been arrested for attempting to sodomize a minor on the street corner. Informed Americans do well to realize that much of the rhetoric regarding the end of civilization as we know it should gay marriage or civil-unions be legalized is speculative at best and simple fear-mongering at worst. From what I can tell, Jesus wasn't much into either of those pursuits.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 5:23pm

Been dare. Done dat. Based on our experience in Canada where gay marriage was legalized in 2005, the issue is simply a red herring for those who would have us still believe that the foundations of the Roman empire crumbled in large part due to rampant homosexuality. Regardless of which side of the issue one comes down on, most of us here were simply happy that all the public attention to who's doing what with whom in their private life went away so that we could watch the evening news again w/o having to explain to our six-year olds what "buggery" and "sodomy" was.

The fact of the matter is that, at least in what is visible in daily life in Canada, NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed. Gay couples are not walking down the street hand-in-hand, arm-in-arm, and, to date, no one has been arrested for attempting to sodomize a minor on the street corner. Informed Americans do well to realize that much of the rhetoric regarding the end of civilization as we know it should gay marriage or civil-unions be legalized is speculative at best and simple fear-mongering at worst. From what I can tell, Jesus wasn't much into either of those pursuits.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 5:35pm

I would be pleased to comment to Logan's post although I am having a little trouble deciding which point to address:

Equal civil rights
Civil unions
Same-sex marriage
State's role in marriage
religious-industrial-complex hold on 'marriage'
Constitutional definition of marriage
Debating points
Why Sodom was judged
Proof texting beliefs
Walking humbly with our neighbors
Honoring the image of God within each person
Freedom of 'Image-bearers'
The fabric of society
Poverty
Violence
Consumerism
State recognition of unions based on race, sex, or ethnicity
Well-intentioned Biblical literalism justifying state evil
Slavery
Oppression of women
Total war
Lack of moral courage of protesters
Equity under the law

And before I could get to these, WaveTossed adds:

Consenting adults
Private contracts
Death penalty for gays
damnation too eternal perdition
Heterosexual marriage between adults and children
Lack of outcry about abusive hetersexual marriages
Command to "Love your neighbor" legitimating same-gender intimacy

I am not sure I can comment on any of these points if my point of view on one is going to be inferred as having meanings ranging from the destruction of human society to using the Bible to support Total War.

Logan, you raise the issue of the nature of the debate when you went expecting to hear an invigorating debate. You heard nothing of the kind. So does that mean invigorating debate is not possible???

The conclusion of your post is that there is one conclusion available to the impartial observer. The other choice is to take an uncourageous stance for slavery, oppressing women, total war, and something other than your impartial conclusion.

I appreciate clearly stated positions with clear rationales. My observation on this blog is that the original piece helps shape the nature of the subsequent comments and dialogue. When you stake out territory that pits "my conclusion" versus "evil" -- it doesn't leave a whole lot of room. It is somewhat like the amount of space you saw the witnesses at the hearing to have.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 5:35pm

I would be pleased to comment to Logan's post although I am having a little trouble deciding which point to address:

Equal civil rights
Civil unions
Same-sex marriage
State's role in marriage
religious-industrial-complex hold on 'marriage'
Constitutional definition of marriage
Debating points
Why Sodom was judged
Proof texting beliefs
Walking humbly with our neighbors
Honoring the image of God within each person
Freedom of 'Image-bearers'
The fabric of society
Poverty
Violence
Consumerism
State recognition of unions based on race, sex, or ethnicity
Well-intentioned Biblical literalism justifying state evil
Slavery
Oppression of women
Total war
Lack of moral courage of protesters
Equity under the law

And before I could get to these, WaveTossed adds:

Consenting adults
Private contracts
Death penalty for gays
damnation too eternal perdition
Heterosexual marriage between adults and children
Lack of outcry about abusive hetersexual marriages
Command to "Love your neighbor" legitimating same-gender intimacy

I am not sure I can comment on any of these points if my point of view on one is going to be inferred as having meanings ranging from the destruction of human society to using the Bible to support Total War.

Logan, you raise the issue of the nature of the debate when you went expecting to hear an invigorating debate. You heard nothing of the kind. So does that mean invigorating debate is not possible???

The conclusion of your post is that there is one conclusion available to the impartial observer. The other choice is to take an uncourageous stance for slavery, oppressing women, total war, and something other than your impartial conclusion.

I appreciate clearly stated positions with clear rationales. My observation on this blog is that the original piece helps shape the nature of the subsequent comments and dialogue. When you stake out territory that pits "my conclusion" versus "evil" -- it doesn't leave a whole lot of room. It is somewhat like the amount of space you saw the witnesses at the hearing to have.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 6:23pm

"NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed"

Then why make the change?

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 6:23pm

"NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING has changed"

Then why make the change?

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 6:35pm

c'mon, i would not think you would perceive being boxed in so easily. or is this a thorny issue where the tide has turned, where instead of the christians telling others to be more loving and accepting, it is others telling the christians to be more loving and accepting? that is a predicament indeed, and perhaps the reason for this response. whether you think your stance is the most loving and accepting (or whatever other measure you take for being the most appropriate christian response) one or not, i think we all must be mindful of the turning of the tables on this issue for many christians, where someone else has claimed the base ethic of "love god & love neighbor." so the response must either be more nuanced ('loving god & neighbor requires this position because..." which i have yet to see much of) or more blunt & unsatisfying ('it is in the bible!'), though it often passes right over these & moves right into demagoguery. i understand that you feel attacked here, but would you agree that maybe this predicament is a cause of heightened sensitivity? i am always interested to hear from christians who oppose civil unions among loving and consenting adults as to how the enactment of civil unions (or even gay marriage in our churches) would somehow do personal, spiritual or social harm like other things we continue to consider sinful. maybe you think logan was heavy-handed in his approach, but i wouldn't think that cause for taking your toys & leaving the sandbox, though your point of the original piece shaping the nature of the comments is not lost on me. i just read it as a guy working out his feelings on the issue, not as a rebuke of people who disagree w/ him. peace to you,

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 6:35pm

c'mon, i would not think you would perceive being boxed in so easily. or is this a thorny issue where the tide has turned, where instead of the christians telling others to be more loving and accepting, it is others telling the christians to be more loving and accepting? that is a predicament indeed, and perhaps the reason for this response. whether you think your stance is the most loving and accepting (or whatever other measure you take for being the most appropriate christian response) one or not, i think we all must be mindful of the turning of the tables on this issue for many christians, where someone else has claimed the base ethic of "love god & love neighbor." so the response must either be more nuanced ('loving god & neighbor requires this position because..." which i have yet to see much of) or more blunt & unsatisfying ('it is in the bible!'), though it often passes right over these & moves right into demagoguery. i understand that you feel attacked here, but would you agree that maybe this predicament is a cause of heightened sensitivity? i am always interested to hear from christians who oppose civil unions among loving and consenting adults as to how the enactment of civil unions (or even gay marriage in our churches) would somehow do personal, spiritual or social harm like other things we continue to consider sinful. maybe you think logan was heavy-handed in his approach, but i wouldn't think that cause for taking your toys & leaving the sandbox, though your point of the original piece shaping the nature of the comments is not lost on me. i just read it as a guy working out his feelings on the issue, not as a rebuke of people who disagree w/ him. peace to you,

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 6:45pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

Of course, it's the conservatives who only focus on abortion and same-sex marriage.

"What I found entirely unacceptable, as a citizen and especially as an evangelical, were a few self-described Christians basing their opposition on the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of people "like that." "

Since "like that" is in quotes, why not attribute the quote to it's source and place it in context? Unless, of course, Logan just made it up, in which case it shouldn't have quotes around it.

Either way, Logan is only tackling the weakest possible argument in opposition to gay marriage. The strongest arguments are these:

1) Legalized gay marriage is only the first step toward eradicating a church's to recognize or not recognize a couple as married. Gay rights leaders have admitted as much. If Prop 8 were overturned, step 2 would be to send gay couples to mormon churches to insist upon a ceremony. Step 3 would be to head to Saddleback to do the same.

Step 4 is to work to legally restrict dissemination of scripture, on the basis that it argues against "civil rights". Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one.

2) Since the above actually creates a constitutional crisis, the only way to reconcile the competing interests will be to end governmental recognition of marriage. While this might be inevitable, and perhaps even desirable, it validates the weaker (though more influential) argument that gay marriage represents a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

Taking on the Sodom and Gomorrah canard is fine, but it doesn't get you close to addressing the arguments above.

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 6:45pm

"Ever since the November elections, I have been unable to turn my attention from the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage."

Of course, it's the conservatives who only focus on abortion and same-sex marriage.

"What I found entirely unacceptable, as a citizen and especially as an evangelical, were a few self-described Christians basing their opposition on the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of people "like that." "

Since "like that" is in quotes, why not attribute the quote to it's source and place it in context? Unless, of course, Logan just made it up, in which case it shouldn't have quotes around it.

Either way, Logan is only tackling the weakest possible argument in opposition to gay marriage. The strongest arguments are these:

1) Legalized gay marriage is only the first step toward eradicating a church's to recognize or not recognize a couple as married. Gay rights leaders have admitted as much. If Prop 8 were overturned, step 2 would be to send gay couples to mormon churches to insist upon a ceremony. Step 3 would be to head to Saddleback to do the same.

Step 4 is to work to legally restrict dissemination of scripture, on the basis that it argues against "civil rights". Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one.

2) Since the above actually creates a constitutional crisis, the only way to reconcile the competing interests will be to end governmental recognition of marriage. While this might be inevitable, and perhaps even desirable, it validates the weaker (though more influential) argument that gay marriage represents a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

Taking on the Sodom and Gomorrah canard is fine, but it doesn't get you close to addressing the arguments above.

by: nuclearferret

02-26-2009 @ 6:47pm

Maybe the church should just get out of the marriage and morality business altogether, eh? Confine itself to supporting political agendas that involve fostering dependency on what government can provide to the individual, especially when someone else is paying the bill.

The argument is often made, as it is here, that precious time and resources shouldn't be wasted on the discussion of the issue. Typically, this means "shut up and approve the issue and move on." If it is such an auxiliary issue, why do proponents give up and move on? Because, to those people on either side of the issue, it matters. Instead, the approach is to have a minority of people ram their agenda through against the majority, rather than go through the effort to win hearts and minds.

by: nuclearferret

02-26-2009 @ 6:47pm

Maybe the church should just get out of the marriage and morality business altogether, eh? Confine itself to supporting political agendas that involve fostering dependency on what government can provide to the individual, especially when someone else is paying the bill.

The argument is often made, as it is here, that precious time and resources shouldn't be wasted on the discussion of the issue. Typically, this means "shut up and approve the issue and move on." If it is such an auxiliary issue, why do proponents give up and move on? Because, to those people on either side of the issue, it matters. Instead, the approach is to have a minority of people ram their agenda through against the majority, rather than go through the effort to win hearts and minds.

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:01pm

hope you don't read Scripture the way you read blog comments; Marcion would be proud of your "cut and paste" approach

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:01pm

hope you don't read Scripture the way you read blog comments; Marcion would be proud of your "cut and paste" approach

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:05pm

"Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one."

"speculative at best"

by: canucklehead

02-26-2009 @ 7:05pm

"Speaking of been dere, done dat, I'm guessing Canada will beat us to the punch by a couple of years on this one."

"speculative at best"

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 7:08pm

Yep.

by: kevin47

02-26-2009 @ 7:08pm

Yep.

by: SisterMarie

02-26-2009 @ 8:00pm

Well, there's actually a precedent for the road to perdition that kevin47 described above. Just as soon as we adopted the amendment that gave women to right to vote, we imposed the same requirement on the Catholic Church and required them to start ordaining women priests, and we told the Southern Baptists that they could not exclude women from the clergy. The civil rights laws that were adopted during the 60s mandated that the Mormons would have to immediately extend equal status to African Americans. As soon as the states began repealing their miscegenation laws, the students at Bob Jones University initiated interracial dating.

Yeah, you really have to keep a tight rein on those gays. The next thing you know, they'll be wanting to pastor our churches.

by: SisterMarie

02-26-2009 @ 8:00pm

Well, there's actually a precedent for the road to perdition that kevin47 described above. Just as soon as we adopted the amendment that gave women to right to vote, we imposed the same requirement on the Catholic Church and required them to start ordaining women priests, and we told the Southern Baptists that they could not exclude women from the clergy. The civil rights laws that were adopted during the 60s mandated that the Mormons would have to immediately extend equal status to African Americans. As soon as the states began repealing their miscegenation laws, the students at Bob Jones University initiated interracial dating.

Yeah, you really have to keep a tight rein on those gays. The next thing you know, they'll be wanting to pastor our churches.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:01pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:01pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:07pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-26-2009 @ 8:07pm

I guess I missed the boat in my comment. I did not intend to defend or question Logan's position. I was picking up on the headline and the content of his post about the sad state of dialogue.

I was just trying to point out there were quite a number of issues raised and there was not much wiggle room in his conclusion for dialogue.

I would like the persons he describes at the hearing to display more room for engagement and for his post to do the same.

I didn't even respond to the content of the issues and you took it as my feeling attacked. Which is fine. That is just my bad communication. But my point being, given the way he frames the list of issues, and the 'sad state of dialogue', that if I did render a voice in support or opposition--all kinds of inferences are drawn.

My other reason for not responding directly (please don't take it as picking up my toys and running home) is that I think those of us Evangelicals with an ethical view of male-female marriage as normative (that is not to imply a whole set of conclusions about singleness, gender identities, same-sex relationships, etc.), rooted in scripture and socio-theology have given up our voice on the issue; and that we cannot be heard (and deserve not to be heard) until we can manifest a loving compassion greater than our judgments; until we can live out faithful expessions of loving community and family in which there is healthy sexuality, healthy spirituality, and enduring/lifegiving marriages; and until we have church communities in which persons with non-normative households (e.g. singles, widows, divorcees, persons with same-sex attractions, etc.) have valuable and desirable community in which to share this precious human journey.

I have no doubt there are many persons dead as a result of the ignorant and hateful words of Chistians. I am ashamed at the agony which has been wrought--and seek nothing but God's desires being more fully realized.

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

i fully support you in not responding, i just thought it was in response to the feeling of being pigeonholed by the framing, which i know you are too able and generous to be confined by that. i think your point about "manifest[ing] a loving compassion greater than our judgments" is pointing in the same direction of the predicament i named. i like the way you said it, and i appreciate that immense honesty.

by: nad2

02-26-2009 @ 8:46pm

i fully support you in not responding, i just thought it was in response to the feeling of being pigeonholed by the framing, which i know you are too able and generous to be confined by that. i think your point about "manifest[ing] a loving compassion greater than our judgments" is pointing in the same direction of the predicament i named. i like the way you said it, and i appreciate that immense honesty.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-27-2009 @ 8:09am

I bought my computer from Marcion

by: letjusticerolldown

02-27-2009 @ 8:09am

I bought my computer from Marcion

by: canucklehead

02-27-2009 @ 6:01pm

no, that was Marconi

by: canucklehead

02-27-2009 @ 6:01pm

no, that was Marconi

by: squeaky

03-01-2009 @ 5:19am

I thought it was Macaroni...mmmm....cheese...

by: squeaky

03-01-2009 @ 5:19am

I thought it was Macaroni...mmmm....cheese...

by: neuro_nurse

03-01-2009 @ 4:42pm

No, no - Marconi - the guy who invented the telephone.

by: neuro_nurse

03-01-2009 @ 4:42pm

No, no - Marconi - the guy who invented the telephone.

by: canucklehead

03-02-2009 @ 6:33pm

I thot Al Gore invented the telephone

by: canucklehead

03-02-2009 @ 6:33pm

I thot Al Gore invented the telephone

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 8:20pm

No, haven't you had your recommended daily allowance of right wing propaganda?

Al Gore invented global warming!

by: neuro_nurse

03-02-2009 @ 8:20pm

No, haven't you had your recommended daily allowance of right wing propaganda?

Al Gore invented global warming!

by: BlueDeacon

03-05-2009 @ 3:13pm

God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah ...

Biblically incorrect. Not homosexuality proper but haughtiness brought down those cities, and in fact those weren't even the only two places targeted.

by: BlueDeacon

03-05-2009 @ 3:13pm

God only knows who said this oh so incisive phrase, or what the actual context was, but somebody "like that" was reponsible for Sodom and Gomorrah ...

Biblically incorrect. Not homosexuality proper but haughtiness brought down those cities, and in fact those weren't even the only two places targeted.