Demanding free speech for themselves, antigay parents in inland California on Feb. 11 angrily protested free expression by high school students who chose to support gay marriage by acting out such ceremonies as a form of political protest.
While many may view the students’ tactic as counterproductive, it is arguably less offensive — and more solidly protected as a form of free speech — than Michael Marcavage’s efforts to shout down speakers and disrupt celebrations at a gay entertainment festival in Philadelphia.
Years ago, Exodus official Randy Thomas might have counseled such parents to reflect the love and compassion of Jesus instead of anger, contempt and rejection. No longer: Now an antitolerance advocate, Thomas follows the example of the California parents in his blog.
Thomas joins fellow blogger Peter Ould in accusing moderately gay-tolerant Canadian Anglican church authorities of being in "denial" about inclusivity, after the officials rejected ex-gay efforts to inject off-topic remarks into a discussion about same-sex blessings. Thomas should be more careful with such accusations: His blog entry seems to be in denial about his church’s exclusion of gay believers in Jesus.
Should ex-gays have a voice — one among many — in the churches? Certainly.
Are the resentments and word games of ex-gay activists like Thomas pertinent in the lives and blessings of Christian gay couples — particularly when Thomas has expressed a desire to silence openly gay believers within the church? Perhaps not.
Thomas, Ould, Prof. Warren Throckmorton, and others are understandably upset when people tell them to "shut up." Unfortunately, Thomas has in recent years developed the unflattering habit of telling "liberals," "elites" and Christian gay couples to do just that.
Hey, not to be nitpicky but nobody here says “inland CA,” I’d go with the “high desert.”
OK. That sure beats “Inland Empire.”
haha, the Inland Empire is a totally different place than the high desert. The IE is a 30 mile long valley of tract homes and strip clubs from Pomona to San Bernadino. It’s ok we love you anyways. 😛 BTW thanks for all the big strings of recent updates.
Regan,
“Now that gay men and women have done everything as positively as possible to win equality, the time is now to see fruition of the effort.”
That they have campaigned positively is good, but not the point. Apart from the gay-haters, the question is whether they have convinced everyone else that the changes they want to society are positive and worth making. I think there are a lot of people saying, “I don’t hate you, won’t beat you up, won’t mind if you do your own thing, but I still think what you want to do is wrong, and I don’t want to change the traditional standard of marriage, despite how much it is in tatters as it is.”
Nathan,
“”I don’t hate you, won’t beat you up, won’t mind if you do your own thing, but I still think what you want to do is wrong, and I don’t want to change the traditional standard of marriage, despite how much it is in tatters as it is.””
You know, from time to time, I do see that message. But the loudest voice opposing gay marriage don’t take that route. The really large right wing political and religious leaders are the one that say gay marriage will end society as we know it. They are the ones that say gays are evil, compare homosexualtiy to besteality, pedophelia, etc.
My dad takes the opinion that you articulate above. Of course, I don’t agree with this, I see the concern for my spiritual well-being in his heart. However, I can’t help but think that the Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons, Rick Santorums, etc. of the world have helped shaped his opinions with their over the top rhetoric. Then there is the idea that if traditional marriage were really the concern, why not try to fix it. It just seems odd to me that Rush Limbaugh can be on his 3rd wife, but then tell gays that marriage or any civil union benefits at all should not include them. I’d argue that marriage shouldn’t be allowed for serial monogamists as well (if we are talking about preserving “traditional marriage” arguments). Somehow, though, people have cleverly managed to keep that way off on the periphery.
Apart from the gay-haters, the question is whether they have convinced everyone else that the changes they want to society are positive and worth making.
Well, quite frankly, that is not the issue. The issue is whether a contract can be limited based on gender, and that should be unConstitutional.
There are many religions that don’t demonstrate they have positive social effects on society, yet are still given equal protection. There are many types of marriages (those of convicted felons, for example) that have not demonstrated positive social effects, but are still legal.
I believe you are setting up a higher standard for gay and lesbian people that is not applied to any other group, and that is a violation of American values.
More importantly, gay people have very definately demonstrated that many, if not most, of us are leading decent and positive lives (and I don’t mean HIV+ – sorry, bad joke) and should not have rights taken away from us.
I should also add that there is some interesting economic analysis that correlates being open and accepting of gay people with a better quality of life. (here’s one link with an article on the phenomenon: https://www.startribune.com/stories/389/2915952.html)
CPT_Doom – to be off topic a little bit, I heard a story on NPR about a city in Washington (Spokane?) where the Chamber of Commerce decided to try to encourage gay people to settle in a particular part of town in order to spark a creative revival. Talk about putting the cart before the horse, but at least there are a few people deciding that we’re worth something. Even if it is just to help redecorate the place. 🙂
CPT_Doom,
For what it’s worth, I think that there are positive benefits coming from an extension of civil unions to a more general system of “civil relationships”, which could include same-sex sexual relationships, among others (eg. flatmates, committed co-habitating but non-sexual friends, committed family units, fishing buddies). The acceptance of such a system would prove to me that campaigners are not really after the word “marriage” because of its cultural, historical and religious significance.
regan,
I don’t know what you’re responding to here. Didn’t I just say I was happy for a more universal system of civil unions to include same-sex sexual or romantic ones?
Nor have I ever intimated that being gay was a casual choice!
“Why must every aspect of a gay person’s life be threatened Nathan. Answer that one.”
It must not, of course. I have already agreed with you that threats to safety are unacceptable, that the ongoing conditions of inheritance etc. are unfair, and that there are lot of haters out there.
“Because you can’t for a minute honestly say our world is a better place as long as gays get forced into lives only heterosexuals are comfortable with.”
First let me ask you a question. Which gays? Which lives? How far does your tolerance stretch? If it was an environment capable of producing great artists and thinkers like Einstein, would you tolerate 1920s Berlin (besides same-sex brothels, they had a selection of prostitutes in various stages of pregnancy – they even had a name for each kind)? Would you approve of the regime that eventually brought all that sexual madness to an end, if they also allowed for responsible, monogamous gays to get married, but if they still wanted to remove all gypsies and jews?
Leaving religion out of it, you seem to be arguing that responsible, monogamous gays shouldn’t lose some opportunities just because a majority doesn’t want them to. But that majority also disapproves of polygamous marriage, while a minority maintain that they should be allowed to do it.
I’m personally of the opinion that marriage (as a traditional or religious ceremony and system) might be best decoupled from civil unions. That way, there’s no confusion. Both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples can get their tax breaks and inheritances sorted out by the state, and your church doesn’t have to marry you if they want to. (Of course, they can if they want.)
“So Nathan, any homosexuals that don’t want to be bothered with the ‘Jesus way’…are supposed to do what?”
They can get a civil union, if they want tax breaks and inheritances, but it seems funny to me that other committed relationships of different varieties shouldn’t also share in these governement-sponsored benefits.
If it was an environment capable of producing great artists and thinkers like Einstein, would you tolerate 1920s Berlin…
1920s Berlin did not “produce” Einstein. Einstein did much of his work in Switzerland (his father had moved the family there in the late 19th century), and the three 1905 papers that initially established his reputation (on brownian motion, the photoelectric effect and special relativity) were written and published while he was a patent examiner in Switzerland. Sometime between 1905 and 1915, Einstein did move to Berlin to work at a university there, but his initial paper on general relativity (his theory of gravity) was published in 1915.
raj,
Thanks for clearing that up. My point was, some people argue that we need to put up with the dodginess and pseudo-intellectualism of some extreme liberals in order to maintain an environment where art and philosophy can flourish.
Let me offer the flip side: some people argue that we need to put up with the dodginess and pseudo-intellectualism of some extreme right in order to maintain an environment where family and morality can flourish.
Jim, I’m not sure if you were taking a dig at me there. I do believe that some extreme liberals DO spout pseudo-intellectual material and ARE dodgy, and yet I am probably one of the people that argues that we are best to put up with it, rather than squash it.
As for the flip-side, I’m not sure if I agree with the expected result (that family and morality will flourish), though I would probably argue taht we are best to put up with that too, rather than squash it.
I’m sorry Nathan, I apologize. I did not mean to take a dig at you. I find your comments to be very considerate and thoughtful. And I never for a minute believed that you would advocate the flip-side.
I however offered the flip side because as you are frustrated by the arrogance of the far left, I get very frustrated by the arrogance of the right that says that I am a danger to families and morality. Believe me, I read and hear this daily in my morning newspaper and on radio on my way to work.
And I’m not talking about right-wing talk radio. I’m talking about ordinary news reports about our political leaders at the state and federal levels. This has now become the mainstream message, and it really wears on me.
However I did not mean to take it out on you.
As far as the government’s concerned, or businesses, or anyone else who works out the financial nitty-gritty, what difference does it make if it’s a civil union or a marriage? I’ve argued for the complete decoupling of the two, whether you’re gay or straight. Marriage can be a personal choice for you, your tradition or religion. That is where the values come in. Civil union is the business of the government and business, in the interest of equality. If you want the government to change marriage, that means you’re imposing your values on everyone.
Let’s say I’m a straight person, and I want the government to reward my commitment to my female partner. I apply for a civil union. She doesn’t have to be my wife either before or after I make this application. She does become my civil commitment partner, but I can choose now whether or not to get married. That would be up to my tradition, church, synagogue, mosque, whatever. I can get Richard Gere to do it in Vegas if I want.
To summarise, I’m saying that government would do best to butt out of marriage full stop. If we limit the government’s involvement to civil unions, then we can more precisely and accurately reward those situations which will benefit society. Just what’s the problem with that situation?
“And being married or the hope to, is something that makes people BETTER human beings, or society hopes so and that’s why the current marriage laws are so generous.”
Why should this be so just because the word “marriage” is used? Why can’t people, gay and straight, settle for civil unions.
“All marriage for gay people does is ensure that gay men and women can secure themselves and their loved ones and THAT’S the law too.”
And that’s exactly what civil unions are intended to do.
Nathan
If I thought that civil unions could be applied to both gay and straight, without a separate category of union for straights called marriage, then you and I are in complete and total agreement. Marriage is a religious concept after all.
But when you asked the question “Why can’t people, gay and straight, settle for civil unions?” I think you hit the nail precisely on the head. We gays aren’t willing to “settle” for civil unions because straights won’t. Unfortunately, you and I are in the minority on this and the discussion that is taking place in the news is about marriage and/or the appoximation thereof.
Point of order regarding Regan’s posts. Please, if you could provide some paragraphing (extra line space between paragraphs), the posts would be a lot easier to read. FWIW, I rarely read a post that is more than a couple of paragraphs long.
I second Raj’s comment.
Regan, please double-space your paragraphs and look for ways to be a bit more concise.
Regan and everyone else, when you refer to a published article or study, please provide a link to it.
Without a link to the article, no one else can read the article or study for themselves; determine whether your recollections are accurate; or judge whether the article or its author were credible.
So please provide links directly to the articles or studies that you cite, or at least provide the item’s title, author, date, and periodical.
If your comment cannot be substantiated, please consider whether it is worth posting.