Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers recently went to Washington DC to lobby for the marriage amendment. Ex-Gay Watch readers have likely thought many different things about Chambers’ and Thomas’ motivation. My editor Mike dug up an old copy of the Exodus newsletter where Chambers discusses his reasons for involvement in politics. (April 2005)
For copyright reasons I can’t reprint Chambers’ entire letter but I enlarged some key passages.
In between the excerpts Chambers discusses the difficulties of operating in Canada, Christian protesters arrested at Philadelphia pride, and quotes Chuck Colson. Nowhere in the letter does Chambers explain how gay marriage encroaches on his freedom of religious speech.
Since Exodus has stopped sending their newsletter to us, I would appreciate it if XGW readers subscribe to it (free) and help watch for newsworthy content.
“public policy is a dear friend, protector, defender of religious freedom.”
Wow. Aside from the pseudo-religiousness of those terms (often applied to Christ), I’m surprised that he doesn’t see the irony. He’s complaining that he doesn’t have the opportunity to share the Gospel because his freedoms may be impinged upon. This is while he’s seeking to restrict the freedom of others.
Amazing.
I’m not really buying into Chambers’ reasoning. Enshrining an anti-gay marriage amendment into the constitution has nothing at all to do with religious freedoms. Making gay marriage legal (which this amendment had nothing to do with) would also do nothing to affect religious freedom.
Look at divorces, for example. Legal in the entire US, but not allowed according to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church regularly excommunicates remarried Catholics even though divorce is illegal.
Randy Thomas had an answer to the same question in the comments section of his blog recently that, at the very least, seemed more on point. It was not anything along the lines of what Alan said, though.
Alan Chambers said “I see our freedom to minister being encroached upon by the enemy”.
That’s the problem with Chambers, he has no concept of the critical moral goal of unconditional mutual concern for all humanity as the starting point for relations with each individual. Homophobic, racist, its all the same.
Barring a major loss of cool I’ll call Alan Chambers my opponent, not my enemy but he makes it awfully tough.
I am delighted to hear he’s having trouble operating in Canada. News to me if Exodus is here, I haven’t seen any sign of them. Although there were those 17 arrests in Ontario…
I think the argument is that if gay marriages are allowed to become legal, then some Christian employer would be forced to add gay spouses to the employee benefits or a Christian service provider would have to recognize gay spouses for family discounts.
It’s forcing that immorality on them and coercing them into recognizing and legitimizing homosexuality!!
Ya know, just like a Catholic adoption service has to recognize the marriage of previously divorced applicants.
And like how a conservative gym owner has to recognize mixed-faith marriages (those “unequally yoked together”) for family discounts.
And like how a Mormon insurance provider has to give married status discounts to people who are not married for eternity in the celestial kingdom (those not members of the one true church).
And how foreign embassadors are forced to recognize the 16 wives of shieks.
And how religious folk at the IRS are coerced into recognizing people as “married filing jointly” who had no church service at all but just went to a justice of the peace.
And how people in general are repulsed by an 85 year old guy marrying a 19 year old golddigger but still recogize her as his heir.
But those are all different, you know. Because the ONLY thing that matters in recognizing marriage is that they keep gays from getting married. That’s the whole point of marriage – keeping out the gays.
Sheeesh!!!
Our history is FULL of people setting up what they think is the only acceptable marriage as recognized by God…. but being flexible enough to recognize and respect the commitments that others make together.
We know what happens when one church dictates marriage law – ask the beheaded wives of Henry VIII how well the Catholic rules works. Ask the mixed-race couples before Loving if they like the Southern Baptists set up marriage laws.
It requires a real animosity towards gay people to make the argument that their marriage is the only “unacceptable” marriage you won’t recognize. This is a completely bogus argument.
Timothy, your post reminds me of the William Bennett skewing with Jon Stewart: https://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614
Jon made it painfully clear that Bennett’s fears are unfounded and silly.
The one good argument against ALL civil marriage is that it does indeed coerce people into accepting/paying for marriages they do not approve of, at least to some degree. Get the state out of marriage and make it a purely private contract, I say.
Mark, I disagree
When it comes to “accepting/paying”, the businesses/employers are going to need something to tell them who is a spouse. And I don’t think they are simply going to accept a church marriage ceremony as adequate. Otherwise they’ll end up covering a half dozen spouses and people who are “marrying” for the benefits without making any state contract for the liabilities of each other.
They will still need a contract of some sort recognized by the state. You could call it a civil union, a contract of mutual care, or any other thing you like.
But then you are right back in the same place you started, “accepting/paying for” civil unions they do not approve of.
That may be one way of getting around the “marriage” word, but it won’t satisfy the haters. They don’t like civil unions any better than gay marriage and it does not address their underlying argument that they should be allowed to recognize and give preferential pricing to every union EXCEPT for gay people.
We can name any one of thousands of things that people do with their lives that “we don’t approve of”.But there is one far more important consideration than our opinion:
We may think whatever we wish. But it is none of our business. Religion. Procreation. Partnerships. And, yes, attempting to change their sexual orientation.As people who deem even a warning from the professional bodies as “persecution”, Chambers et al sure have a warped sense of what interference in the intimate lives of others really means.
And I’m not buying the argument that “employers are forced to subsidise”.These are employee benefits. The employee is entitled to them because they do the work, not the other way around. As with: workplace safety, injury compensation or wages.I’m just imagining the position of Chambers et al if, as example, an employer was to discover that worker tithed to a church that they “didn’t approve of” and arbitrarily (and, as it stands, illegally) decided to cut the employee’s wages by 10% to “ensure” that this didn’t occur.
I’m still trying to figure out why he claims to be a ‘christian.” I guess I should assume that any Republican automatically gets an official “christian” card.
I wonder how many of these self-proclaimed “christians” are affiliated with a recognized denomination?
Kevin said:
I’m still trying to figure out why he claims to be a ‘christian.” I guess I should assume that any Republican automatically gets an official “christian” card.
I wonder how many of these self-proclaimed “christians” are affiliated with a recognized denomination?
I’m not sure I understand you. Are you talking about Chambers? No matter who, I’m not sure why being or not being affiliated with a “recognized denomination” has any bearing on the validity of anyone’s faith. Let’s try to be less like the ones with whom we take issue, eg. how is your first comment any different than the assumption that Democrats are all Godless Socialists?
David Roberts