It’s unfortunate that we so easily get our backs up (but we do sometimes need to get our backs up) without just taking a bit of time to consider how debate-as-usual will come off here. I think I see what David B. was saying, and I don’t believe he meant any gross offense by it. For Pete’s sake, you can’t sit around worrying over how every single word or phrase or idea will be received when we all agree that the stakes are so high at this time in history. Sit, think, pray and then hit the button, if you must. Sometimes we need to do more of those three things before shouting.

When the shouting commences, as it always will, the listening usually ceases. The political process, as our Founders conceived it, is supposed to be big enough and good enough to handle these pendulum swings. The process is one thing. Human nature is another.

FWIW.

What a wonderful Biblical passage! One has to wonder how so many Christians have missed this admonition.

Debbie,

I don’t know if I’ll read that book, but I have read several different pieces from the authors. I actually appreciate much of what they have to say. They seem to be far more fair than most.

Here is a balanced and thoughtful review of that book – City Of Man…

In regards to Screwtape…boy, I don’t know how to put that all together.

C.S. Lewis is a genius, but…

There have been many Christians who have been quite active in politics for centuries under the rubric of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven here (i.e. living out the Sermon on the Mount and the Two Commandments).

Many reformation movements, from the right of women to vote, to prohibition, to ending slavery to civil rights have Christian proponents…

The establishment of the US was born of a trail of tears by many protestant faiths persecuted in their home countries in Europe.

Western Europe, as we know it today, would not exist…there would be no Socialist Europe post WWII. England would have been starved out and HItler and Stalin would have fought to a stalemate, or worse.

Some Christian Virtues become Political Crusades…for good reason.

All men and women are created equal in God’s eyes, but not all relationships are equal or prudent. And what do you mean by “social contract”?

The founding fathers weren’t talking about “equal in God’s eyes”, they were talking about having an equal standing in society. Those who believe that gay couples should not have an equal standing to heterosexual couples do so in contradiction to these American principles.

Yes, I know that some people don’t care a fig about American principles and filter everything through “what do I believe that God wants”, but I believe that in a civil society it is irrelevant what any person or denomination thinks that God wants.

By social contract I mean the agreement we make to live in peace with each other. The agreement that you can believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and I can believe that Joseph Smith interpreted gold plates with magic glasses and that neither of us can coerce the other to follow our beliefs. The contract of life, liberty, property, speech, privacy, happiness, and individual responsibility (and right) to our own selves. We encode this social contract in our Constitution.

Yes, I know that some think the Constitution is valid only to the extent that it agrees with what they interpret from what they read in the Bible, but I value our social contract.

Of course a gay person is a person.

I’m glad you agree.

But if so, then due process and equal protections apply. In other words – and this is a technical issue so please feel free to read up on it – if the 14th Amendment includes gay people, then the majority cannot deny a right from gay people that it grants to other people without illustrating a real and significant need to do so.

Now in the past, some have said, “oh but a gay person has the right to marry the opposite sex”. Yet such an argument is nothing more than saying, “a gay person is not really a person, not really gay”. Because if a “right” requires that a gay person not be gay in order to get it, then it isn’t really a right which is granted to gay people. It excludes them, by definition, from protections.

Or, as Justice Ginsberg put it, “a law against yarmulkes is a law against Jews.”

That you think it a stretch is completely irrelevant. Constitutional scholars are increasingly finding it obvious. It comes down to a very simple equation:

1. Do gay people exist, and do they exist as such?

2. Are gay people protected by the Constitution from laws which single them out for adverse treatment? I.e. does “any person” include gay people

3. Are there legitimate reasons – other than animus or a desire to consider gay people and their relationships unequal or imprudent – to disadvantage gay people?

France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

Civil unions…I think.

Like California…

Like Oregon…

I think seeing Gallagher through the prism of NOMA is narrow. I am familiar with her multifaceted attention to the family and public policy through this site from as early as 2003

http://www.marriagedebate.com/

She suggested I visit Blankenthorn…so I know she respects him highly. I am grateful she referred me.

I think the Rabbi’s Characterization is quite simplistic…We all know that Evangelicals are pushing also for stricter divorce laws in many states and changing legal guidelines to slow divorce proceedings to encourage attempts to repair the marriage.

The Rabbi is just plain wrong.

Jayhuck:

That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

The judiciary does do those things, but it also is subject to a check of its own from the people, especially where judges are elected. It would be naive of any of us to deny that the judiciary has acted outside of jurisprudence in many cases, thereby inviting the people’s rebuke.

Timothy:

In actuality, conservative Christianity in this country is demanding that gay people be excluded from the protections of the Constitution and that they be denied inclusion in the social contract by which we get along. They are seeking to change the underlying premise of all of our founding documents – that all men are created equal, even those of whom we disapprove.

All men and women are created equal in God’s eyes, but not all relationships are equal or prudent. And what do you mean by “social contract”?

Timothy again:

In reality, this is a matter of whether the US Constitution includes a gay person as a “person” when it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Of course a gay person is a person. They have never been viewed as chattel, as slaves once were. Looked down upon, yes. So are many other people groups or individuals.

How can the State legally deprive a gay person of “life, liberty, or property” unless said person has committed a capital offense or other crime? Gay people can own property the same as everyone else, and they do because, on average, they have a goodly income. Their lives are as valuable as any other person’s, citizen or no, and are far better than what many less fortunate people claim. They can walk about freely and openly as gays. Yes, they are widely denied the benefits that have been preserved for marriage only. That is a valid area of debate for a variety of reasons.

Seems to me you might have a legitimate beef with Mr. Jefferson over his phrase “the pursuit of happiness.” That one is surely open to interpretation. The others you have cited? Way too big of a stretch.

We know gays do face discrimination of all sorts. The government is always there for them to redress these wrongs, and the process is ongoing. Many gains have been made so far. More undoubtedly will be, even if universal same-sex marriage remains a distant pipe dream.

The health care revisions (popularly called Obamacare) were a strong factor in the huge shift in representation in the country.

I think it is called that mostly by those who deride it. It’s amazing what a good dose of fear can do to sabotage a good idea. I’m close to thinking that we should just extend Medicare to all, and that’s quite a shift for me. It does work, and the current system most certainly does not for many.

But I have to agree with Timothy, this is the first election I can remember in a long time when abortion did not seem to be a major issue at all. Regardless of one’s opinion on the “where life begins” argument, it seems more are coming to the realization that abortion isn’t going away. Making it as unnecessary as possible might be the only plausible way to go.

As regards giving up – I lasted 47 years with a male body, doing the “boy act” because I felt I had to. Half of those in that situation attempt suicide before age 20.

Those that do eventually transition do not give up easily. Sheer Darwinian selection.

This sometimes means we can be a little… ok, a lot… not just persistent, but obstinate. Pig-headed. Intransigent. We don’t know how to give up, because if we did, we’d be dead.

The only way I will cease is if he convinces me he’s correct. Not the correctness of the basic axioms of his theology, I’ll accept those as true, I mean that it is internally consistent. Or if I can show him that Christianity and his actions regarding homosexuality are incompatible, as I believe they are. I have hopes there, he’s a decent man, so my work is 90% done.

Warren is a Christian too remember, and an Evangelical. He doesn’t just accept Dr Brown’s axioms, he believes them to be true, unlike me.