Is opposing gay marriage the same as being a racist? Opposition deeply rooted in religious belief

The Week ^ | February 13, 2014 | Damon Linker

[2ndDivisionVet]

When it comes to sexuality, the Bible is pretty clear.

Writing at The New Republic, Isaac Chotiner doesn't much appreciate my argument about the growing cockiness of secular liberals. Where I see liberals arrogantly (and illiberally) pushing traditionalist religious believers into a corner with ObamaCare's contraception mandate and anti-discrimination laws surrounding gay marriage, Chotiner sees...no problem at all. That's exactly how I'd expect a committed secular liberal to respond. Which is why I wrote the column in the first place.

So let me try once more to convince him.

I'll start with the contraception mandate because it's the harder case. Virtually all secularists and even the vast majority of American Catholics see no problem with the use of artificial birth control, so the issue doesn't generate much sympathy in the public at large. Then there's the fact that the Obama administration created a contraception exemption for churches and at least some other religiously based organizations. Isn't that good enough?

Apparently it isn't for the numerous groups that have filed suit in the matter. And sorry, but their concerns can't just be waved away by linking to a column by Linda Greenhouse that expresses contemptuous condescension for the plaintiffs in one of the cases (an order of nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor). The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, but Greenhouse thinks the suit is ridiculous; therefore, the justices have been brainwashed by a seductive "story." That's really all there is to her argument.

As Lyle Denniston explains in a helpful post at SCOTUSblog, the issues raised by the case — and by the other mandate-related cases before the court this term — are real, though they will inevitably appear to be trivial to those who regularly view religious truth claims as trivial.

As for gay marriage and anti-discrimination, Chotiner appears not to recognize that his own flippant views — which are very widely held among secular liberals — pose a very real threat to the religious freedom of millions of his fellow citizens. As countless liberals have done before him, Chotiner breezily equates those believers who once appealed to Scripture in defense of racism and those who currently reject gay marriage. The first position has been socially, morally, and legally marginalized with no negative consequences for faith, Chotiner asserts, and the same will soon be true about the second. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that strictures against homosexuality are rooted far more deeply in the Judeo-Christian tradition than racism ever was. Yes, slavery is found throughout the Scriptures and comes in for criticism only, at best, by implication. But race-based slavery — and the racism that made it possible and continues to infect ideas and institutions throughout the West to this day — receives no explicit endorsement from the Bible.

Which isn't to say that those seeking to justify race-based slavery or racism couldn't, and didn't, twist biblical passages to make them provide such justification. But the Hebrew Bible and New Testament clearly do not teach (either explicitly or implicitly) that buying, owning, and selling African slaves is next to godliness.

The same cannot be said about the normative teaching on human sexuality contained within the Judeo-Christian scriptures — and even more so, within the interpretative and theological traditions that grow out of them. In dismissing this teaching so casually, Chotiner ends up implying that traditionalist churches and religious communities are the moral equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan.

If that's an accurate evaluation of their moral status, then we can expect that before long traditionalist religious views will be denied legitimacy by the courts, denigrated in the public schools, and thoroughly marginalized in our public life. (For a sober but concerned exploration of how the social and legal persecution of traditionalist belief might unfold over the coming years, see Rod Dreher's recent cover story in The American Conservative.)

Chotiner and his fellow secular liberals may well be right that traditionalist views of sexuality are bound to evolve, with nearly everyone destined to accept and affirm the dignity of homosexual relationships. But given the commitments of these same liberals to personal freedom, shouldn't they also insist that the evolution take place at its own pace, without being forcibly imposed by the coercive powers of the state?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Comments?

[Red Dog #1]

Not enthusiastically agreeing with everything the Democrats want is racist.

[Viennacon]

“Yes, slavery is found throughout the Scriptures and comes in for criticism only, at best, by implication.”

For crying out loud, I have to say most Christians are utterly pathetic whenever this argument is raised by secular liberals, who usually know zilch about ancient history.

Slavery at this time was... shock!... horror!... a VERY positive thing for humanity. It was virtually the only form of upward mobility (something the left claims to love), the only way people born into poverty could ever get an education and support a family and learn a trade.
To compare the slavery talked about in the Bible with regards to Israel with the race-based continuous generational slavery of Africans in the modern era is so historically moronic, it beclowns anyone who chooses to try it. You might as well compare it with the modern sex trade!

The slaves that were treated the worst were enemies captured after wars, but even they could buy their own freedom with money earned in off-hours. I suppose the PC brigade would rather they just be executed when the battle was over.

[libertylover]

Using religion to argue a political issue is a good way to lose the issue.
Gay “marriage” should be opposed simply because it isn't normal to behave in a manner that would cause the entire species to go extinct if the practice was widespread.

Similarly, abortion arguments should not be religious based. Abortion is wrong because it kills a unique and distinct human being (and a DNA test would prove that to be a true statement.)

[2ndDivisionVet]

Many slaves could own slaves and other property in Rome. I wonder if the modern left knows that.

[Viennacon]

It’s not to say brutal slavery did not exist in the ancient world. Certainly Sparta had a particularly oppressive slave system based on race (also of note, Sparta was a highly homosexual society).

But God’s law took slavery and set out strict guidelines and a framework to actually turn it into a positive thing, and these ideas went ahead of Christianity to other cultures who adopted these principles before Christ even came onto the scene.

[Washi]

I obviously can't speak with any authority, because I'm only an old, white guy, but if I were black I'd take offense at gays trying to ride the coat-tails of the legitimate civil rights movement.

[BenLurkin]

Comparing the political machinations of people with an anus fetish to the civil rights struggle of American blacks is despicable.

[Iron Munro]

What race are homos?

All opposition to homosexuality isn’t based on religion.

Anyone can see that homosexual sex is an un-natural act and not what nature intended for man and woman.

[GenXteacher]

Opposing gay marriage, open homosexuality, polygamy, and other evils is a mark of civilization.

[daniel1212]

Your view is a needed voice in the wilderness. Couple good links
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Slavery

[SuziQ]

Homosexual ‘marriage’, homosexuality itself, and abortion are all contrary to natural law, which isn’t tied to any religion, it just IS.