Posted on 03/03/2014 10:07:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, writes that it's perhaps only a matter of time when same-sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, ruminating on what it might be like for those who believe in traditional marriage when that happens.
The Supreme Court is likely to be "forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence" on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all states, writes Douthat, former senior editor at The Atlantic, in an op-ed piece for the Times.
This will finish the national debate but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage, he says.
This will lead to one of two possibilities, he argues.
This division "will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it." And in this case, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture, he says.
"And where conflicts arise in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding gay rights supporters would...let the dissenters opt out 'in the name of their freedom and ours.'"
The other possibility is that "the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South" is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion, Douthat suggests. "In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business," he adds.
Meanwhile, "pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power," leading to harassment of agencies and businesses that promote the older definition of marriage, the columnist adds.
This seems more likely after last week's "debate" in Arizona over a bill that would make a way for business owners to refuse service to gay people on religious grounds, he argues.
While such bills have been seen, in the past, "as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender to accept same-sex marriage's inevitability while carving out protections for dissent now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore," Douthat says.
"The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform," he adds.
The writer then blames Christians for it, saying they had "plenty of opportunities thousands of years' worth to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance." He says they must "remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution."
In conclusion, Douthat wonders what settlement the "victors" will impose for the "defeated."
No! I think churches still need to declare the truths of the Bible. However, I think it is a much better witness to say I disagree with you, but I still want to serve and help you.
I know I can do a much better job. We have a huge homeless population in my community, and I really don’t help them. I give money, but I don’t personally do anything else. Maybe I need to go and hand out blankets, coats, toothbrushes, etc to them.
I think I need to focus on how can I really shine God’s light.
It already happened, nine months ago when the Supreme Court handed down Webster, which made it impossible legally to defend any law against gay marriage. Webster has since been used to impose gay marriage (or the recognition of out of state gay marriage, which amounts to the same thing) in New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Utah, Ohio, Colorado and Kentucky. It’s on auto-pilot now.
You’re going to wait a long time for civil opposition, to say the least of secession. The Utah decision, through a combination of incompetence by the state Attorney General and aggressiveness by the courts, was unstayed for two weeks, in which time we saw, in the most anti-gay-marriage state in the country, a couple of isolated incidents of defiance by rural county clerks, all of whom folded after a few days.
The writer then blames Christians for it, saying they had “plenty of opportunities thousands of years’ worth to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance.”
Ah, yes, that anonymous group out there that can be blamed for everything. Would the author care to name names, or is he content to issue judgment on an entire group of people based on his own prejudice? Hmm, isn’t that what he is accusing others of doing?
...and the horse they rode in on.
I don’t know if I would bend over backwards to be liked or appreciated. Maybe that’s part of our problem. I think we should bend over backwards to do God’s will. Who cares if people hate us.
Maybe we aren’t putting enough trust in God.
There are too many defeatist Christians around. Let’s focus put our focus on God.
I am just thankful that my own kids are not buying into today’s culture. We live in California, and my kids may be more conservative than me.
That makes sense then. I just always find it unusual that someone posting something that would usually get them zotted immediately has an account date of 1998. Not 2003 or 2005, or any other date. It’s always ‘98, as if seniority grants them some sort of privileges, which it does, because they usually get ignored rather than zotted. The new taxpayer-funded ACORN trolls are usually culled immediately.
I am not pro-homosexual but I prefer them to anyone who thinks concentration camps are the answer for them. This goes for the joker, too.
Taking a stand against something is a little different from advocating violence against people who annoy you.
I assume both of you are joking. At least I hope so.
Well, of course.
They won’t care if you like them, once they are wielding the power of goverent against you!!!
That was my point; many blacks act like complete rubes and they don’t care what you think because the government supports them over other people.
When FR first started, there were a lot more of us who were less socially conservative than what is now the large majority. Many of those old timers were very well respected, and have unfortunately moved on. I am still here because I agree with 90% of what is said here, and I still find this to be the best place to get info on the news and the culture.
As for this topic, I think the only thing left to fight, and it is a BIG fight and one that should never be given up, is for the right of people, for ANY reason, to freely associate with anyone they want, or not too. This should be a basic human right, once which should never be given up, ever.
My comment is more along the line of "gay" acceptance. Nearly every poll out there shows more and more acceptance each day. I dont think there is anything we can do about that, but the right of people to NOT associate and "do business" with people they dont want to, thats a line I would never give up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.