We’re at a point when even a notable Republican pollster is warning the party that it’s to their own detriment to fight equal rights for gay people. You would think Christian groups would come around to that way of thinking eventually, too, but that may take another generation or two. Most Christian leaders refuse to accept the fact that gay people just aren’t a problem for most people, including younger Christians.

The Illinois Family Institute, a SPLC-certified hate group, offers five reasons Christians should continue to fight against gay marriage (written by Kevin DeYoung of The Gospel Coalition). When you read their list, it’s clear they’re out of ideas. They know they’re fighting a losing battle, and they’re clinging to whatever bigotry might still go unchallenged by their members:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage.

As if civil rights should be up for a vote…

Even if gay marriage bans have passed in several states so far, it won’t happen much longer. The tides are turning. Eventually, equality will prevail, the bans will be overturned, and then this argument will become useless. What will they do when acceptance of marriage equality becomes an overwhelming majority and not just a slim one?

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters.

Aww… they’re trying to turn their bigotry into poetry. Isn’t that sweet of them.

Besides the fact that there’s no “divine design,” accepting gay marriage (and even civil unions) would result in more committed couples, more couples willing to adopt kids who need homes, stronger families, etc. Obviously, it doesn’t hurt straight families in the least bit. It would be good for everyone… except the organizations that exist solely to prevent equality from happening.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history… What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

Ah, the “definition” of marriage argument. Look, marriage used to be all about property. It used to be allowed only between people of the same skin color. It used to be (and in some places still is) decided by the parents and not the people getting married. Definitions change over time and marriage certainly hasn’t meant the same thing “throughout history.” If anything, definitions get more accurate over time and it’s about time we changed this one.

Oh… and regarding relationships between “church and church,” it turns out churches merge all the time

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior.

There’s a reason homosexuality stopped being viewed as a mental illness: It wasn’t one. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association finally accepted that in the 1970s. But what do they know? They’re only professionals who work with real disorders on a daily basis.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic.

The idea here is that it wouldn’t be enough if conservative Christians stopped putting up a fight; the victory for gay-rights advocates will only occur when people accept same-sex marriage instead of merely tolerating it.

While that would be great, I don’t really care what conservative Christians believe about gay people. I want them to stop getting in the way of civil rights legislation, but if they refuse to perform gay marriages, fine. If they want to ban gay people from their churches, fine. If they want to put up a sign that says “black people can’t take communion,” that’s their business. No one’s forcing them to be accepting and loving of all people. That sort of behavior is reserved for liberals and Jesus, I guess.

…

Obviously, there are many Christians who don’t buy into the hate.

They’re upset that older members of their church (or younger, more conservative Christians) can’t get over their homophobia.

They know that even the more liberal Christians who claim to “love” gay people and want to “apologize” for the wrongs done to gay people in the name of Christians would still vote against gay marriage and still believe homosexuality is a sin.

But if those Christians who support same-sex marriage want to make the change happen faster, it begins by calling out pastors and Christian groups who oppose it for awful reasons — like the Illinois Family Institute and all the other groups like it. By name and often.

Don’t stay silent. And if your church doesn’t get it, get out of there and take other people with you.

I don’t know why, but I read the articles at Christianity Today. It’s helpful to see what the conversation is on that side of the world. Often, they throw out a question to a panel of guests and post their responses. That Christians offer a diverse array of responses isn’t surprising. What stuns me is the fact that the CT folks still feel like these questions are worthy of debates:

The Lord’s Prayer? The one that begins, “Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name”? The one that appears in the Bible? We’re debating if that’s Christian?!

How could anyone suggest otherwise?

“You could consider it a prayer for multiple religions, because Jesus is considered to be a rabbi or a great teacher by many of the world’s religions. It was not originally delivered as a Christian prayer; it was simply a teacher teaching his disciples a good way to pray.”

Clayton Schmit, professor, Fuller Theological Seminary

Right… I’m sure Hindus everywhere will begin reciting it immediately.

Then there’s this question:

What?! Let same-sex parents adopt a child?! But if we let that happen, then… then… then the parents will love the child unconditionally just like all other parents.

(For what it’s worth, the issue at hand is whether a Christian adoption agency should be able to discriminate if they get taxpayer money to run their agency.)

But let’s hear how some Christians “hate the sinner and the sin”:

… Christians should not stop their adoption and foster-care programs, but neither should they comply with laws that would force them to place children with same-sex couples. Christians should continue operating their charitable organizations according to their principles, and they should continue serving the least among us until the state coercively shuts them down.

They should do this because when Jesus commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and care for the widow and orphan, he meant it. He meant it when he said we should love our neighbor, but he didn’t mean that we love them according to secularist liberal values or the dictates of the state. We should love them as Christ loves them.

– Editor of online publication Public Discourse Ryan T. Anderson

Jesus said love everyone! But those damn liberals think we should love everyone. We know better. Everyone is equal. Some are just more equal than others.

…

Again, I know there are many Christians who are rolling their eyes as they read those passages, too, but fact remains that these are questions being debated in the Christian community as if there’s a debate to be had.

Why anyone would continue to attend a church where the pastor preaches homophobia, I don’t know. Why anyone would support a church where the pastor just avoids the topic altogether, thus silently supporting bigotry, I don’t know. But the more of them who speak out, the faster the church will weed out the bigots.

Rachel Held Evans is a Christian trying to get the bigots to see the light, by posing the argument in strategic terms:

So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it?

Is a political “victory” really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church?

Is a political “victory” worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?

Is a political “victory” worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with gays and lesbians?

And is a political “victory” worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks — what if we get this wrong?

Too many Christian leaders seem to think the answer to that question is “yes,” and it’s costing them.

As much as I wish Christians would listen to her, part of me wants them to just stand stubbornly against gay rights and push all those young Christians out of the church. It’d be tough for all those gay Christians, but they’re all better off outside that insidious faith.