Now Obama is a bigot?

We are most likely at an impasse of sorts in the culture. The Rick Warren prayer is the kind of event which brings into bold relief the issues which divide. We have discussed on this blog before whether or not the gay-evangelical divide is a zero-sum situation — for one side to prevail, the other side must be defeated. John Cloud at Time magazine gives me evidence to think the divide continues to be wide. About Barack Obama, he writes:

Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships.

John Cloud here redefines bigot. Bigot means someone who is intolerant of others opinions and actions. Seemingly unaware of the contradiction, Cloud calls Obama a “very tolerant sort of bigot.”

I am thinking out loud here, but I wonder if the impasse comes down to beliefs and how these are properly lived out in a democracy. I don’t think it is about “being” gay/straight or being wired to experience opposite- or same-sex attraction. I say this because one may experience same-sex attraction and find that experience something unacceptable for reasons of morality, or for more pragmatic reasons. One may not value some impulses which rightly or wrongly are believed to lead to undesireable consequences. Thus, the divide may be more about ideology than ontology.

If I am right about the basic difference being ideological, then how do we regard people who disagree with us on matters of belief? Do we call them bigots? Do we say you disagree with me so you hate me and all that I am? Let’s leave “do” and go to “should.” Should conservatives say to liberals, you are bigots because you disagree with my beliefs? I do not think so. When John Cloud (who in my contacts with him seems quite tolerant of those who he apparently considers bigots) calls Barack Obama a bigot, does he not invite the same treatment? John you are a tolerant sort of bigot, I might say, when you come to an Exodus conference and converse cordially with the ex-gays.

In the newspeak, bigot means someone who disagrees with me. I doubt this will be good.

Print Friendly

  • Pingback: What is a “bigot”? | Explorations

  • http://explorations.chasrmartin.com Charlie (Colorado)

    I think he just thinks “bigot” is a general pejorative.

  • Mary

    Bigot means someone who is intolerant of others opinions and actions.

    This has been thrown at people all over the place. It is becoming all too common for a person with a different view to be anything but a bigot.

    I guess that means that gays are bigots??? Afterall, for the gay activist in general, their view of diversity and equal rights does not include a place for religion that views homosexuality differently than how they view it.

  • minty

    Labels like bigot, homophobe, Nazi or anti-Semite should not be thrown around lightly. These are severe, SEVERE accusations, and to just blithely bandy them out, as in this case, does other than pollute the discourse and undermine the credibility of the writer.

    Reminds me of when Rosie O’Donnell accused Kelly Ripa of being homophobic. On national television. Shut. Up. Rosie!

  • Eddy

    I think that this trend towards hyperbolic speech is going to backfire. Redefining bigot, homophobe, heterosexist, outrage…a bit over the top, IMHO, and another abundance of people will recognize it for what it is without even needing me to point it out. Rave On!!!

  • Jayhuck

    Warren,

    It is one thing to hold beliefs, it is another to take those beliefs and codify them so that your beliefs begin impinging on the ability of others to enjoy the same rights you do.

    I absolutely believe that we can all live together, enjoy the same rights (that includes marriage), without having to defeat the “other”. But the problem appears to exist primarily with the religious right and their often unyielding stance on issues they believe must operate according to THEIR beliefs.

  • Jayhuck

    As much as I hate it – It appears to be the Politics of Fear vs the Politics of Outrage – sigh

  • Eddy

    LOL. I thoroughly disagree with the following quote.

    But the problem appears to exist primarily with the religious right and their often unyielding stance on issues they believe must operate according to THEIR beliefs.

    It wasn’t supported in any way. Just a belief. I believe it demonstrates that timeless adage about finger-pointing perfectly. Nothing more to add.

  • Jayhuck

    Eddy,

    Please tell me then where the main support against gay marriages is coming from? Who are the groups who throughout the last several decades have been at the forefront of demonizing gay people and working to undermine equal rights for them – Its sure not Gavin Newsome or the “Liberals”.

  • Eddy

    Hmmm.

    Tell me who it is who will not compromise. Who insists on all or nothing. I’ve tried to reach ‘compromise’ on an assortment of issues on this blogsite but am continually met with an ‘all or nothing’ resistance. If you don’t see it, I’m sorry. But that doesn’t change the fact that the bulk of the rigidity is coming from ‘your side’. You made your slur against my team; I’ve made mine against yours. People can decide which view they agree with.

    BTW: David’s questions were respectful and to the point. I’d also like to know your answers.

  • Jayhuck

    What do you mean by ALL OR NOTHING? If you mean EQUAL TREATMENT, and you think that should be denied, than we have nothing to discuss!

  • Jayhuck

    Attitudes are changing Eddy towards gay people’s favor, and that’s due in great part to many people on “your side”. Although I will say this, I don’t really lump you in with most of the people I see on the religious right using fear to try and win over hearts and minds. I think you are a thoughtful and rational person

  • Eddy

    “All or Nothing Current Events”

    The “outrage” over Rick Warren saying a prayer at the inauguration…ignoring his work with the Worlds Aids Crisis and choosing instead to express ”outrage” because of his position on California’s Proposition 8. “Obama claims to be for gay rights but then he picks this man to pray at his inauguration! Oh, the horror!” It’s not like it’s a Supreme Court nominee or a cabinet position. The guy says a prayer and asks God’s wisdom and guidance for his term of office. “All or Nothings” are offended by that.

    “All or Nothing Glimpse from the Past”

    Or the historic invite Warren had earlier this year, conceived and pulled together by a gay activist who’s interested in bridge-building between the two polarized sides. The “All or Nothing’s” got outraged; the symposium was pulled.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    I do not think Obama is a bigot.

    I don’t think Rick Warren is a bigot. But he is an anti-gay activist and has been so in a way that has somehow eluded the press.

    Despite not being Episcopal, Rick Warren has inserted himself into the struggle within the Anglican Church and has been encouraging schism to some of the biggest gay-haters on the planet.

    Archbishop Akinola has campaigned for criminalization and Bishop Orombi is worse. These are the leaders that Warren has been encouraging. It’s part of what Orombi called making Africa a “purpose driven continent”.

    I fear these men. Personally. If I lived in their countries, I would be jailed and they would support such imprisonment.

    Rick Warren has an opportunity to be a calming voice. Instead he has chosen to be an instigator of strife.

    Frankly, and I don’t say this lightly, I truly believe that if Rick Warren had his way, gays in the United States would be subjected to the same treatment that they receive under those nations where he is revered.

  • Jayhuck

    Oh its good to see you Tim! :)

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    choosing instead to express ”outrage” because of his position on California’s Proposition 8

    Sorry, Eddy, but that is flatly untrue.

    No one objects to this “position on Proposition8″. We object to his equating gay couples with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.

    Stop for a moment and consider whether you’d be upset if someone compared you to a pedophile and then was lauded by the President.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    thanks… i do stop by sometimes. I just stayed out of the Obama debates.

  • Jayhuck

    Eddy,

    I still don’t have a clear understanding what you mean by all or nothing?

  • Eddy

    Jayhuck–

    That’s fine with me.

    Timothy–

    I don’t believe that he did equate homosexuality with pedophilia. There’s another thread with Ted Haggard as the topic where I gave my views on how that was a misinterpretation. I’m not a good ‘linker’ so I’ll see if I can get away with a copy and paste.

  • Jayhuck

    It sounds Eddy that the term All or Nothing is a way of distracting from the fact that what we are talking about is truly inequality. Why should gay people have to settle for less than real equality?

  • Jayhuck

    I truly believe that if Rick Warren had his way, gays in the United States would be subjected to the same treatment that they receive under those nations where he is revered.

    Then he could write a book for us all titled The Purpose Driven Prison Life! LOL :)

  • Eddy

    Timothy–

    The ‘homophobe’ reference in my earliest post (up around 4 or 5 somewhere) is actually linked to a comment from the ‘confirmation bias’ thread you made to Michael in reference to Ann’s objection to the misuse of the word ‘homophobia’. I find myself agreeing with you much of the time but your answer on that one cut me to the core. Do you recall that conversation? (I don’t think I arrived until after your comment.) Do you mind pursuing it with me?

  • http://TheFormers.com Debbie Thurman

    Tim, I know Rick Warren has been misquoted, misinterpreted or mistaken for others in the media before, and has had those errant things echoed from media outlet to media outlet. He has blogged about it before. I’m not saying this is one of those instances, but to distinguish it from one, perhaps you could share with us where or when he has made the comparison “equating gay couples with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.”

  • Eddy

    Jayhuck–

    Of course it would seem that way to you. I saw “All or Nothing” in the examples I cited. I also see it in those who won’t settle for talks on how to establish ‘civil unions’ rather than ‘marriages’. (This would afford them all of the rights and privileges of marriage but wouldn’t tamper with the historical definition of marriage.) But “All or Nothing” screams “principle” and wants the word too. Won’t settle for less! That’s “All or Nothing”.

    The topic presented this time happens to be how one side is playing with the verbage. You’ve claimed that everybody knows that its mostly the conservatives doing…but that isn’t this topic. This one is about how the other side is guilty too.

  • Jayhuck

    Eddy,

    If that’s true – and ALL the rights and privileges are the same, then there wouldn’t be a problem, however civil unions often don’t afford gay people the same rights as marriage. If gay people were afforded everything about marriage except the term there would be no issue, but that is not what is happening. I’ve said time and again that I’d be fine with civil unions if they are in fact equal.

  • Jayhuck

    The other thing you leave out of your defense of “your side” is that many people there don’t even want gay people to be able to enter into civil unions. So where is the real problem??????? One side is asking for equal treatment and rights and the other is working to deny them. Its pretty easy for me to see where the problem lies.

  • Eddy

    Jayhuck–

    sigh….

    goodbye!

  • Jayhuck

    Goodbye Eddy!

  • Mary

    Jayhuck – are you a bigot against people who have a different opinon than yours?

  • Ann

    Its pretty easy for me to see where the problem lies.

    Yes, of course it is when you make it a priority to look for anything at all that might justify a bias confirmation.

  • Mary

    Oh – there’s that bad phrase again – confirmation bias. Only conservative christians have confirmation bias. Gays, gay activists, and liberlas do not because they are pure in their thoughts and motives. No one else has such clarity as those groups. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jayhuck

    Yes Ann because THAT is what I’m doing – thanks for helping me see the light! – LOL

  • Jayhuck

    Let me repeat myself Ann – On one side we have gay people asking NOT to be treated as second class citizens – asking to enjoy the same rights that others do. On the other side are people working to demonize gays, using fear and other tactics to convince others that gays don’t deserve equal rights. Have both sides made mistakes – yes I think they probably have, but it ALL comes down to the fundamental messages on each side. I stand for equality, I’m not sure what you stand for.

  • Mary

    Jayhcuk,

    But you are part of the problem and not being part of the solution.

    You see only the gay activist side of things. I’m a liberal – handsdown. But there is another side to equal rights. Some people do not want their children being taught that gay marriage is morally right. Some people want children being taught that gay marriage is morally right. Some people want their children to be taught that there are different values in the world and in america and not a secular world view nor a religiously conservative that only teaches one side or the other.

    Equal rights mean equal rights in both directions. You seem to forget that when you focus on your interests only. As well, so do I and many others.

  • Jayhuck

    Mary,

    I don’t see gay people anywhere working to take away rights that others enjoy! But I was strictly speaking about gay marriage at the moment – your post above brings up another host of issues. Teaching that gay marriage is immoral is a religious belief of some and should be kept in parochial schools where other religious beliefs are taught. Parents can and should send kids to the schools where they believe their values will be passed on. Public schools on the other hand are a different animal – but I don’t even have the time desire or inclination to go into the who teaches who what when and where argument right now – Gay marriage is enough to deal with – especially with the holidays almost on top of me – OY

  • Lynn David

    *sigh*

  • justmom

    Dear Jayhuck:

    Or, on the one side we have gays and others, trying to demonize “dowdy old fashioned” people by using fear and other tactics, trying to change a tradition our country values and has used for centuries; and on the other side we have people who love gays, who have family members who are gay, who are sad for the challenges they have, who don’t mind what they do in private or who their friends are, but wish they would respect us as we do them. And yes, I can respect them without thinking they can be allowed to change our culture..

  • Mary

    Oh?

    When gays want gay marriage and gay sexuality taught in schools, I do. When I am not allowed to have a different opinion without threat of losing my job or position, I do.

    Are you beginning to see your bias, Jayhuck??

    You cannot even see the rights that have been taken away from others while the liberal world view has imposed it’s secularism and homogenized “value system” onto others.

  • Mary

    Jayhuck,

    Now you are using the holidays to avoid discussion??

    Did it evr occur to you that other people in this blog also have family and holiday obligations?

    You are full of excuses as to why you don’t answer direct questions and confrontation.

    You are aware that conservative parents do pay taxes also for public schools, whether or not their children are attending that school?? And you do know that gay parnets also pay taxes??? Why is one tax payer given more privilege than the other?

    Gay marriage, gay schmarriage. I don’t care what it is called. I am all for the rights of gay people. I am also for the rightsof conservative people. You fail to understand the impact legal gay marriage will have on the “other” public systems. If it is legally correct – some people will argue that it is morally correct. Sort of like divorce. Gay marriage will then be taught to children as a legal acceptance that must equal a moral acceptance. I am against that. That is not about curtailing the rights of gays. That is about demanding my rights, too.

    S

  • Mary

    BTW, are you ever going to answer the question about how a man or woman who has SSA is not gay???

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    @Mary et al:

    Just a word about commenting process. Commenters are free to pull out of a discussion for any reason or no reason. Christmas would actually be a pretty good one. However, other commenters have a right to ignore those who make assertions without documentation or rationale. When commenters fail to address questions, it may mean they have no answer, or time does not permit a lengthy answer. It is often good to make the points and move on.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    @Jayhuck:

    All laws are codifications of beliefs. There is a tradeoff either way. For evangelicals, marriage means something cultural – moms and dads, husbands and wives instead of mom and mommy and partner A and partner B. When gay marriage supporters scratch their heads and wonder why detractors fuss over semantics, gay marriage opponents can react in a similar way – why is marriage itself what you want? What is wrong with civil unions?

    These “small” semantic issues (small in the same way that a pebble in one’s shoe can upset much) reflect the beliefs of those who seek to remake or retain social norms.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    @Eddy: Ah, but Eddy, raving is what we do here :)

  • http://TheFormers.com Debbie Thurman

    Warren, actually, there is plenty wrong with civil unions. That will not stop them from becoming more widely available, however. They will be increasingly viewed as the sacrifice evangelicals and all who understand God’s intention in creating “them male and female” will be called on to make at the altar of political correctness. Will civil unions appease the gay rights movement? Never.

    What is becoming a real thorn in our sides in regards to civil unions is represented in a court battle being waged as we speak in the states of Vermont and Virginia — the Lisa Miller vs. Janet Jenkins case, with an innocent child at the middle. A little girl who is now 7 was artificially conceived in Miller’s and Jenkin’s civil union in Vermont. Miller, the biological mother, later rejected her foray into the lesbian life and returned to her Christian roots. Without even going into the whole ex-gay controversy here, the real heartbreaking crux of the matter is the fate of a child who ought to have a mommy and a daddy but is widely viewed in our shifted-values culture to have two mommies (impossible).

    Miller refuses to grant unsupervised visits with her former partner, for good reasons, which I have confirmed with her ( she lives nearby). She has offered supervised visits, so she is not keeping the child from Jenkins, as is widely reported. Meanwhile, the media (including Newsweek recently) continue to proliferate inaccurate information about this case, and many who blog about it just pass on that yellow journalism, the same as they do with Rick Warren. The two states’ competing laws have created a can of worms everyone wants to bury, but can’t. Some might say the codifying gay marriage would make it more clear-cut. Try telling that to little Isabella Miller. No man-made law can change what God has instituted.

    Since Timothy may or may not answer my previous question about Rev. Warren, I’ll save him the trouble. It was a Beliefnet interview that elicited this statement being misinterpreted about Warren:

    “I’m opposed to the re-definition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to a having brother and sister be together and call that a marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that a marriage.”

    He could have added a host of other things he is opposed to that might also have been mistakenly “equated” with gay unions. He was simply picking the most common unlawful unions that have been codified to state that he is only for marriage between one man and one woman. And yes, sin is sin is sin, in all forms.

  • Eddy

    Warren–

    Slight correction…’raving is what we do here’ ignores the ranting that is also a frequent part of the mix. I enjoy it best when the mix is 20% percent ‘rant & rave’ and 80% ‘reflective mellow’.

  • Ann

    Eddy,

    I agree. Would “Rave On” by Buddy Holly be good for karaoke?

  • Eddy

    I’m working my way into Van Morrison’s “Rave On”; I don’t know if that’s the same song that Buddy did. I’ll have to look Buddy’s up on YouTube. I’ve practiced some Buddy Holly at home but haven’t done any out at a show yet.

  • Eddy

    Ann–

    I just listened. Yes, it would be good for karaoke but probably with someone other than me singing it. Buddy has such an interesting and unique style and a rapid fire delivery. LOL. Working on delivery, style and voice all at once would be a serious challenge for me at this stage. Maybe by next year.

  • David Blakeslee

    Raving is overrated (to reach that crescendo of some intellect and larger emotion, my opponent must become a straw man).

    Jayhuck’s assertions regularly reach such a crescendo, and rarely address thoughtful response.

    Incremental traditionalism is just as valid as incremental liberalism.

    @ Tim, it is slander to conflate those who disagree with gay marriage with those who would imprison practicing gays and lesbians…

    The Anglican church has stepped over a boundary that makes them at odds with their own, previously held beliefs. Criticizing that transition does not make one a “gay hater.”

    The argument is whether gay marriage is an improvement on a current “good thing,” or the opposite.

    I assume that there are good and thoughtful people on Tim and Jayhuck’s side of this issue making their points…but such points deserve rebuttal and response without being labeled a “hater.”

    Unless such advocates are more interested in coersion and thugism…then call us any thing you like…but entering into a dialogue is clearly fruitless with such methods.

  • David Blakeslee

    Thought you all might be interested in this “hater”

    Pope Benedict criticizes homosexual behavior at

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/22/europe/23pope.php

  • Mary

    Debbie,

    I have a friend who has a son with another woman. My friend left the lifestyle and the two women are raising the child together. Instead of getting everyone to align with her new religious belief, she has accepted her past and is allowing equal partnership in parenting her child. It is difficult. She realizes the mistakes she has made.

    I am an ex lesbian. And I happen to disagree with the actions of your friend. She entered into a contract and wants to retract. These are the consequences she must live with. However, she has chosen to run away from a law that she supported not too long ago. And now she wants to change the law again to fit her new needs???

    What happens if she decides to go back into the lifestyle? Do all the kings horse and all the kings men go to battle again for her? She knew the consequences of the contract … that’s why there was one.

  • David Blakeslee

    More Haters and Bigots!

    Dear Alumni,

    I am writing to inform you that the Dean of Pepperdine University’s School of Law, Kenneth Star, will be acting as Lead Counsel representing the official proponents of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court case debating the constitutionality of the initiative. As you are aware, Proposition 8 called for a ban against same-sex marriages and was passed in California’s November election.

    Starr is one of the nation’s most well known constitutional scholars and remains active in the legal profession, often integrating actual cases and practical legal matters into the classroom for the benefit of students. While maintaining that Pepperdine remains neutral on the initiative, President Andrew Benton sees this as an opportunity for students to engage in productive debate on a topical issue: “America’s universities are home to brilliant academicians: historians, scientists, artists, and philosophers. Some find themselves invited to participate on the national stage and, whether we agree with them or not, we should respect their right to exercise their franchise and freedom. Though our institution does not take a political position, those from our community are free to do so under their own banner. For democracy to work, we must contend earnestly for our convictions, and must not close down a civil and respectful exchange of views. We must encourage conversation and provide a safe forum for debate.”

  • Mary

    I wonder – if we all get skinny and take up secret smoking will we also be considered bigots of obese people or bigots of non-smokers?

    Some of the things I read are just out there.

  • Evan

    Very interesting remarks coming from a pope with a solid intellectual upbringing. Not only does he criticise sexual behaviours, but he sounds the alarm on blurring gender divides. A Ms Luxuria angrily retorts to such bigoted views:

    “I’m someone who was born as male and has a spiritual and female soul, and it’s contradictory that a Pope just thinks of people just made as flesh and not made of a spiritual aspect.”

    :) ))

  • http://TheFormers.com Debbie Thurman

    Mary, I recently reminded Lisa that I have had to live with the unpleasant consequences of my past sins — all of them, whether gay or straight dalliances. She knows this is true in her own life. God has been gracious to me and has honored my repentance, just as he has with Lisa. It’s a complicated mess, and not so straightforward as some imagine it to be.

    A child is a very big “consequence.” Yes, both women ought to have fully known what they were getting into. It was a contracted relationship, whether or not we agree with that law. I’m sure Lisa can accept most any consequence — she could be facing jail time still — but my heart joins hers in believing the best interests of her daughter come before all others. That does not mean she cannot understand the feelings of her former partner, who had certain expectations of that relationship. She does. But you and I should both know the degree of unhealthiness that lifestyle can entail. And Janet Jenkins is in it completely still. There has been enough “smoke” from past unsupervised visits for Lisa to see there is fire there. As a mother, I know what she is feeling.

    This case isn’t about changing a law, much as it may need changing. It is about the hope that Virginia will uphold its laws, which do not honor same-sex unions. When an ungodly “contract” renders a person with no biological or formal adoptive connection to a child as equal to a biological parent, we have a problem.

    There is and always will be a major disconnect, as Warren blogged above, between gay marriage or civil union proponents and those who honor all of God’s law and understand that our laws stem from the most sacred of contracts He makes with us. And the courts are there to fight out these differences, not to replace God.

  • Eddy

    Thanks David and Evan (welcome back, BTW, it’s been awhile….) for the links to the pope. Outrage!!! Outrage!!!

    You know what’s really outrageous? Do you realize where he made the comments?

    Pope Benedict made the comments in an end-of-year speech to senior Vatican staff.

    To think that the spiritual leader of a major Christian denomination would dare to speak so pointedly to his senior staff in an end-of-year annual speech.about his moral perceptions. What was he thinking? Who does he think he is…the pope? Oh….right…..

    • Evan

      Thanks for the greeting, Eddy! Yes, the Pope, old-fashioned and dogmatic as he may be, knows the trends and gives a sign of warning. It pays to hearken to, but I wonder if these trends are reversible. It depends on what we’re focusing when we look at the trends. I think “gay” identity will become old-fashioned and laughable, among others. It already is.

  • Lynn David

    I read a Google translation of Benedict’s speech and I couldn’t figure out where the animosity was towards gay people. He was speaking in praise of male-female unions and I guess his words (hard to tell from a Google translation) are somewhat derisive towards gay people and perhaps moreso the transgendered – but these groups are never called out by name in the speech. As the comments are in support of the one, it is difficult to tell the animosity in them towards the other.

    He did compare saving the rainforests to saving the traditional family. And then talked about the idea of gender and the need for an “ecology of man.” So I guess in that respect gay peoples are seem more as loggers. Oh… I’m a lumberjack and that’s ok….

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddie and Debbie:

    The exact quote is:

    Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

    Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

    Rick Warren: Oh I do.

    Sorry, guys, but it doesn’t get any more clear than “oh I do”.

    Yesterday Warren released a tape on his church website that claimed that he talked about unmarried couples and common law. The reporter who interviewed him for the Beliefnet article refutes that claim. Fortunately the interview was on tape and can’t be written off as “liberal homosexualist godless press”.

    But it is good news, i suppose, that at least on his church website video he NOW says that he doesn’t think gay couples are the moral equivalent of pedophiles. He surrounded that comment with objections to how horrible the media and bloggers were for actually quoting the words he used.

    Personally… I’d be more impressed if he admitted his error, asked for forgiveness (rather than acting like a victim), and sought to remedy the harm he caused both to the gay community and to the name of Christ.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    David Blakeslee

    @ Tim, it is slander to conflate those who disagree with gay marriage with those who would imprison practicing gays and lesbians…

    The Anglican church has stepped over a boundary that makes them at odds with their own, previously held beliefs. Criticizing that transition does not make one a “gay hater.”

    As you fully well know, David, I did not conflate those who disagree with gay marriage with those who would imprison practicing (sic) gays and lesbians…

    Either you are not reading completely or you are in the mood to throw down some baseless accusations towards me in order to perhaps defend to yourself your own personal agenda for the Episcopal Church – but I’m just guessing.

    I was writing – as I ever so clearly said – about the Anglican Bishops in Nigeria and Uganda. Akinola (Archbishop of Nigeria) pushed for his country to pass a law that would give five years of jail time even to heterosexuals who might meet in groups larger than two to oppose the criminaliztion of gays and would jail those who even read a book that disagreed with the anti-gay policy. I’d say that’s a bit more than “disagreeing with gay marriage”, wouldn’t you? And perhaps you just don’t know that Rick Warren was one of Akinola’s biggest defenders in the states, writing a piece praising him in Time Magazine.

    And I was writing about Bishop Orombi of Uganda. Ya know, Uganda, where homosexuality will get you a life sentence. Orombi has been going around claiming that gays (particularly Westerners) are “killers” out to get him. Ant the first think Warren did while visiting Uganda was tell Orombi that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and not a human right and should not be tolerated. Perhaps you think that applauding a life sentence for homosexuality is just “criticizing transition”.

    Guess what, folk, bigotry does exist. Homophobia is actually a real thing. And if the attitudes Akinola and Orombi don’t count as hatred, fear, homophobia, and irrational bigotry, then frankly I just don’t know what does.

    I guess at some point you have to make a choice. Do I support anti-gay activists no matter how extreme or how far they are willing to go? Do I defend any action, word, or other expression of bigotry no matter how extravagant just because it comes from “my camp”?

    Because, David, this goes Waaaaay beyond what I expected from you.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Debbie,

    I’m curious. Do you believe that omitting the truth is a form of lying?

    Since Timothy may or may not answer my previous question about Rev. Warren, I’ll save him the trouble. It was a Beliefnet interview that elicited this statement being misinterpreted about Warren:

    “I’m opposed to the re-definition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to a having brother and sister be together and call that a marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that a marriage.”

    He could have added a host of other things he is opposed to that might also have been mistakenly “equated” with gay unions. He was simply picking the most common unlawful unions that have been codified to state that he is only for marriage between one man and one woman. And yes, sin is sin is sin, in all forms.

    Because you oh-so-conveniently left out

    Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

    Rick Warren: Oh I do.

    I guess whether you think deception by omission is a form of lying would determine whether you think that you lied.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    But you and I should both know the degree of unhealthiness that lifestyle can entail. And Janet Jenkins is in it completely still.

    Oh how I weary at this sort of complete unvarnished bigotry. The assumption that there is some mythical “lifestyle” that all gay people are “in” and that it has a “degree of unhealthiness” is complete and utter foolishness.

    Some folks just don’t know better. And I can’t fault them for their ignorance. But when people have been told over and over of the offensiveness and arrogance – along with the just plain falseness – of such claims, then there’s just no way to read it as other than bigotry.

    Really, what else could it possibly be?

  • Eddy

    Timothy:

    Please consider the lead sentence from the quote you provided.

    What are you opposed to Pastor? I’m opposed to the redefinition of the 5,000 year old definition of marriage.

    Is there anything you’re not opposed to? I’m not opposed to that

    I know I just did it backwards but that’s the essence of the lead sentence. It’s a sentence and should be recognized as a completed thought.

    He then goes on to some things that we’d all be opposed to to illustrate other areas that could be affected by a redefinition.

    The final answer: “Oh I do.” I’m having a hard time believing that he stopped with just those three words. And, if he did, bad job on the interviewer’s part for not drawing him out on that. I’d like to know what he meant by that…but I don’t.

  • Lynn David

    And more on the Pope’s speech, PZ Myers has a rather interesting view of it in which his title conveys a his opinion:

    Virgin male in dress chastises gay people for their confused sexuality

    • Evan

      Hahahaha! LMAO!
      :|

      Funny stuff. But the pope is a very smart guy, he’s not a kook. Let’s not make fun of a decent guy because we’re going astray. We=people today.

  • Eddy

    Lynn David–

    Love the title of the piece. Thoughts of The Onion on a good week. Must go read it now…..with that title I’ve got to…..

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy

    Timothy–

    The ‘homophobe’ reference in my earliest post (up around 4 or 5 somewhere) is actually linked to a comment from the ‘confirmation bias’ thread you made to Michael in reference to Ann’s objection to the misuse of the word ‘homophobia’. I find myself agreeing with you much of the time but your answer on that one cut me to the core. Do you recall that conversation? (I don’t think I arrived until after your comment.) Do you mind pursuing it with me?

    I don’t recall the comment exactly.

    I think that I said that there is a form of bigotry similar to racism, sectarianism, and other bigotries that is based on sexual orientation. Our culture calls it homophobia. While the origins of that mangled roman-greek awkward word would literally translate and “fear of the same”, we know it to be animus, bias, bigotry directed towards gay men and women.

    I hope that is what you were talking about… but correct me if I’m mistaken.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy,

    The video is here and a slightly larger transcript at BTB

    And you’re right. He didn’t stop there. He went on with the usual accusation of horrors that would happen if gays married (preachers jailed) which completely pretends that we don’t have a first amenment in this country.

    But I’m truly sorry. I know you want to believe that Warren didn’t compare gays to pedophiles. I know it just sits wrong and isn’t what you want to hear. Ya know, I didn’t want to believe it either and what’s more I don’t think he truly does believe that.

    But he said it. And you gotta admit, Eddy, it’s hard to argue with “oh i do”.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy,

    Not to get way off point… but about that 5,000 year old definition of marriage. I challenge anyone here to list for me five major biblical heros who had a marriage that would fit Warren’s definition of a traditional marriage.

  • Eddy

    Timothy–

    Yeah, that’s the one. Ann made a point that we label people as homophobes who aren’t. Michael agreed with her and then you made that argument in defense of the new customary but not accuate meaning. That didn’t seem like you. You usually side with accuracy.

    It might seem like a trivial thing to you but, as one of the ones being mislabeled under the new customary but not accurate meaning, it felt dismissive without warrant. LOL. We can all be dismissive…but I’ve never seen you do it without cause. And it really got under my skin…I must have ‘leaked sideways’ on the homophobe label a dozen times or more. Can you appreciate where I’m coming from? We’re right here in the room and you advise Michael that it’s now socially acceptable to include us in the term ‘homophobic’.

    Am I misunderstanding you or was that your intent?

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy,

    The problem is that “homophobe” doesn’t mean “afraid of homosexuals”. If that were the definition that we insisted upon, there would be no instances of homophobia. Really, who runs screaming… well, ok there would be some instances but it would mostly be a word without a use.

    I suppose if there were another word for “bigotry based in animus towards gay persons”, I’d use it. But there isn’t.

    And other than anti-gay activists, everyone else knows what “homophobe” means… even those who really really don’t want to.

    I’m sorry if I was dismissive. Truly. It’s been a stressful month and I’m probably not behaving as well as I should.

    Incidentally… I don’t think you’re a homophobe. And I don’t see how you could fit in that definition. You don’t exhibit bigotry or much animus, though we differ on views. Only a very small percentage of Warren’s visiters are really homophobes – and they tend to be the ones who don’t think that such a thing exists.

  • Eddy

    Thanks Timothy. I realized that I was also feeling cheated. I listened seriously to the objections to the term ex-gay and still ponder workable alternatives. (My latest is SIBS…Sexually In Between Somewhere. It rolls easily in conversation but I haven’t tried it out on any Exodus folks yet.)

  • Mary

    Timothy,

    I agree with that challenge!!! Our current definition of marriage is not 5000 years old. I believe for myself in the one woman/one man marrigae program. But I don’t have any fantasies that this has been practiced completely in the bible by many of the “heroes”. And this whole idea about love and marriage???? A recent exploit of society. This didn’t even occur until the last hundred years or so…

    Argh!!!!

  • http://TheFormers.com Debbie Thurman

    Timothy, that Rick Warren is frequently quoted out of context and that media coverage related to gay rights is slanted to attempt to make those opposed to viewing unchangeable homosexuality as God’s created order appear foolish is legendary by now. Prideful, dishonest intellect is abased in the Big Picture (1 Cor. 3:19-20, et al). Those who know Rev. Warren know what he is saying. Hair-splitting and reordering or editing comments does not change that. He speaks many words that aren’t filtered through the media. He’s a total package, not one interview.

    I would redirect your question back to you because something is always left out of the calling-sin-sin-is-bigotry argument. But then, I suppose it is quite impossible for gay-identified folks to express bigotry toward Christians … or minorities with whom they seek (poorly) to identify. I suppose the images we saw in the media of gays behaving badly post-Prop. 8 in California and elsewhere were just figments of our imagination, as well.

    The divide is what it is, and ever will be. No amount of debating will change it. I believe I’ve said this before.

    • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

      Debbie,

      I marvel at you. I provide the exact quote, give a link to the entire interview, give you follow up, and you just say that Warren’s taken out of context.

      And your accusation of “reordering”, well that would be two for two, now wouldn’t it be, Debbie?

      For the sake of the name of Christ, please please please don’t tell anyone you are a Christian. The Phelpses are bad enough – and at least no one really thinks that they represent Christianity.

      But I tell you the truth, Debbie. When most gay folks hear the word “Christian”, they think of folks like you and want nothing to do with it. You are so busy “calling sin sin” that you don’t care in the slightest who you’ve slandared, whom you’ve offended (on purpose), and how you’ve distorted things in your effort to impose your personal opinion about “God’s Law” on others.

      Behavior like that gives Christ a bad name.

    • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

      I suppose the images we saw in the media of gays behaving badly post-Prop. 8 in California and elsewhere were just figments of our imagination, as well.

      Actually, yes. They are figments of your imagination.

      You saw on the new images of gays protesting. You saw peaceful marches. You saw angry individuals doing no daming, breaking no laws, and behaving admirably and you declared them to be images of “gays behaving badly”.

      Why? Because they were gay. And to you, well then they must be behaving badly. You need to ask yourself, Debbie, what motivation led you to translate peaceful marching as “bad behavior”.

      The truth, Debbie, if you can bring yourself to face it is that there was minimal bad behavior by anyone and of those instances wherein there was some small vandalism, no one knows whether it was gay people who did it or not. (though every “Christian” news source just went right ahead and made that claim. I guess they’ve never read the Ninth Commandment).

      The only instance of “gays behaving badly” that I recall offhand was in Palm Springs. There a perrenial anti-gay activist had been carrying a styrofoam cross to gay events and protesting. She came to an anti-8 rally and tried to push her way to the cameras. One report (which was given first hand but which I cannot vouch) was that she pushed down a cripple man to get by. There gay folks took her cross and broke it and yelled at her. Yeah, that was bad and we all condemned it.

      But it PALES in comparison to what is done to gay people EVERY month in this nation. Every month, Debbie.

      And it pales in comparison to the false statements that are made about us on this site by you.

    • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

      “… doing no damage…” not “…doing no daming…”. LOTS of daming was going on.

      And to answer your question about gays directing bigotry towards Christions: yes some do.

      As a Christian, I regularly communicate with gays who have been badly abused – sometimes physically, sometimes psychologically, always socially – by others who claim Christianity as their defense. And they are not infrequently bitter and angry and will even consider me to be a fool for holding onto my faith. And even some tiny portion of these will stike out with bigoted and hateful statements about Christianity and Christians. On my website I regularly have to remove pointless anti-Christian comments.

      I don’t justify that bigotry. I don’t excuse it. But let’s not pretend that the incidences of anti-Christian bigotry from gays even remotely comes close to anti-gay bigotry from Christians.

      But gays do not take steps to

      -Keep Christians from holding certain jobs.

      -Keep Christians from living in certain areas

      -Violently attack Christians for being open about who they are

      -Enact laws to keep Christians from adopting children

      -Take Children away from their parents because they are Christians

      -Refuse to let Christians visit their loved ones in the hospital

      -Boycott businesses that put ads in Christian newspapers and magazines

      -Lie about ballot measure that would forcibly divorce several thousand Christian couples and put their children in jeopardy

      -Push schools to encourage and support children leaving the Christian Lifestyle.

      -Insult the relationships of Christians by suggesting they are short-lived, shallow, and revolve exclusively around sex.

      -Spread lies about what Christians do to/with each other.

      -Push for legislation to repeal any and all civil liberties that Christians enjoy, including marriage, adoption, and equal protection before the law.

      (I borrowed the list from a comment on my site)

  • Ann

    Melissa Etheridge has written a very thoughtful piece regarding Rick Warren in the Huffington Post.

  • Mary

    That was awesome!

  • http://TheFormers.com Debbie Thurman

    And what would it mean to you, Timothy, if five or more such people were found as examples of monogamous marriage in biblical history? Of course, there were such people around. Their narratives are not all in the Bible. Some are. Joseph and Mary, who have special significance today to all believers, appear to have been one such couple.

    Are you not aware that the Bible, most of which covers the millennia prior to the coming of Christ, is a story of God’s wayward people, alternately rejecting Him and suffering horrific consequences for their disobedience and then repenting and receiving His blessings after being called back to accountability by the prophets? After several hundred years of silence, God decided to come to Earth himself to give His people a plan of redemption. That is the season Christians are celebrating at this moment, culminating in tomorrow.

    The Church Age arrived with the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul’s epistles to various churches and individuals offer a picture of the good, bad and ugly of that age, as well.

    Are you to have us believe that you are, on the one hand, accepting the Bible as authoritative while rejecting it on the other?

    By the way, the only reason I am even still in this discussion today is I apparently am battling the onset of the flu or some similar illness. I am kinda slowed down and sitting around. Not a bad thing, actually. But I am going now to spend the rest of my time with my family, which is what we all should be doing. I doubt there is anything more I can offer here anyway.

    • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

      Sooooo… your example of a traditional marriage (one that should be upheld even if it means institutionalizing different laws for different people based solely on what you think is God’s Law) is:

      A man waiting to marry the woman who is living with him in a chaste situation until she gives birth to the physical child of God.

      And if you’re a Catholic, you believe that a traditional marriage includes a sex-less marriage for the rest of their lives.

      Why don’t you bring that one up for a vote?

  • Mary

    Debbie,

    Thank you for that. Yes, the bible is a story about wayward people struggling to follow God. It doesn’t read as a manual on how to do things perfectly. And it is filled with those who continually return to God.

    Isn’t that most of us?

  • Eddy

    Thanks, Ann. I may not know how to link but have become a good googler. For othes who don’t know how to get there without a link, just type ‘huffington post, etheridge’ in your searcher and you should find Melissa’s comments easily.

    Wow, seems like there’s a point to be made about actually getting to know those people from ‘the other side’. (Warren, how about trying to hook up Etheridge with the activist guy who approached you for the historic symposium?) –My apologies re his name. I’m picturing ‘starts with s and has the short ‘a’ sound in it. But, I’m blanking…totally blanking.

    It’s the redefinition of marriage that he fears personally. Personally, he’s an evangelical pastor. Ministers and churches do have to comply with the state and federal authorities; they are bound by the laws that bind us all. So, if you change the definition of marriage (which marriages the pastors have license to perform from the state) would they find themselves in the quandary of being forced to perform marriages–to ask God’s blessings on unions–that they believe, via their relationship with God, to be counter to God’s will. And if they refuse? Fines, imprisonment, license revoked, censured? Pastors and churches currently have the right to decline marrying people who they feel shouldn’t be married. I know personally of several situations where pastors have exercised that right. Could it be compromised by a hasty redefinition of marriage?

    ***it’s ‘hasty’ if you don’t feel like anyone has considered the impact it could have on you and your life’s calling.

    ****for those who suggest it would have no impact on the free speech rights of a pastor, see the rantings against The Pope linked above. He was talking to his senior staff in an annual meeting. “Belief” is central to his job and yet we’re OUTRAGED that he says what he believes–to his senior staff–in the annual meeting.

    *****People might think that the pope’s words personified intolerance but at least his were ‘live and let live’…’this is our belief, our mission but we love our fellow man’. What, though, is the goal of the OUTRAGED? They want to pressure him never to convey his thoughts on the subject. (…if he can’t convey them to his senior staff at an annual meeting….then, when would we let him do it?) I think this intolerance overshadows his. It’s got no ‘live and let live’ to it at all. Now, that’s intolerance!

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy,

    Ministers and churches do have to comply with the state and federal authorities; they are bound by the laws that bind us all. So, if you change the definition of marriage (which marriages the pastors have license to perform from the state) would they find themselves in the quandary of being forced to perform marriages–to ask God’s blessings on unions–that they believe, via their relationship with God, to be counter to God’s will. And if they refuse? Fines, imprisonment, license revoked, censured?

    Stop stop stop stop stop stop stop

    You are far too smart for that. Catholic Church will not conduct marraiges between divorced people. The Jewish synogogues will not marry non-Jews. Many – if not most – churches will not marry those outside their denomination or sometimes even congregation. Mormons don’t even let non-Mormons attend their Temple weddings.

    And never have they been challenged. And they never will. Because we have freedom of religion and no big heaping pile of homophobic propaganda can change that.

    If the First Amendment is thrown out, it won’t be because of gay marriage. And if that happens, we have far bigger problems on our hands than the dreadful idea of gay couples having the same access to their govenment as straight couples.

    This is a BS argument. You know it. I know it. Rick Warren knows it.

    Eddy, you are not a homophobe. But the argument that gay marriage will magically erase the first amendment is based solely in illogical fears and irrational biases. In other words, that argument is homophobic.

    (See how nice it is to tie two discussions together)

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    Eddy,

    Sorry but my pity doesn’t go out to the poor persecuted pontif.

    Of course, he is subject to criticism and outrage. That too is a first amendment right: to object to what one sees as incorrect.

    Now if the US government tries to jail the Pope then your argument will have validity. Until then, I’m not buying it.

  • Eddy

    Timothy–

    Trouble is I can’t stop. Because I’ve seen it happen. It is not homophobic to know and realize that there is a strategy being played out; I believe that most of the stragegy is by the books–but I hate the thought and speech censorship that is very much a part of it and is already rearing its head.

  • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

    OK, now it’s time to leave a comment with which all readers here will agree:

    Have a very merry Christmas and take a moment during the celebration to remember the purpose we’re celebrating: the incarnation of God coming in humble status and frail form to bring peace to humanity.

  • Lynn David

    Eddy lamented: Trouble is I can’t stop. Because I’ve seen it happen.

    What is “it” and when did “it” “happen.”

  • Lynn David

    If marriage is so “sacred” then why do you allow two atheists to get civilly married?

  • Eddy

    Lynn David–

    re post 1: I’ve seen or heard of pastors harassed or vilified for refusing to perform gay weddings and funerals.

    re post 2: I don’t know who you’re talking to. I never brought them up. I’m not a pastor. I would suspect that the pastors I illustrated above might refuse until the couple went through new member classes and, if the couple decided they weren’t in line with the church’s beliefs, the church would likely direct them (hopefully politely) elsewhere. If gay marriage were legal and that were the primary reason for sending the couple somewhere else, there’d be screams of OUTRAGE in a heartbeat and pending lawsuits by daybreak. (Giving it the specific legal entitlement of marriage makes it automatically ‘discrimination’ if the pastors reason for referring them on is that they are a homosexual couple. A pastor could choose not to join atheists in marriage; he could not choose not to join gays.)

    For those checking out: Merry Christmas! Don’t lose sight of the meaning in the midst of the merriment…or the mixing with relatives…in case those are two different things.

    • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

      I’ve seen or heard of pastors harassed or vilified for refusing to perform gay weddings and funerals.

      No, Eddy, you haven’t.

      Sure you have seen pastors criticized for their views on homosexuality or gay marriage. You have also seen them criticized for their views on baptism, divorce, the Trinity, socialism, communism, capitalism, ecumunism, litergy, papal authority, the women’s roll in church, being too lively, being too boring, real racism, imagined racism, a million different points of doctrine, and what color tie they wore last Sunday.

      None of which has anything whatsoever to do with civil law. It is offensive to imagine that preachers should be immune to criticism from one group only and on one issue only.

      This whole “gays can’t have civil equality because then some pastor may be villified oooh oooh oooh” argument is WAY beneath you.

      Give me the name of a single solitary pastor in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or California who has had any threat to his constitutional freedom of religion and I’ll consider your argument. Otherwise, please apologize and don’t make that argument again. It’s only based on fear and dislike of gays, a motivation that I know for certain you are capable of resisting.

      It is not homophobic to know and realize that there is a strategy being played out; I believe that most of the stragegy is by the books–but I hate the thought and speech censorship that is very much a part of it and is already rearing its head.

      It most absolutely is homophobic to make false accusations and assert that gays want to censor thought and speech. Totally BS.

      That is no less hateful than for me to say that all ex-gays want to reinstate sodomy laws accross the nation. Oooh, it sounds scary. And if I quote certain people in a selective way I could make it seem real. I could even argue that ex-gays shouldn’t be able to (fill in the blank) because they are trying to do this awful thing. But you and I both know that this is bogus (at least for many ex-gays).

      Yes, gay people will continue to criticize those who criticize them. Duh!

      And gay people will continue to fight without stop until there is equality. And gay people will seek to encourage folks to change their mind.

      But that’s not censorship. And in no way will gay equality cause anyone to lose their constitutional rights to speech. Nor is that the goal of the gay movement.

      And you really need to look at what your statement implies: You’re saying that gay people should be denied equality because you don’t like their “agenda”. Some gay people want “bad things” so all gay people should be denied fundamental rights.

      Really? Is that the way we measure what rights people should have: if they agree with us? And you are saying that the gay folk have a censorship agenda?!

    • http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com Timothy Kincaid

      If gay marriage were legal and that were the primary reason for sending the couple somewhere else, there’d be screams of OUTRAGE in a heartbeat and pending lawsuits by daybreak.

      Yes, some couples would have screams of outrage… at their own minister or denomination. They are entitled, just as any other parishoner else can be outraged about anything. Having grown up in a parsonage I can tell you that this is just the nature of churches and parishoners

      But as for churches being sued, that is nothing but demonization and fear mongering. You know FOR CERTAIN that this isn’t true – marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for five years – but you say it anyway.

      (Giving it the specific legal entitlement of marriage makes it automatically ‘discrimination’ if the pastors reason for referring them on is that they are a homosexual couple. A pastor could choose not to join atheists in marriage; he could not choose not to join gays.)

      That is both nonsense and illogical. Completely irrational.

      Every state in the union has protections against discrimination on the basis of religion. And nearly every church in the nation has some sort of religion-based restriction on who they will marry.

      From the website of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (Los Angeles)

      Requirements

      At least one person needs to be Catholic for the couple to wed at the Cathedral.

      Please note that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles also requires a preparation process of a minimum six months prior to a wedding date. No date can be scheduled until the priest or deacon has met with the couple to determine that nothing stands in the way of the valid and licit celebration of the proposed wedding (canon 1066) and to begin the preparation process.

      There’s a pretty extensive list of who a priest cannot marry and ya know what? It’s perfectly legal – even though it is obvious and blatant religion-based discrimination.

  • Ann

    For those checking out: Merry Christmas!

    Merry Christmas Eddy!

  • Lynn David

    Eddy…. re post 1: I’ve seen or heard of pastors harassed or vilified for refusing to perform gay weddings and funerals.

    On first glance, harassment would appear to be illegal. Vililfication would appear to be a First Amendment right as is it the pastors’ First Amendment right not to perform a gay marriage. So where then are pastors giving up their supposed principles because of being “harassed and vilified?” Certainly not by law, and the harassment and vilification is supposed to be par for the couse for a Christian, that’s a Biblical promise.

    Eddy…. re post 2: I don’t know who you’re talking to.

    I was just talking to the board. I was not speaking of a marriage between atheists in a church, but to just be civilly married. Why is that allowed if marriage is sacred. I know a few couples who are both atheist and were married civilly and raised their kids as atheists. Isn’t that as damning to this sacred act of marriage which so many Christians say the government oversees? Why are not atheists relegated to a “civil union?” Then there are those persons who claim to have “open marriages,” who may or may not be atheist, pagans, or even Christian. What are they doing to this sacred act of marriage which so many Christians say the government oversees? Shouldn’t their unions be relegated to a “civil union?”

    Eddy…… If gay marriage were legal and that were the primary reason for sending the couple somewhere else, there’d be screams of OUTRAGE in a heartbeat and pending lawsuits by daybreak. (Giving it the specific legal entitlement of marriage makes it automatically ‘discrimination’ if the pastors reason for referring them on is that they are a homosexual couple. A pastor could choose not to join atheists in marriage; he could not choose not to join gays.)

    Like Timothy pointed out, this is pure whatever…. You are saying that the pastor could deny atheists because they did not believe in the pastor’s religious tenets. But he could just as easily point out that the same exact case for a gay couple. They do not believe in the tenets of his religion and the pastor has the First Amendment behind him to allow him to discriminate, to deny to marry two gays or lesbians. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church does that right now. They deny homosexuals membership in their church lest they ‘give up their lifestyle.’ Now if Rick Warren can, with the full backing of the First Amendment, discriminate against gays and lesbians when homogenic sex has been made legal (earlier than Lawrence v Texas in California) then by what logic would the First Amendment not be in force to further allow him to discriminate against gays and lesbians who are given civil marriage. Which is to say that Rick Warren was, is, mistaken in the least, and a liar in the most extreme.

  • Lynn David

    One more for your spam filter/gates of hell, Warren.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

      Lynn David – I am off to hunt for it.

      • Lynn David

        Muchas gracias… and have a pleasant holiday.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton Warren

    @Timothy Kincaid:

    Thanks, same to you and all those reading.

  • Mary

    Timothy,

    I agree w/ you that that is fear, illogical, and unsound reasoning to assume that if gays can marry then churches that don’t view homosexuality as biblical will be sued. That sounds pretty far fetched. If one is a conservative christian they do not go to a catholic church and sue them for not marrying them. So long as a church exists that will hold the same biblical views as the couple – then a lawsuit should not be forthcoming. In addtition to which, marriage will have to be performed by justices of the peace without discrimination. So it will not be as though a gay couple has been “barred” from marriage. But as usual some couple will try and pursue this challenge.

  • Timothy Kincaid

    Mary,

    Yes, I agree. There is no doubt that some couple will sue someone. There’s always someone who thinks the world should revolve around them and gay couples are no exception.

    Let’s hope that when such a suit is filed, it’s tossed out in summary judgment and that the judge sanctions their counsel for frivolent lawsuit.

    Where things will be interesting is in church court (many denominations have them). Whether or not same-sex marriage achieves civil recognition, the battle for religious recogntion in several denominations should keep us all entertained for quite a while to come.

  • Mary

    Entertaining and certainly a time to document!