It’s not just a difference of opinion

It’s not just a difference of opinion July 30, 2012


Disagreeing with one another about whether or not hubcap hurling should be recognized by the International Olympic Committee or whose mamma fries the best chicken are differences of opinion about which we can happily agree to disagree.

Disagreeing about whether not I can, without fear, hold the hand of the one I love anywhere, any time or whether or not I should be granted the same civil rights as others based on who God created me to be, based on who I love, is not merely a disagreement or difference of opinion. It is a dehumanizing framework that relegates a whole population to second class citizens based on prejudices that are steeped in ignorance, fear and a conviction that our humanity is intrinsically of less value than others.

As Conor Gaughan says, we’re not arguing over chicken

When gays get so angry about a chicken sandwich, it is because Chick-fil-A has given around $5 million to fight to discriminate against us. When we praise brave Eagle Scouts who give up their badges in protest of the Boy Scouts of America’s prejudice, it’s not about scoring political points; it’s because there are kids in dens who are being taught to believe that they are less than equal. When we rant about the pastor who preaches that gays should be thrown into a concentration camp, we scream out of fear. And our fears are justified — in the last seven days, a lesbian in Nebraska was carved with a knife, a gay man in Oklahoma was firebombed, and a girl in Kentucky was kicked and beaten — her jaw broken and her teeth knocked out — while her assailants allegedly hurled anti-gay slurs at her.

When a group actively funds laws that enforce the second class status of a segment of the population that is a group that is living out an abhorrence at worst or an indifference at best for the other.  Know that when we give money to such an organization, even for a piece of fried chicken, we are investing in the dehumanization of some of God’s children.

And friends, for me that’s just flat unacceptable no matter what flag or holy text it’s wrapped in.

That is NOT something about which I will happily agree to disagree. That behavior is built on ethical scaffolding that is contrary to the supposed American values of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice for ALL. It is unChristian behavior that is contrary to the life, death and resurrection of Christ.  Sometimes I will speak up tenderly and with compassion by lifting up our shared stories to help shift the metanarrative of spiraling polarization.  Other times I am called to speak with razor sharp clarity that unmistakably identifies hate and injustice where it stands. Anything less is complicit with my own dehumanization.  Anything less is a sin that rejects my relationship with God and all of creation.

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

231 responses to “It’s not just a difference of opinion”

  1. Hello,

    Kimberly, I was introduced to your site by a friend, and having looked around, would ask that you consider how the following passages conform to your own comment covenant, specifically:

    To deepen our empathy for the alien “other” as we enter imaginatively into the experiences of people whose lives are radically unlike our own.

    It is unChristian behavior that is contrary to the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    …I am called to speak with razor sharp clarity that unmistakably identifies hate and injustice where it stands. Anything less is complicit with my own dehumanization.

    So you have called any Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin hateful and injust, dehumanizing, and contrary to the principals of Christ.

    This is why people like myself, who do not hate anyone, but see homosexuality for what it is, an approach to our human condition that attempts to reconcile their own sexuality with what the Bible teaches. I can certainly understand how painful it must be to see something that you consider defining in your life be labeled as sin.

    But taking that approach to homosexuality does not excuse you from believing the best about those you so easily denigrate above. I do not hate you. I do not attempt to dehumanize you. And while I am certainly a sinner, the same as you, my opinion about homosexuality does not in any way go against the teachings of Christ.

    I actually agree with you, civil marriage should be open to same-sex couples, so long as churches are not labeled hate groups for refusing to honor the marriage. And every time your movement makes references, as so many who agree with you do, about the similarities between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, you weaken your own argument. No one in our society today would think twice about suing a church that denies an interracial couple a wedding. But you seem to indicate that this would somehow be different.

    I thank you for allowing me to post here, and I hope that you consider my perspective. If you are interested in pursuing this conversation further, I look forward to talking with you further, hopefully without the labels above that only seek to divide and hurt.

  2. I firmly believe in same sex marriage and all that it encompasses. I think it would benefit our society greatly!. However, I also believe Mr. Cathy has a right to his opinion and to donate to whatever “special interest” group he sees fit. It’s his money. I do not, however, agree with his opinion or methods. The ACLU protects “hate groups” like the Nazi party and other hate groups right along side more beneficial organizations like the NAACP and more. He is protected by the Constitution. Mr. Emanuel also borders on prejudice and discrimination. If the aldermen deny the building permits based on Mr. Cathy’s beliefs then that is a problem. Mr. Emanuel had the opportunity to rise above the rhetoric but opted to be just as hateful. My only concern is what if the next company or CEO doesn’t agree with Mr. Emanuel? Does one person’s rights supersede another’s? When does it stop? How come no one stops buying gas because Muslims murder homosexuals? Forcing an opinion on someone else is wrong whether it be liberal or conservative.

  3. Thank you, Kimberly. My partner and I met you at Big Tent a couple years back and we now live in NC! I no longer identify as a christian, but this issue is important to me and I often engage in discussion. I love John Shore’s blog (irreverant, sharp, unwavering).

    Thanks to some family members and others who have recently expressed that they’d rather I focus on my own vibrant life and stop trying to change others, I am currently seeking where the line lies between tolerance and allowing oppression. It’s tricky.

    I so appreciate the last paragraph of your post, as well as your comment about having to periodically re-read the Letter from Birmingham Jail. I’ve read and received lots of opinions one way or the other about letting things be vs. actively opposing, but none have offered the balance your last paragraph does. And to know that your passion to stand against injustice needs to be refired helps so much!

  4. Following this string of comments makes me sad. Ms. Knight has written eloquently about her position. It is beyond arrogant for anyone to assume that a conversation is the answer when one side of the conversation speaks from a position of privilege and power. The time for talk is over. Let religions discuss this in whatever context they choose, but in our society, we cannot allow people to continue to live in oppression.

    • I agree! The oppression of sin is so harmful that Jesus had to die to overcome it.

      You are right the time for talk is over and no one has presented a scriptural case that God condones, blesses or is even neutral to homosexual behavior in any form.

      So homosexual behavior is sinful. Now what?

      • There are literally thousands of sites that have 101-level “scriptural case[s] that God condones, blesses or is even neutral to homosexual behavior in any form.” They are easy to find if you’re willing to do your own homework. They are easy to find if you’re not willing to do your own homework but habitually troll blogs that are frequented by LGBT persons and/or their allies. I find it highly unlikely that you have never encountered such a site.

        The fact that none of those thousands of sites have been linked in the comment thread of this particular blog post means nothing. This is not a 101-level blog post, therefore no one owes you 101-level reading material.

        Beyond that, no one NEEDS to present a “scriptural case that God condones, blesses or is even neutral to homosexual behavior in any form” because we’re talking about public policy in a nation in which religion and government are separate entities, and the ethics of funding groups that use deceptive tactics to influence said government to adopt a specific sectarian stance on a civil issue.

        • Actually Matt this is not a civic blog but a religious/spiritual blog. If you claim the title of Christian then yes one cannot proceed any farther without resolving whether the behavior is sinful or not. And we all know it is.

          No one has been able to show or even come close that God condones and/or blesses homosexual behavior in any form. Can you?

    • Thank you Gene, keeping bringing your voice to the table and our chorus will ring out clear about the cacaphony of ignorance, fear and loathing!

  5. As a Catholic, I understand that a sacramental marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life, open to the gift of children as far as that is possible. I also understand that the notion of marriage has more than a legal significance for many believers of many traditions and even for non-believers, but also that the word marriage has become synonymous with the legal contract, to the point that very few feel comfortable with the idea of changing the legal language to “domestic partnership” for all, with all the civil rights and privileges incumbent upon that status, including the custody of children. If there were any way to ensure the rights of religious communities to define and solemnize marriages according to their own traditions, I’d find the argument to widen the legal definition to include minority relationships less troubling. But no matter how many times people swear that no church ever has or ever will be forced to redefine marriage by the state, that’s laughable. Ask polygamous Mormons about that. If legislators can yelp about refusing business licenses to a company owned by a man who defines marriage according to his faith (and according to the law of the land, btw), just how fast do you think the first lawsuits will be filed against Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, etc, etc, etc that refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages–or interfaith marriages, or marriages between divorced persons, or polygamous unions–or enroll same-sex couples as congregants? If you define marriage itself as a civil right, and not a privilege that carries attendant rights established for the ordering of society, there is no defense in law against such suits. That may suit those who argue for marriage as a civil right just fine, but I remain concerned. Please don’t confuse that with “hate-filled,” “bigoted,” or “anti-gay.”

    • Joanne, I appreciate your concerns, but I just don’t see that happening. There are already so many cases out there where religious groups have not been held to certain civil rights standards – for example, being able to fire a teacher at a Catholic school for being gay, or for becoming pregnant out of wedlock – that I really don’t see how lawsuits would stand up against any church that refused to solemnize a marriage. (In fact, why would any same-sex couple need a church to give its blessing, if they are already legally married?) It would work the way things work now when, for instance, two divorced people wish to be married in a church that refuses to marry divorced people. That couple simply has to find another church that will bless their marriage, and there are plenty of other churches out there that will do it. There really would be no basis to sue — the church would not be infringing upon any civil right — the couple would already be married. I still think people are confusing who confers the rights and responsibilities of marriage in our society. Our government gives those rights, not the church. Thus, a church would not be withholding a civil right. So, nothing to sue for.

      Can you point me to any case where a church has been sued for not performing a marriage ceremony, where the church has lost? I’m asking sincerely, because I’ve never heard of one, and if you have, I’d be interested in reading that decision.

      Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem with any law that specifically states that churches do not have to perform marriage blessings for any marriages that violate their religious tenets. I just don’t see why it would be needed. Churches already have the right to refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to. I don’t understand how that would be taken away by giving marriage equality within the civil sphere.

      It’s late, after a very busy Monday, so I hope my response makes sense. 🙂

  6. There is absolutely no reason why two people who love each other shouldn’t be allowed to marry each other.

  7. Kimberly, I have known you since we sat at table together in our Preaching 501 group, both learning — or hoping to learn — how to speak truth and break barriers with courage and love. I watch your work with such admiration and delight. This post exemplifies the ways that I have found the power and joy of Gospel in your words.
    It bewilders me that people make semantic argument — even if rhetorically sound, which I do not concede to Nate’s contentions — against spiritual equality and social justice for God’s children in the name of Jesus. It seems to me not only a grotesque perversion of the Christ message, but a tragic misapprehension of the spirit that makes life worth living.
    On one hand, I cling to hope that we will come to talk about these things, and then so often I wonder why we expect that we ever could. How can we penetrate barriers of suspicion and contempt if I see god as the loving unity that binds us together as people, and another sees a rulemaker, disciplinarian, selector of the elite, approver and disapprover of every deed and secret wish.

    • Lynn,

      Sister, you have done much to inspire me in your work to live out the gospel that frees captives and calls for justice in the face of the injustice system. Thank YOU for your voice and your work. Let us both pray that true dialogue, with open hearts and minds, is possible and that the Spirit will move between us even as some succumb to passions that seek to use wit for woe.


    • Lynn everyone already has spiritual equality. We are all sinners in need of a savior. What some people are doing is to try and take their sexual sin off the table as a sin and it just does not fly in any way, shape or form.

      • I thank you, Frank, for illustrating my point with more clarity and elegance than my words could ever approach.

        • Well I a glad we agree with Gods word that homosexual behavior is a sin in any form. Thanks!

          • Frank,
            Nowhere did she say that homosexual behavior is a sin. Lets take a look at YOUR sexual life, and see what sin we can come up with, I’m sure that we can find some!

          • Terri, I know that you’re a woman, and God just didn’t quite endow you all with the discernment that he did men, but I can assure you that I am without sexual sin. That’s why I can “cast stones.”

          • I love my new pet! Thanks fake Frank your support is very encouraging! Keep up the good work and I will keep pulling your strings!

            – the real Frank

          • Terri you will find many but I do it deny the sinfulness like others.

            Homosexual behavior is sinful in every form unless you can show us the scriptural support that God blesses or condones it.

    • The reason the conversation between the two sides often fail is explained well (I think) in this spiral dynamics (aka integral theory) chart (credit to Bruce Sanguin, but Paul R. Smith also has a great book on it). True dialog can take place among neighboring levels but is much less productive when more than one level separates.

    • Ps – Jesus was at the mystical level, which explains why he had such a difficult time with people (including his own disciples) grasping his message! 😉

      • The reason Jesus’ followers had difficulty grasping his message was two fold: one he spoke in parables which were still hidden from them until the appropriate time and because they were too busy projecting their own beliefs onto God, much like what you are doing.

  8. Kimberly – thanks for your unapologetic stance. I believe it is correct to take that approach.

    • Thank you Erins1911. I have to reread Letter from Birmingham Jail about every other month to remember it is ok to be firm and resolute in seeking the truth of justice for all God’s people.

  9. Whoopsie. That should have been @Andrew, not @Alex. Forgive me. I scrolled too high. 🙂

  10. @Alex – Marriage is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The language of marriage is not found specifically in the Constitution, but was interpreted for the past hundred or two years by Supreme Court Justices (called “case law”) to be what is now called a fundamental right. The State must have a compelling interest to deny that civil right to someone. You’d have to undo about 150 years of case law to change it, and endanger all marriages in order to do so. Like it or not, marriage in the U.S. is a civil contract. That contract provides all kinds of rights and benefits to the married couple.

    Marriage, for some, is also a religious sacrament. The two – civil marriage and religious marriage – should not be confused. Whether a church will recognize a civil marriage is up to the particular denomination. For instance, the Roman Catholic church will not recognize (usually) a remarriage of a divorced person. (Sometimes they skirt the issue with an annulment.) The government cannot force them to perform such a marriage — never have and, under our current understanding of separation of church and state, never will. In my opinion, the best way to resolve the issue is to require civil marriage for any two adults wishing to enter into that contract (and who are of sound mind to enter the contract), and leave the church to bless whatever marriages they will. For that to happen, the state should revoke the ability of ministers to sign a marriage license. It just confuses the issue and muddles the church/state relationship. If ministers wish to sign some kind of religious marriage paperwork within their church/temple/synagogue/mosque/etc., they are welcome to do so.

    Now, deciding who is of sound mind is another matter altogether. I suspect there is a good number of married folk out there who wonder just how crazy they were when they married their spouse! 😉

  11. Kimberly – Thank you for courageously speaking out. I am so weary of hearing people try to frame this as a difference of opinion when anyone who wants to have an honest conversation knows that this is about a corporation giving a lot of money and support to fight against equality for lgbt people which ends up making lgbt people not only second class citizens but citizens whose safety is put at risk. Like you I can’t “play nice” about this and I don’t even think it is a Christian act to do so.

  12. Alex, I think you’ve misread my post. I was not COMPARING homosexuality with pedophilia. I was showing that replacing homosexuality with pedophilia reveals ‘extra data’ that indeed proves Ms. Knight engaged the fallacy of the complex. Arguments of why some are not in favor of homosexual marriage was not even broached. I did not, therefore, attempt the fallacy of a slippery slope. Thanks for your post, though.

    • Nate,

      Although you are correct that you are not directly comparing homosexuality with pedophilia you know as well as I do (since you appear to be a reasonably clever fellow) that by presenting that word in the context of this conversation you are conjuring thoughts, images and feelings of that heinous predatory behavior and linking it in people’s minds who are engaging this conversation. You have a condescending tone that communicates your presumed superiority. You may not realize that this is experienced as an unfortunately aggressive posture to tender souls who cross your path.

    • I’m always very suspicious of people that find a phraseology and then beat it to death. It implies a store-bought pseudo intellectualism, and is a poor substitute for thoughtful, reasoned, critical debate. I’m not sure precisely what is “fallacy of the complex”, (I’m relatively well informed, but this isn’t familiar to me), but I sense your bandying it about the way you do in virtually every reply, is intended to impress, as opposed to inform. Just my 2 cents…

    • Nate: Let’s skip the NAMBLA crowd, since that pushes so many buttons, and apply same-sex marital arguments to the poly-amorous crowd (pun intended), who are in fact agitating more and more for legal recognition, normalization, and special attention, and– presumably– to having their relationships blessed. Or again, what of the legally incestuous, who are wanting their piece of the free-to-marry & benefits pie (Uncle & Niece, 1st cousins, Grandparent & grandchild, child & step-parent). If an exception to the definition of marriage is to be accepted on the basis of gender, then the slippery slope (and it’s actually happening) leads to calls for exception of number, exception of kinship, and (theoretically), exception of age– the marriage of teens to older adults, like back in the Middle Ages. This is not to be hateful, or bigoted, and is happening in certain circles in America & Canada. Follow your joy? Why or why not?

      • The slippery slope argument here is quite disengenuous- it’s not like you’re arguing that SSM is great but you are concerned about X and are reluctantly and with great sadness willing to deprive same-sex couples of 1,100 rights and benefits because X is just too dangerous to risk. You don’t want SSM to be legal full stop.

        As for “the poly-amorous crowd”, you need not even make a moral claim to distinguish between the issue of same-sex marriage and the issue of polygymy. The simplest difference is that recognizing same-sex marriage requires no greater change than gender-neutral licences, while recognizing polygamous marriages requires significant restructuring of all the things that make marriage so useful to the state in the first place. Every combination and permutation of family group- and every time that group changes by addition or subtraction- will require reworking the chain of inheritance, custody, power of attorney, etc. Not to mention the way taxes are filed and health plans structured. Same-sex marriage has none of these beauracratic issues. It is functionally indistinguishable from the marriages already recognized.

        • To me the biggest problem with comparing polygamy to homosexuality is that polygamy is a lifestyle and a choice that stems from a religion/culture, you are not born a polygamist. The other aspect with polygamy that I struggle with is there seems to be a element of abuse with sons and young men pushed away so the elder men can have so many wives and of course the issues of many underage girls being forced to be with older men.

  13. Hi Kim,
    Well, since I inspired you to write your new blog, I will also take the liberty to respond to it. What we have here is a fallacy of the complex. The way to show this is simple. Let’s take your statement, “Disagreeing about whether not I can, without fear, hold the hand of the one I love anywhere, any time or whether or not I should be granted the same civil rights as others…” In this thread we are talking about homosexuals. Ok, now let’s put in, pedophiles. Now what would you say? I ‘assume’ you would deny social recognition of ‘holding the hand of the one I love’. MY POINT, is not to equate homosexuality with this or that behavior; rather, it’s merely to demonstrate the fallacy of the complex. If you would allow all civil rights for the homosexual, but not for the pedophile, then I assume it’s because of missing data, e.g., lack of mutual adult consent – and I would agree. Likewise, those of us who ‘disagree’ with granting marital status to homosexuals, do so because of ‘other factors’. Your seeming willingness to lump everyone together who disagrees as ‘bigots’ points to a kind of ‘pre-judgment’ that is displayed by the gay community, and shows the ideological hegemony in action, i.e., disagree with me and I’ll label you a bigot. This is not civil discourse. It’s a threat. It’s an attempt to silence. It’s an act of intimidation, and a display of yet another fallacy – ad hominem, i.e., let’s attack the person. For me, it is unacceptable inside or outside the church.

    • Nate, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. How DARE you compare gay people to pedophiles. That not only makes you a bigot, but completely ignorant.

      • Hi Melody, I did not compare gay people to pedophiles. I did precisely the opposite. I used Pedophilia to reveal ‘extra data’, which confirmed Ms. Knight engaged the fallacy of the complex, and therefore proved that the two CANNOT be compared. That’s what needed to be done to show useage of the fallacy in question. Sorry you didn’t understand.

      • Alex,
        Someone who used Ms. Knight’s article did use the word bigot, but for accuracies sake, I should have indicated this. I apologize. I understand that ‘intent’ and ‘action’ are separate. My point is that the fallacy of the complex, does not recognize other factors and therefore renders inappropriate conclusions. You commit your own fallacy (authority fallacy) when you write, “There is no comparable concern that can be used…” Are the readers suppose to ‘accept’ your authorative declaration here? Why can’t we have a conversation? What’s the problem here. Why all the anger?

      • Hi Jeff, I did not employ the slippery slope argument. Read my response to Alex. Please notice I do not employ name-calling. I would be nice if you would share in the mutual respect of civil discourse.

    • Very well said Nate and as you can see reason, logic and truth are things that some refuse to accept. How sad, not to mention the fact that their inability to reason, their ignorance and their immaturity hurt their very own cause.

    • Intention is not magic, Nate. When you take an action that harms a group of people by denying them equal rights, your *action* is bigoted regardless of your motivation. Your pedophilia comparison is misleading — no person has the right to violate the rights of another, as pedophiles must to fulfil their desire for sex with children. There is no comparable concern that can be used to justify your opposition to marriage equality; as the post above says, your ethical basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples runs “contrary to the supposed American values of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice for ALL.”

      Also, it was dishonest of you to place the word “bigot” in quotation marks; that’s your word, and appears nowhere in Ms. Knight’s original post.

      • Why is marriage now considered a civil right? I do not believe marriage to be a secular practice that is run by the government. I believe that it is a God given practice. I also believe that God created men and women to complement each other. Within the union of a man and a woman comes the possibility of new life. I think it is also important for a child to have both a father and mother figure (that is not saying that it is impossible to raise kids with single parents/same sex parents, just that having both a mom and a dad is optimal (again, it has clearly been shown that kids raised in same sex households turn out just fine)).
        So I am not against same-sex marriage. I just do not believe it to exist. Marriage is in its definition the union of a man and a woman, and any other type of union is not marriage. It is not violating anyone’s civil rights to hold that belief. If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, want to hold hands in public, or be in a monogamous relationship, that is their choice. I believe that it is a sin, but not a more grievous sin than the majority of people who engage in pre-marital heterosexual sexual actions. You can call me a bigot if you want, but I have a friend who is gay, and he is a great guy. He is in a relationship with another man, and while I do not approve of this, I do not treat him any different than anyone else. As I said before, a lot of my friends engage in pre-marital sex, and I do not treat them like the plague.

        • Andrew,

          Marriage becomes a civil right the moment a government codifies economic and civil status based on the union of two people. It is a civil rights issue when I could be denied access to my wife’s hospital room if she were gravely injured in the line of duty. It is a civil rights issue when my children could be removed, legally, from my care based archaic laws steeped in ignorance.

          And whether or not you believe same sex marriage can exists does in now way negate its actual existence. I am married to my wife and am affirmed as such in my church, family and local community. I do not need your belief to affirm my marriage but I do expect that the government to whom I pay taxes to afford me the same protection and status as other couples who have entered the covenant of marriage and are thus granted privileges that I am denied.

          I would like to lift up some reading for you and I pray that you will sincerely and with an open heart and mind explore these resources.

        • For Andrew and all others who hold strong to a belief that a union between one man and one woman is the biblical standard of marriage (I’m reposting, can’t take the credit for this):

          Here’s a Proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on Biblical principles. I hope you will take the time and care to look up these great passages for yourselves.

          A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

          B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3,8; II Chron 11:21)

          C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

          D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

          E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

          F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

          G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

    • No sir, there is no threat at all in any of my work. Merely the promise that I will no longer sit idly by while my humanity is marginalized. I need not shed one single penny in collusion with those who are working tirelessly to deny me rights based on their interpretation of Christianity. If separation of church and state is one of our foundational values then there’s a whole bunch of folks who are operating counter to our “traditional values.”


      Well said, Nate. It is discouraging to those of us with gay friends, and who defend basic human rights for all, when other members of the same-sex community support intolerance, silencing, boycotting, frivolous lawsuits, illogical arguments, and any nasty tactic– legal or illegal– to get their point across. How about a little “Not In MY Name?” Or has political group-think truly got everybody in lock-step?

    • An attempt to silence – really? Why do conservative Christians think that the right to say or do what they want should have no consequences?

Close Ad