[S]trongly opposing gay marriage doesn’t mean I don’t understand why many people just as strongly favor it. I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who feel demeaned by the law’s rejection of same-sex marriage or who crave the proof of societal acceptance, the cloak of normalcy, that a marriage license would provide. I don’t regard the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue; nor do I buy the argument that laws barring same-sex marriage are comparable to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. But I recognize that many people - sincere and decent people - do. By my lights they are mistaken, not evil.

Why do so many same-sex marriage advocates find it so hard to see marriage traditionalists in the same light?

In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected.

Of course not all proponents of gay marriage display such vehement intolerance. But far too many do to shrug it off as insignificant. And voters don’t have to be paranoid to wonder: If this is the kind of abuse that opponents of gay marriage can be subjected to now, how much more intolerance will dissenters face if gay marriage becomes the law?

Try active persecution and criminal prosecution.

Over the summer, a columnist - I wish I could remember who - wrote an article on the fact that (on the whole) conservatives see progressives as well-meaning but dumb, while progressives see conservatives as evil.  And that certainly seems to be the case.  In my forays onto progressive blogs, my arguments against their positions are always met, not with reason refutation (except perhaps the “shellfish argument”) but with invective.

In the linked article, Jacoby summarizes his reasons for opposing gay marriage:

I oppose same-sex marriage for reasons previous columns have explored. I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences. And I am sure that legalizing same-sex wedlock would fuel demands for further radical change - legalizing plural marriage, for example.

Society has good reasons for wishing to uphold traditional marriage, reasons which can (and I think ought to be) embraced by people who do not share our religious convictions—and by those who do, but think that somehow marriage law is only a religious matter.  I agree with Jacoby’s view.

[2] - here’s a counter to the “shellfish argument”....

In Acts 10:1-11:18 the Lord both prepared a Gentile (Cornelius) to receive the Gospel and prepared Peter to deliver it. The Gospel was heard, the Gentiles believed, and the Holy Spirit fell upon all of them. In the next chapter, the Church gathered to discern this particular situation. The theological reflection and long-term response came in Acts 15. Note that the Gentiles were told only to “...abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”. No further discernment has been made (although the gays and their ecclesiastical sympathizers are attempting to impose a change unilaterally and without discernment - let alone the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

Another (coarser) way of countering the shellfish argument is to remind them that the Lord said to Peter “...up Peter, kill and eat”. He did NOT say “...up Peter, strip and shtup”. The Lord took the initiative and the Church responded to the issue of the dietary laws. Nothing similar has happened on the sexual front. QED.

[3], at the risk of taking this discussion OT, the next step for the gays and gay sympathizers after overturning the definition of marriage is to force Obamacare to deliver IVF for same-sex “couples” as a “right”. Once that happens, the State becomes the creator of “families” (instead of vice versa) and our enslavement to the all-powerful State comes a bit closer. The whole “gay rights” sham is intended to destroy the family and entrhone the individual (at least the “right kind” of individual). It’s another form of idolatry.

I support gay marriage in the civil realm as a matter of civil rights relating to the ability of two legally competent persons to make a civil contract. However, I oppose it in the Church because the entire Judaeo-Christian tradition forbids it. That being said, I, too, have noticed an unfortunate vitriolic tendency on the part of some supporters. Now, as to an overwhelming social interest I truly believe there it would be more in society’s interest to ban divorce than to ban same-sex unions.

After 31 losses in 31 states, it’s time for same-sex marriage activists to seriously consider a piece of advice Barney Frank offered a few years ago. “There’s something to be said for cultural respect,’’ the nation’s most prominent gay political figure said in 2004. “Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’

Good advice.

“Over the summer, a columnist - I wish I could remember who - wrote an article on the fact that (on the whole) conservatives see progressives as well-meaning but dumb, while progressives see conservatives as evil.  And that certainly seems to be the case.  In my forays onto progressive blogs, my arguments against their positions are always met, not with reason refutation (except perhaps the “shellfish argument”) but with invective”.

I’ll admit up front that I’ll probably end up mixing social and theological metaphors here. 

Thank you, Anglican Xn, because I think this is an interesting post.  Personally I don’t see progressives as “dumb”, but I’ll admit I find their worldview unattainable, “standardless”, and misdirectedly utopian.  I’m not surprised they might see me as “evil” because I rain on the parade of their moral/social free-for-all. 

Socially I can agree with “compassion for your fellow man” in terms of things like limited welfare programs that help people get back on their feet after things like job loss or tragedy. But I cannot extrapolate that to idealogies like socialism itself because, while I do not often enjoy Rush Limbaugh’s attitude or demeanor, I think he’s correct in saying, “well, when in history has socialism EVER worked”?!! 

And when the thought process of Democrats goes a little haywire, it ends up “socialism”, which I can’t abide. 

If that makes me “evil”, so be it.

Senior Priest,
The idea that civil rights is involved in the states attitude toward marriage is ill founded. Marriage is not a civil right. I can’t marry a tree as much as I might want to marry a tree. I can’t marry a furry creature as much as that furry creature might want to marry me. I can’t marry family members. I can’t marry God with a state sanction. One can have a contractual civil union with a tree, a furry creature or a family member or maybe even with God, but not a marriage. What is the difference? The meaning of words is what is different. Those words represent ideas which are unchanging and our morals, laws and customs confirm that fact. You can go to court and change your name, but you can’t go to court and change an idea, thank God. The court does not have jurisdiction over ideas, specifically the idea of marriage. All a court can do is interpret a law from the body politic.

I agree ctowles [8], but when your society deconstructs meaning and empties words of their intended and understood meaning, it leaves open the door for the widespread abuse that we see increasingly visited upon both institution and individual alike. In a very limited and carefully thought-out way I could support a law-based allowance for ANY two adults to enter into a contractual relationship which would by law enjoy certain benefits currently accrued to what the law has defined as “marriage” (in fact a legal trojan horse). For example, two “spinster” sisters, two lifelong friends, a patient and a dedicated care-giver, etc. NOT marriage. Create some other term that has some cachet to it, but leave off this misappropriation of marriage as a legal term.

I support gay marriage in the civil realm as a matter of civil rights relating to the ability of two legally competent persons to make a civil contract. However, I oppose it in the Church because the entire Judaeo-Christian tradition forbids it.

Senior Priest, may I suggest that there would be no civil contract if marriage had not begun first as a religious institution.  The reason members of species Homo sapiens do not simply mate as they have opportunity (the nightclub scene in most cities notwithstanding) is that, several millennia ago, an essentially religious notion was adopted by (or became imposed upon) civilization.

The Old Testament records the marriages of our Hebrew forbears in times and places where no government existed.  And even in pagan civilizations marriage seems to have been a religious concept for far longer than it has existed as a civil contract.  Interestingly, in NONE of these civilizations has the contract ever been between anything other than a man and a woman.

The BCP describes our own Christian conception of marriage this way:

The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.  It signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people.

If it is true that “the bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation” then that is not merely a religious truth; it is a fact that has significance for all of society, whether non-religious people want to recognize it or not.  Consequently, we in the Church, who have imparted the concept of marriage to society, need not (and should not) sit idly by while secular society takes that concept and redefines it in any way it pleases.

Robert S. Munday+

Marriage was instituted by God in the garden. The state is given responsibility by God to protect and preserve it. When the state redefines it she has determined to walk beyond the limitations God has set and there will be consequences. Our particular government has already determined to permit the mass systematic slaughter of unborn babies. Should she also determine not to protect divinely instituted marriage then we are doubly cursed and I fear even more greatly for our nation.

There is no such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex—putting the word “secular” in front of it is meaningless, the institution has already been defined by God. Should two people of the same sex like to make a contract of some sort with one another, that is their business, but whatever they make, it is not and can never be marriage, regardless of the term used for it.

10 ToAllTheWorld,

Interestingly, in NONE of these civilizations has the contract ever been between anything other than a man and a woman.

Perhaps that fact is due historically to the inability of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, to have children; without children, there’s no need for a contract. Now that it is possible for same-sex couples to adopt, or utilize reproductive technology, it may make sense to bring contracts into the situation.

I really like Barney Frank’s advice.  Cultural respect.  It should be natural for a liberal, but instead I find them tolerant only of those who agree with them.  The same can be said for all totalitarians.

“After 31 losses in 31 states…”  You can say “no” a thousand times and still one “yes” will be enough to change the law forever.

Troll,

Oh, so THAT’S why God restricted marriage to one man and one woman.  How terribly obvious.  Of course, God had to wait for us to figure out new ways to do things without Him before He could make them part of His Plan.

In Seattle the cowardly legislature of democrats(stolen elections) put into place a law that moved the same sex marriage strategy closer to fact. In response the Faith and Freedom group organized a referendum. 135,000 + signatures were gathered. The homosexual community (never call it gay—call it what it is) sued to have the names on the petition made public. First court said No. Appellate said yes, it now goes to Supreme Court. In the meantime on several talk shows and blog sits—leaders of the homosexual community have stated clearly: “we want to have those names so that we can confront those individuals in our midst who do not understand our concerns. If we see them in the grocery store, we want to stop them and have confront them regarding their signing of this petition.”  Quite a world we have come to folks!  You can read more by typing in “Faith and Freedom”.

Doug #4:

That is a point made by Rob Gagnon in his big book; but in fact the argument from Acts 15 is even stronger.

When I published my short but then-pioneering article on the biblical texts relevant to homosexual orientation and practice (CSR June 1997, expanded and improved edition here), I still thought that what was meant by πορνεία (fornication, sexual immorality, unchastity in general) at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was what might be termed core πορνεία, matching “blood”, meaning murder, in seriousness. Core πορνεία might be said to include incest, bestiality, rape, same-sex intimacy and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. I have moved, in the light of further reading, to the view that all four prohibited items were relatively un-serious, because they were things which only Jews took seriously, so that if engaged in by Gentile Christians they would hinder table-fellowship, without which a united Church was impossible. This way of looking at the list makes much more sense: after all, NO Gentile converts would have been left in any doubt from the outset of their new life about the wickedness of murder, incest, bestiality, rape, same-sex intimacy and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. The list would then read “(abstain from) food polluted by idols, unchastity (as further defined by Jewish sensibilities), the meat of strangled animals and (from) blood (in the dietary sense).” This makes a more unified list. Jewish Christians would have had particular sensibilities about certain prohibited degrees which might have struck Gentile Christians as over-scrupulous, and which would have broken table-fellowship between them. Core-πορνεία is thus not in question, only what might be termed fringe-πορνεία. This understanding, far from weakening the argument against same-sex intimacy, actually strengthens it, making it a fortiori. Core-πορνεία is not fringe-πορνεία, and its commission is much much more serious than certain Gentile practices which would have upset Jews at that time.

I am indeed sorry that Rob Gagnon among others got from me what I now think is a wrong idea about Acts 15, namely that in that setting any kind of core-πορνεία was in question. The wrongness of core-πορνεία has been a closed question for up to three millennia.

I suspect that some items in our old Table of Kindred and Affinity reflect those Jewish scruples. In it incest is defined a little more strictly than in some other codes.

Senior Priest, why do you limit this particular civil contract to just 2?  Can’t three or more enter into this type of arrangement?  What is your justification for the two person limit.

#2 - The article you reference about “the fact that (on the whole) conservatives see progressives as well-meaning but dumb, while progressives see conservatives as evil” may ultimately originate from George Lakoff’s Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  In particular, see the second chapter entitled “The Worldview Problem for American Politics.”