It’s become the cultural motif that Christianity and individual rights are at loggerheads, highlighted most recently by the unsuccessful efforts of homosexual advocates to procure the ability to marry others of the same sex over the protestations of the religious right.
The roles have been cast. Christians are the mustachioed sneering anti-individual rights fundamentalists while the advocates for gay marriage are the bright eyed heroes of the piece.
Of course, the logical fallacy here is that Christianity is actually the cornerstone of all the rights we enjoy as Americans. Without Christianity there are no rights.
But we’ve all watched the stories on gay marriage simply dither along the well worn treads of past stories on issues like abortion. According to the media framework, Christians seek to limit individual rights of women and gays while liberal secularists who proclaim a live-and-let-live attitude seek to expand rights.
Case in point – John Meacham, Editor of Newsweek, wrote recently that the religious right is on the wrong side of history.
“History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion. (As it has been with reform in America from the Founding forward.)”
I wonder if he believes in the Christian conservative’s efforts to expand human rights to babies who have yet to exit the womb. Probably not. Exclusion is probably just fine for Meacham when it comes to abortion. I guess, history switches sides sometimes.
Now, when it comes to the issue of gay marriage, Christians are not attempting to limit individual rights. Christians are actually battling for the preservation of marriage as an institution. Gay marriage will certainly lead to poly amorous marriage. And Christians understand that if marriage comes to mean something different to everyone, it will soon mean nothing to anyone.
Christianity is not anti-rights, it is the source of all the rights we enjoy. Let’s remember that the expansion of human rights to slaves was essentially a Christian enterprise. In America, it was the mainly Christian abolitionists who spoke out against the institution of slavery.
Christians do not seek to limit rights; we seek to preserve and expand human rights to the unborn, the fragile, the disabled and the elderly. We resist this modern compulsion of hyper secularism because we know that without God as our foundation, all rights become negotiable, alienable and inevitably exclusionary.
December 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm
All gays have the right to marry. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That they do not wish to exercise that right doesn’t mean that there exists a parallel right to enter in a contract of a similar nature with someone of the same sex.
I support homosexuals and their rights. Those rights don’t include “same sex marriage” (which does not exist), but do include being treated with respect and kindness. Neither does my support translate to carte blanche acceptance. I actually really care about my gay friends enough to want the best for them, a fulfilling life of chastity, not an unfulfilling one of pleasures gratified – the same hope and prayer I hold for all my friends, gay and straight.
As for Meacham, well, he obviously buys into too much of his propaganda if he really believes that that’s how that works. Christianity is the sole ‘institution’ that actually does treat all of us with respect – it just hasn’t lost its sense and decided that respect somehow includes the satisfaction of any and all desires without examination.
gosh, longwinded today… sorry!
December 10, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I always thought that individual rights stemmed from Christianity – which is in many ways radically concerned with the individual.
About:
“Christians are actually battling for the preservation of marriage as an institution.”
I often wonder why many Christians draw the line at gay marriage but have no problem with no-fault divorce and contraception. Once they’ve undercut their argument for the unity of marriage and the openness to life of marriage, they don’t have much left to argue from. I know redefining marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is wrong, but redefining it as a contract that can be dissolved at will or a relationship that doesn’t intrinsically serve the rearing of children is just as wrong. I guess my question is, are many of the people who are opposed to gay marriage opposed to it for the right reasons?
December 10, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I agree with you that our culture has cheapened marriage but we have to be careful not to allow it to be destroyed because we cheapened it. Not that I think that’s what you were saying, Brian.
In direct answer to your question I do believe that there are some who are against it for many different reasons but we can only do what we believe is right. And then blog about it until everyone else agrees with us.
December 10, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I guess sometimes we’ve gotta hit bottom before we turn things around. Maybe 50 years from now we’ll look back at gay marriage as the issue that made us realize how far off track we’ve gone and convinced us to address how much we’ve neglected marriage over the past few decades.
December 11, 2008 at 2:33 am
Just to give you an idea of where all this is going, and what rights Christians will have in our brave new world, yesterday a homeless gentleman told me a story over a bowl of soup.
We are in Portland, on the very cutting edge of madness. We’ve only been here three months, and I mentioned to him that I was stupified at how liberal the city is. He laughed and said, “Tell me about it.”
He told me that one evening he was riding the bus through the city. Other passengers were a mother and two small children seated across from him, and in front of him a few seats down two men seated side by side. One man put his arm around the other. Fine, a brotherly gesture, he thought. Soon they were kissing. The mother was distressed and the children were disturbed. He said, “Hey guys, can you save it for later.” They told him to…nevermind
Soon, he said, it was to the point where it was really indecent, so he got up and kneeling in the seat in front of them he said again, “Guys, can you save it for later. Think of this mother and her children.”
The bus stopped. The woman driver strode back and addressing my homeless friend said, “This is a no hate district! You can’t do that.”
Presently there were two squad cars on the scene, one behind the bus and the other in front of it. He was escorted off the bus by the police. He tried to explain what was going on, and that it was indecent behavior in front of that mother and her children.
“Not your call” they said, and went on their way.
Coming your way from the west coast…
December 11, 2008 at 2:45 am
Yeah, we’re “anti-individual” moreso than the liberal folk who support socialism, communism, and collectivism under the thumb of some ruling elite class.
There was a comment on Right-Wing News that sums it up:
I’m hardly the most religious guy you’d ever want to meet. My last church service was my wedding, some four years ago. And that was a Unitarian service. Really, my main concern in politics is maintaining my freedom. And, in practical, definable terms, the daily threats to my liberty are not being pushed by religious conservatives. It wasn’t religious conservatives who’ve told me I’m breaking the law if I light up in a bar. It wasn’t religious conservatives who’ve forbidden me from buying food made with trans fats. It wasn’t religious
conservatives who pushed speech codes on our college campuses and dictate hate crimes laws. It wasn’t religious conservatives who’ve made it a bureaucratic journey to buy a gun to protect my home and family. It isn’t religious conservatives I see trying to revive the fairness doctrine to specifically silence their political opposition. It wasn’t religious conservatives to gave us “campaign finance reform”. It isn’t the religious conservatives who have told me that I have to separate my trash, even to the point of removing individual trashcans in my office building.
Put bluntly, I can’t help but feel I’m being sold a bill of goods here. Progressives, with the full consent of moderates,…chip away consistently and unabashedly at my freedom. All the while, telling me
how scared I should be of the religious conservative bogeyman hiding under the bed. Do I think there’s some religious conservatives who go over
the top? Sure. But, marginalizing the religious conservatives en masse is a surefire way to empower just those religious conservatives who do go over the top. Moreover, I’m getting a little more than tired of being told to be scared about the threat to my liberty posed by my allies by people whose own behavior tells me they want nothing more than to restrict my freedom.
December 11, 2008 at 8:53 am
Or as I explained in my comment box to a person: EVERYONE is held to the same constraints within society. You, me, everyone REGARDLESS of what our orientation is. This is by definition what equal opportunity is, everyone has the ability to play by the same rules.
Whether you choose to exercise this option is entirely up to you. In that sense no one has the right to tell you how to live. What Law is structure for which society can function.
When I give a test in my physics class, everyone has the same rules on the test, I’m not concerned about orientation, I’m concerned about my students doing well in class. Similarly when Law is passed it is independent of emotions, feelings, but is just the structure by which you’re able to perform within society.
That being said back to my example with the physics test. There are some students who paid attention very well, and have learned things from previous semesters or different teachers and they use these things on a test. Is it cheating? No, why? Because knowledge isn’t limited by what’s in a class or what a specific teacher (in this case me) says. There are some students who have disabilities, or learning issues and are not able to comprehend the material as well. Should I make a special test just for them so that I may appease everyone? No, I shouldn’t do that, the rules are the same for everyone. How people choose to exercise that is up to them. What do they do instead, they ask me questions when they are stuck. I can not give them the answer directly, but I can point them in the direction that they’re heading or help them to reconsider their positions. Do I control what they do? No, not by any means, in the end the choice that they use or reject my help is up to them.
Likewise the same applies to homosexuals. The Law is not made to be emotional or consider subjective feelings. The help that is being provided is by groups such as courage. The person is free to accept the help or reject it to be able to play by the same rules as everyone else.
I’m not telling you HOW to live your life. I’m merely saying these are the rules by which EVERYONE must function. Again, it is up to you whether you play by the rules or reject them.
December 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Lee:
Were I in that man’s position, I’d be suing…I’m sure that the Thomas More Law Center would be willing to help.