Rabbi Shmuley Boteach gets it: How evangelicals lost political credibility

This is a must read. He presents his perspective well and communicates clearly. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a conservative Rabbi debated Michael Brown, a really conservative minister last night in North Carolina over whether homosexuality is America’s greatest moral crisis. Rabbi Boteach wrote about it in WaPo’s On Faith Blog today:

I argued passionately that evangelicals had become obsessed with homosexuality. They took a single prohibition in the Bible and elevated it to single moral standard besides which all else pails. I pointed out how in 2004, amid President George W. Bush being the most hated man on earth he still won the election because of evangelical support. The reason: as the polls showed, 22% of all voters had voted for values. But now, just one night before the mid-term elections, the tea party had completely usurped the place of the evangelicals. The only thing being discussed in this election was jobs, money, the size of government, and the national debt. In other words, the economy and money. Not one major values-based issue was even on the table. Why? Because the people who talk about values and are a large voting block – primarily evangelical Christians – had utterly marginalized themselves with their obsession over homosexuality. Forget about the fifty percent divorce rate, the growing sexualization of young teens (Miley Cyrus is now pole-dancing), the collapse of the American economy because of addiction to shopping, no, all the problems in America can be laid at the feet of gays. And if we stop the gay agenda, then America will suddenly be transformed into a family-friendly, spiritually rich, Eden-like Shangri-La.

Boteach continues to say he could not convince Brown’s audience. I am not surprised. He concludes by calling values voters to stand up for some other values:

What is needed are Evangelical Christian leaders who finally change the subject and focus us on what really can be done to save the American family, namely, strengthening marriage, reducing the divorce rate, increasing male respect for women, and pushing for a congressional bill to make marital counseling tax-deductible so that couples who need help can afford it and keep their families intact.

I would add to Boteach’s list but the point is well taken. Some evangelical brothers and sisters have traveled the way C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape hoped:

Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause”, in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more “religious” (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.

Your affectionate uncle, SCREWTAPE

207 thoughts on “Rabbi Shmuley Boteach gets it: How evangelicals lost political credibility”

  1. Oh boy. This thing got a tad heated up while I checked out. Lots to do today, so I will have to refrain from wading in any deeper. Please take no offense at or do not misinterpret my refusal to engage. I just haven’t the time. And, I also can see clearly that this will only head in the direction where so many of these jump-the-shark discussions go as it continues.

    It’s unfortunate that we so easily get our backs up (but we do sometimes need to get our backs up) without just taking a bit of time to consider how debate-as-usual will come off here. I think I see what David B. was saying, and I don’t believe he meant any gross offense by it. For Pete’s sake, you can’t sit around worrying over how every single word or phrase or idea will be received when we all agree that the stakes are so high at this time in history. Sit, think, pray and then hit the button, if you must. Sometimes we need to do more of those three things before shouting.

    When the shouting commences, as it always will, the listening usually ceases. The political process, as our Founders conceived it, is supposed to be big enough and good enough to handle these pendulum swings. The process is one thing. Human nature is another.

    FWIW.

  2. @ Warren,

    In regards to Screwtape…boy, I don’t know how to put that all together.

    C.S. Lewis is a genius, but…

    There have been many Christians who have been quite active in politics for centuries under the rubric of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven here (i.e. living out the Sermon on the Mount and the Two Commandments).

    Many reformation movements, from the right of women to vote, to prohibition, to ending slavery to civil rights have Christian proponents…

    The establishment of the US was born of a trail of tears by many protestant faiths persecuted in their home countries in Europe.

    Western Europe, as we know it today, would not exist…there would be no Socialist Europe post WWII. England would have been starved out and HItler and Stalin would have fought to a stalemate, or worse.

    Some Christian Virtues become Political Crusades…for good reason.

  3. Debbie,

    All men and women are created equal in God’s eyes, but not all relationships are equal or prudent. And what do you mean by “social contract”?

    The founding fathers weren’t talking about “equal in God’s eyes”, they were talking about having an equal standing in society. Those who believe that gay couples should not have an equal standing to heterosexual couples do so in contradiction to these American principles.

    Yes, I know that some people don’t care a fig about American principles and filter everything through “what do I believe that God wants”, but I believe that in a civil society it is irrelevant what any person or denomination thinks that God wants.

    By social contract I mean the agreement we make to live in peace with each other. The agreement that you can believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and I can believe that Joseph Smith interpreted gold plates with magic glasses and that neither of us can coerce the other to follow our beliefs. The contract of life, liberty, property, speech, privacy, happiness, and individual responsibility (and right) to our own selves. We encode this social contract in our Constitution.

    Yes, I know that some think the Constitution is valid only to the extent that it agrees with what they interpret from what they read in the Bible, but I value our social contract.

    Of course a gay person is a person.

    I’m glad you agree.

    But if so, then due process and equal protections apply. In other words – and this is a technical issue so please feel free to read up on it – if the 14th Amendment includes gay people, then the majority cannot deny a right from gay people that it grants to other people without illustrating a real and significant need to do so.

    Now in the past, some have said, “oh but a gay person has the right to marry the opposite sex”. Yet such an argument is nothing more than saying, “a gay person is not really a person, not really gay”. Because if a “right” requires that a gay person not be gay in order to get it, then it isn’t really a right which is granted to gay people. It excludes them, by definition, from protections.

    Or, as Justice Ginsberg put it, “a law against yarmulkes is a law against Jews.”

    That you think it a stretch is completely irrelevant. Constitutional scholars are increasingly finding it obvious. It comes down to a very simple equation:

    1. Do gay people exist, and do they exist as such?

    2. Are gay people protected by the Constitution from laws which single them out for adverse treatment? I.e. does “any person” include gay people

    3. Are there legitimate reasons – other than animus or a desire to consider gay people and their relationships unequal or imprudent – to disadvantage gay people?

  4. @ Timothy,

    I think seeing Gallagher through the prism of NOMA is narrow. I am familiar with her multifaceted attention to the family and public policy through this site from as early as 2003

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/

    She suggested I visit Blankenthorn…so I know she respects him highly. I am grateful she referred me.

    I think the Rabbi’s Characterization is quite simplistic…We all know that Evangelicals are pushing also for stricter divorce laws in many states and changing legal guidelines to slow divorce proceedings to encourage attempts to repair the marriage.

    The Rabbi is just plain wrong.

  5. @ Timothy and Jayhuck,

    France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

    Civil unions…I think.

    Like California…

    Like Oregon…

  6. OK, I decided to revisit this discussion. Lots of strong sentiment here, understandably.

    Jayhuck:

    That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

    The judiciary does do those things, but it also is subject to a check of its own from the people, especially where judges are elected. It would be naive of any of us to deny that the judiciary has acted outside of jurisprudence in many cases, thereby inviting the people’s rebuke.

    Timothy:

    In actuality, conservative Christianity in this country is demanding that gay people be excluded from the protections of the Constitution and that they be denied inclusion in the social contract by which we get along. They are seeking to change the underlying premise of all of our founding documents – that all men are created equal, even those of whom we disapprove.

    All men and women are created equal in God’s eyes, but not all relationships are equal or prudent. And what do you mean by “social contract”?

    Timothy again:

    In reality, this is a matter of whether the US Constitution includes a gay person as a “person” when it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Of course a gay person is a person. They have never been viewed as chattel, as slaves once were. Looked down upon, yes. So are many other people groups or individuals.

    How can the State legally deprive a gay person of “life, liberty, or property” unless said person has committed a capital offense or other crime? Gay people can own property the same as everyone else, and they do because, on average, they have a goodly income. Their lives are as valuable as any other person’s, citizen or no, and are far better than what many less fortunate people claim. They can walk about freely and openly as gays. Yes, they are widely denied the benefits that have been preserved for marriage only. That is a valid area of debate for a variety of reasons.

    Seems to me you might have a legitimate beef with Mr. Jefferson over his phrase “the pursuit of happiness.” That one is surely open to interpretation. The others you have cited? Way too big of a stretch.

    We know gays do face discrimination of all sorts. The government is always there for them to redress these wrongs, and the process is ongoing. Many gains have been made so far. More undoubtedly will be, even if universal same-sex marriage remains a distant pipe dream.

  7. Dr Brown is as firm and unyielding in his beliefs as Pat Robertson – not worth the effort – Really! 🙂

  8. I have a lot of work to do on Dr B. *SIGH*

    Just when I thought I was getting through to him too.

    *SIGH* again.

    I hope you aren’t referring to Brown, because if so you may as well stop now,

  9. I’m not asking Dr Brown to give up his beliefs, but to fulfil them.

    As regards giving up – I lasted 47 years with a male body, doing the “boy act” because I felt I had to. Half of those in that situation attempt suicide before age 20.

    Those that do eventually transition do not give up easily. Sheer Darwinian selection.

    This sometimes means we can be a little… ok, a lot… not just persistent, but obstinate. Pig-headed. Intransigent. We don’t know how to give up, because if we did, we’d be dead.

    The only way I will cease is if he convinces me he’s correct. Not the correctness of the basic axioms of his theology, I’ll accept those as true, I mean that it is internally consistent. Or if I can show him that Christianity and his actions regarding homosexuality are incompatible, as I believe they are. I have hopes there, he’s a decent man, so my work is 90% done.

    Warren is a Christian too remember, and an Evangelical. He doesn’t just accept Dr Brown’s axioms, he believes them to be true, unlike me.

  10. Don’t be surprised that everyone else noticed, including the Jews.

    AAAAAAAAA – Men!!! 🙂

  11. David,

    You are mistaken by placing over–importance on SF or Portland.

    The birth of the battle over whether gay people are entitled to all of the same civil protections as anyone else – including marriage – was started in Hawaii by their supreme court.

  12. Ugly on both sides Debbie? You are wrong! Health care reform for patients was ugly on only one side. I was sad to see so much debate surrounding reform – predominately from Republicans – that would actually help patients.

  13. The health care revisions (popularly called Obamacare) were a strong factor in the huge shift in representation in the country.

    I think it is called that mostly by those who deride it. It’s amazing what a good dose of fear can do to sabotage a good idea. I’m close to thinking that we should just extend Medicare to all, and that’s quite a shift for me. It does work, and the current system most certainly does not for many.

    But I have to agree with Timothy, this is the first election I can remember in a long time when abortion did not seem to be a major issue at all. Regardless of one’s opinion on the “where life begins” argument, it seems more are coming to the realization that abortion isn’t going away. Making it as unnecessary as possible might be the only plausible way to go.

  14. Its Fiat when you don’t appreciate judges interpreting the constitution AS IS THEIR JOB, and acting as a different branch of government that has a history of protecting minorities? I get it

  15. Forgive me for borrowing your words Tim, but I have to echo this sentiment:

    and ps, yes you did piss me off with what I considered to be glib dismissal of legitimate concerns on the part of those who are set aside and excluded from equality… I’ve cooled off a bit now

  16. I have a lot of work to do on Dr B. *SIGH*

    Just when I thought I was getting through to him too.

    *SIGH* again.

    Oh well, if a job is worth doing, it’s worth persisting with.

  17. (and ps, yes you did piss me off with what I considered to be glib dismissal of legitimate concerns on the part of those who are set aside and excluded from equality… I’ve cooled off a bit now)

  18. David Blakeslee,

    What a troubling post…evangelicals are not for strengthening marriage, or against the sexualization of teens?

    What kind of straw man is the rabbi trying to set up here?

    I am unaware of any rallies held by Dr. Michael Brown to strengthen the family or desexualize teens during the past year. He has, however, held rallies in opposition to gay civil equality.

    It’s not a strawman to point out that one’s actions betray ones priorities.

    Expanding the definition of marriage is a reasonable concern; and having it changed by legal fiat is also a serious democratic concern.

    By “expanding the definition”, you clearly mean “applying the same rules to gay people that we apply to straight people”. My oh my, it is reasonably concerning when we don’t get to set aside the folks whom we think are sinners and make sure they know their place and stay in it.

    And by “legal fiat”, you must mean the outrageous discovery by constitutional jurists that “any person” in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution does not have an asterisk that says “other, of course, than any gay person”. (But, Gee, we always thought “any person” meant “any person that I approve of”).

    And “serious democratic concern” is, no doubt, the same thing as running a religion-based campaign that was – by ANY objective observer – a recitation of lies (not exaggerations, but outright lies) in order to deny some citizens the rights that you personally think aught to be reserved for people like you.

    And this came to a head in 2004 because of actions in San Francisco and Portland and elsewhere.

    How uppity of those homos to act like they are just like regular folk. All this San Francisco “action” reminds me of the last time folk got all uppity down in Selma and Birmingham. (And if you don’t like that comparison, take it up with Howard University, whose amicus brief in Perry v. Schwarzenegger brought tears to my eyes).

    It’s very simple. We all do what is important to us.

    And Evangelicans have for the past few decades found it VERY VERY important to attack the lives, the freedoms, the rights and the dignity of gay people.

    Don’t be surprised that everyone else noticed, including the Jews.

  19. What a troubling post…evangelicals are not for strengthening marriage, or against the sexualization of teens?

    What kind of straw man is the rabbi trying to set up here?

    Expanding the definition of marriage is a reasonable concern; and having it changed by legal fiat is also a serious democratic concern.

    And this came to a head in 2004 because of actions in San Francisco and Portland and elsewhere.

    We’ll let the democratic process and the legal process sort itself out…but it is beyond absurd to paint evangelicals in this way; or value voters (a broad description which includes individual responsibility among many other attributes).

    Painting them this way is a tool of simplistic marginalization. Back to narcissism and splitting defences.

  20. Yeah, as well as “Republicans want you to die quickly.” It was ugly on both sides.

    How many people really could grasp what was in so mammoth a bill? Too much too soon.

    Meanwhile, one of my mom’s trusted doctors of many years is leaving his practice as he no longer can afford it. One of many, no doubt. No matter how affordable health care is for patients, we still need enough doctors to provide it.

    I guess this is still on-topic, sort of.

  21. The health care revisions (popularly called Obamacare) were a strong factor in the huge shift in representation in the country. It was soundly rejected – not only by the populace in voting Republican but in the Democratic candidates who campaigned in opposition.

    But Debbie is completely and entirely wrong in assuming that abortion was even on the radar in this vote. It was not.

  22. But I would definitely agree that Obama’s health care reform was a factor

  23. Excellent posting and kudos to Rabbi Shumely! This was also discussed elsewhere and leaves me with an important unresolved question. The rabbi says that homosexuality (at least in Judaism) is a ‘religious sin’ and not a ‘moral sin’. I would like to understand better his meaning here; and are there degrees of religious sin? His advice to gay couples was delightful. In that there are 613 laws, when gay couples disregard the commands to be fruitful and instead engage in homosexual (non-procreative) relations, they may have broke two of the laws but still have 611 to be busy working with. 😉

  24. Obama’s healthcare reform was much-needed and will be a helpful to many patients.

    Some kind of health care reform is much-needed.

    And abortion is and will continue to be on the radar, as will be demonstrated in the forthcoming legislative process.

  25. Perhaps the rabbi couldn’t convince his audience because he is inclined to make statements like this:

    I pointed out how in 2004, amid President George W. Bush being the most hated man on earth he still won the election because of evangelical support

    .

    The emphasis, mine, points to a silly and needless exaggeration. And I think he is a tad naive in some of his assessment, while he also has highly salient points that always bear repeating.

    I would argue that one very important social issue was on the table this time around: abortion, via Obamacare. The country is trending more strongly pro-life now. It matters to a great many voters.

    Finally, you make good use of our old wiley “pal” Screwtape. Like that. 🙂

  26. Sorry. My tired brain forgot that you can’t italicize something the blockquote is already going to italicize. The emphasis was on “George W. Bush being the most hated man on earth.” Should have BFd it.

  27. Tim,

    I’m not sure I would say it was soundly rejected. Fear played a big part in the undermining of Obama’s healthcare reform, not sound or rational argument.

  28. David,

    You may not like Gallagher and others, but a reading of all of their literature (to include Blankenthorne’s work) suggests broad concern with a variety of social ills associated with fatherlessness, promiscuity, poverty and the importance of faith in the public arena.

    To say I don’t like Gallagher would be an understatement. I will say she and NOM don’t use logic or reason – they aren’t rational in their arguments, at least when it comes to gay marriage. They are vicious, they lie and they use fear to further their agenda. Judging from the election, it appears most America sees through their ridiculous arguments

  29. @ Timothy,

    But Brian Brown is motivated, driven, and animated by a deep and strong vein of pure hatred.

    Brian Brown, who is an Evangelical, and informs Evangelicals.

    Evangelicals, please don’t listen to Brian Brown.

  30. I disagree that those issues are excluded. Participation in any Evangelical community will find an emphasis on strengthening marriage, parent training, adolescent services to strengthen skills against peer pressure, support groups for addicts of several kinds, training in money management, encouragement for charitable giving both locally and overseas….I am sure there is more, stop in some time or take a look at a budget.

    You may not like Gallagher and others, but a reading of all of their literature (to include Blankenthorne’s work) suggests broad concern with a variety of social ills associated with fatherlessness, promiscuity, poverty and the importance of faith in the public arena.

    It is silly that people persist with such a narrow understanding of Evangelicals or Religious conservatives in general.

  31. “Constitutional” is an agreed addition to my statement above.

    Then we are in agreement.

    I return to the original topic of the thread, the Rabbi simplifies Evangelicals. We would not tolerate such a simplistic understanding of other groups.

    I do not seek to stereotype Evangelicals (and indeed, he should distinguish between conservative Evangelicals and liberal Evangelicals). But his point is that there has been an obsession over the past decade on the part of those he criticizes on the issue of homosexuality to the exclusion of many many other social issues.

    Do you disagree that this is true?

  32. Timothy,

    “Constitutional” is an agreed addition to my statement above.

    I disagree with your understanding of how sexual ethics informed public law prior to the sexual revolution.

    I return to the original topic of the thread, the Rabbi simplifies Evangelicals. We would not tolerate such a simplistic understanding of other groups.

    I do not understand why such contrived simplicity is posted here.

  33. David,

    You seem to be missing many key points:

    But there is truth to the assertion that it is about individual rights and personal freedom. We are debating whether government should sanction such relationships

    I think you would agree that representative government works for all of us or it works for none of us…

    You are right – we are talking about the government treating GLBT people equally – not religion or religious institutions. I’m glad you brought that up

    Second – representative government does not always work and its not always the best way to make sure minorities are treated fairly. If we had left many civil rights for African Americans up to representative government only, they very well may still be suffering under archaic laws. The legislative process can and does oppress people – sometimes a majority is wrong. That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

  34. David,

    For the record, I don’t lump all Evangelicals together. There are many thoughtful, compassionate and reasonable Evangelicals. I’m proud to call several of them friends

  35. Outrage over the Judicial process in support to GLBT rights is meant to make sure that their decisions fit in the confines of the Constitution.

    As Tim notes, the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment.

    Sometimes Judges decide issues without proper deference to the scope and role they are to play by the Constitution.

    This statement is predicated on the notion that the confines of the Constitution may legitimately exclude gay people from the definition of “all people”. This notion is contrary to the underlying premises of this nation.

    Sadly, that matters little to some who would place their own personal animus towards gay people above the principles for which my ancestors fought. Let’s hope that in time they all come to recognize this sad truth and reconsider their ideals.

  36. To add…politically and legally you are winning because you are assembling an argument worthy of the rights you seek and presenting it in nearly every arena necessary to get the change you seek.

    More power to ya.

    Stop bashing Evangelicals globally and simplistically (or conflating one public evangelical with all evangelicals)…as victims of such abuse you shame yourselves by using the same blunt tool that was used on you.

    We have all been on a trail of tears…

  37. After Dr Brown’s last visit here, I stopped reading or seeking out any of his opinions. He’s really not worth the effort Zoe 😉

  38. Debbie,

    I think the review does a good job of pointing out specific spots where the book or author’s arguments is/are weak. I will most likely read the book. As reviews go though, I thought it was generally a good one

  39. It took 48 years for anything of this magnitude to happen. This is not a mirror image of 2008. What remains to be seen is exactly what it all will lead to. The things I cited are either hard facts (the demographics) or realistic projections based on what likely will happen, especially at the state level.

    I believe both sides in this debate are seeing what they want to see in the election results. Always happens. None of us has a crystal ball. Attitudes toward gay people are becoming more compassionate, but there are some lines folks are not yet ready to cross. That is not being overstated at this point.

    Will can agree to disagree and move on.

  40. I think we could give each other some leeway.

    Thanks.

    The problem with blogging is there is no real, established etiquette, and even if there were, rapid-fire written communication without the benefit of immediate clarification, voice inflection, etc. is a hard way to go on its on.

    As for the Screwtape quote, it is to be understood in a larger context, I think. I don’t think Lewis meant for us to infer that Christians ought not be involved in the political process. It’s how we do it (and become blinded by it) that was the concern.

    I will mention this book one more time, maybe only for your sake, David B., as you may be the one more likely to pick it up: City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Eraby Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. Makes a rational, historical and theological case for Christian cultural and political engagement done right.

  41. Maybe we should give each other some leeway. It’s not pretense for either of us. It’s genuine concern, justified anger at times, getting it right some and getting it wrong some. Gay activism that does not show the hypocrites a better way is no more abhorrent than Christian hypocrisy or activism that sullies Christ. The one is misdirected bitterness while the other is misdirected high-mindedness. There is no place for either. No moral high ground. Both sides demonize wrongly at times.

    I think we could give each other some leeway.

  42. David,

    I think it goes to whether you believe the Kingdom of Heaven is a civil institution which imposes God’s law on the citizens, or if you believe the Kingdom of Heaven is within the hearts of believers and has no imposition of faith.

    I can see abolition or increased rights for women as noble causes brought about by the kingdom in our hearts. They gave people that they effected better lives and more freedom.

    But when we begin to impact people negatively because of the Kingdom in our hearts, that stops sounding much like Jesus.

  43. And Jayhuck, you are in the wishful thinking category for the time being. This historic election will have sweeping ramifications. I didn’t even mention the impact of redistricting. Even so, Republicans had better be ready to take their jobs seriously. They’ve failed before. The country is watching, with 2012?s ballot in hand.

    Debbie – this is me, I had to sign on under a different name. LOL – the only person here who is in the wishful thinking Category is you. You are completely ignoring/denying the fact that attitudes about gay marriage are changing, that this HISTORIC election elected our first 4th openly gay congressman to office and Kentucky’s first openly gay mayor.

    Obama’s election and all the hoopla that surrounded is was called historic as well. As soon as the honeymoon is over and the disillusionment sets in with these candidates, as it has for all candidates elected in, well, I don’t know how long, the pendulum will swing again. However, many of the people elected did so on a fiscally conservative platform, not a social one – The vast majority of the candidate’s that the anti-gay NOM supported for office were not elected – some dems that we thought for sure were going to be kicked out were not.

    This HISTORIC election as you call it will be replaced with another HISTORIC election in the not too distant future.

    Attitudes are changing Debbie. Gays can and do already get married in this country. Gay couples, gay families are not going away – I’m afraid you’re just going to have to get used to these facts and figure out a way to live with gay married couples and families in peace

  44. People are increasingly becoming accepting of Gay marriage

    Some are, to be sure. But apparently not enough yet to roll back the 31 state marriage amendments or prevent a few more that may come to the fore. Every state that has been allowed to vote on an amendment has passed one. Gay rights will seek and find ways to move forward here and there because of some committed and creative people.

    Can’t say what the near, mid- or distant future look like at this point. Gay marriage has only prevailed in states where either judicial or legislative fiat allowed it to. But it’s part of the system we have, so we roll with it, when we like it and when we don’t. The other part of that system is voters voting their convictions. Majority (or electoral college) wins. The pendulum swings. It may be one step forward and two back or vice versa. Presidents also have veto pens and executive orders. Checks and balances, all.

    In the meantime, both sides have their prognosticating heyday. It’s part of the temporary spoils of “war.” 🙂

  45. Debbie,

    “historic” elections seem to be happening all

    The time.

    The facts:

    – People are increasingly becoming accepting of

    Gay marriage

    – republicans and other conservatives are increasingly

    Supportive of gay marriage and gay rights in general

    I won’t say that there wasn’t anything in this election

    To give me pause but I’m not overly concerned for

    The cause of gay rights

  46. Regretting returning to gay marriage discussion…

    Sorry.

    Trying to keep it on the Rabbi.

  47. Sorry – I should have said;

    However, many of the people elected to office this time ran on a fiscally conservative platform, not a social one – …

  48. Debbie,

    The need is in the process of being illustrated, but that is another point. Gays can marry, just not each other. When did same-sex marriage become an intrinsic right? That’s presumptive. Most people get that. That’s a mighty large boulder you are rolling up the hill, Sisyphus.

    Nope Debbie – what the courts have consistently found is that there is no need to deny gay couples rights – none at all. Your side has had ample opportunity to present its case, and each and every time they do the courts have found the evidence to suggest that there is NO need to deny gay couples rights. There is no need what so ever to deny gay couples the right to marry or for gay couples to have and raise children – PERIOD!

    And you are wrong again that gays cannot marry each other – they can, just not in every state yet. Gay people CAN and DO marry each other. What’s so interesting is that in EVERY state, Gays can have a religious ceremony, its just not recognized by the secular state every time. What gays should be able to have, and will at some point, is the ability for the state to recognize those unions.

    My heart goes out to gays who believe they ought to be entitled to marry each other. But I cannot defy God or natural law on that issue. The Rabbi, as I suggested earlier, is correct in that Christians—he’s wrong that it’s only evangelicals—have many problems to correct in our midst.

    Oh – really? Does your heart go out to them? That’s so…..well, I don’t know what it is but its not sweet. What you CAN do Debbie is stop forcing your beliefs on a group of people who want to marry under SECULAR law.

  49. France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

    Civil unions…I think.

    Like California…

    Like Oregon…

    No, David, they have PACS.

    One need not be hateful to not allow civil equality. But surely you agree that you also CAN be hateful and endorse inequality.

    The proof of a lack of hatred certainly is not a lack of equality. If so, then Oklahoma would be the very definition of a loving place. And even you can see that there is a lot of real genuine hatred aimed at gay people in Oklahoma.

    Many people voted for Proposition 8 without experiencing overt hatred. Some simply enjoyed their sense of superiority, others were afraid of new things, and some were uncertain as to the nature of same-sex relationships.

    But do not be fooled; the campaign for Proposition 8 was driven entirely out of a desire to ensure that same-sex relationships were given a social definition of inferiority. It was anti-gay animus in its purest forms. I live here, I experienced it. And I’ve read the trial transcripts.

    If you wish to assert a claim that animus was not at the core of the campaign, then first read the transcripts and the submitted materials.

    As Jayhuck said

    That countries are moving slowly to recognize same-sex marriage is one thing. That a large group of conservative Christians is obsessed with preventing marriage equality is something else.

  50. Debbie,

    The judiciary does do those things, but it also is subject to a check of its own from the people, especially where judges are elected. It would be naive of any of us to deny that the judiciary has acted outside of jurisprudence in many cases, thereby inviting the people’s rebuke.

    An independent judiciary is just that. One of the reasons it exists is to protect people from a Tyranny of the majority. The conservative groups who poured thousands of dollars into Iowa to oust those three judges because they didn’t like the fact the judges were doing their job, better REAL careful because, when their opinions are actually the minority, and that day is coming, they may not have anyone their to defend them – and they won’t have ANYONE to blame but themselves.

  51. I am willing to bet that you will consistently get one response. And there has to be some reason why virtually every non-conservative-evangelical has the same impression. Because if the Rabbi is plain wrong, it isn’t because he’s either alone in his impressions or basing them on something other than what he sees.

    Here’s the challenge: if indeed Evangelicals are not obsessed about homosexuality, then how did everyone come to get that impression? And what are Evangelicals willing to do to change it?

    I’m willing to bet as well because I know I will win 🙂

  52. David,

    France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

    Once again – not the point. That countries are moving slowly to recognize same-sex marriage is one thing. That a large group of conservative Christians is obsessed with preventing marriage equality is something else.

  53. I think seeing Gallagher through the prism of NOMA is narrow.

    Of course you do. You are not a target of NOM’s efforts. When someone is hitting you with a stick today, it is of less importance that seven years ago they were baking cakes and knitting sweaters.

  54. Timothy, it’s the way both sides go at it that must be most offensive to God. Yes, I am part of that offending at times, too. There are things to be observed and worthy of being pointed out on both sides. We’ll keep doing that. We’ll hear sometimes and we’ll be shouting too loudly at others.

    Maybe we should give each other some leeway. It’s not pretense for either of us. It’s genuine concern, justified anger at times, getting it right some and getting it wrong some. Gay activism that does not show the hypocrites a better way is no more abhorrent than Christian hypocrisy or activism that sullies Christ. The one is misdirected bitterness while the other is misdirected high-mindedness. There is no place for either. No moral high ground. Both sides demonize wrongly at times.

    I think you know this.

    Yes, I know that. Do you also know the flip side of it? I won’t presume to tell you what’s in your heart if you’ll do likewise for me.

  55. The Kingdom of Heaven, brought about my witnessing Christians on earth (part of preaching the Good News) is powerfully and subtly interlaced in Western Law.

    This has little to do with posting the 10 commandments in public.

    It has a lot to do with much of what we take for Justice in the modern world.

    Christian values are deeply embedded; as are Jewish.

    I have been thinking however: If we achieve Justice, what will be left for those who still Suffer?

  56. Debbie,

    I think the review does a good job of pointing out specific spots where the book or author’s arguments is/are weak. I will most likely read the book. As reviews go though, I thought it was generally a good one

  57. It’s a thoughtful review. Jayhuck, but not exactly the one I would/will write (if I can get it together amid other deadlines). I may not agree with all the authors say, but that review is a bit too much of a brush stroke.

    Christianity thrives as the persecuted minority, but fails miserably as the powerful majority

    Wow. Truer words were never spoken, David. Also, we need to ask who/what gets to define “new era.” Culture changes, trends come and go. Some things never do seem to change, though. The temptations of the human heart, for instance. Power is seductive and dangerous in any form.

  58. The Kingdom of Heaven, brought about my witnessing Christians on earth (part of preaching the Good News) is powerfully and subtly interlaced in Western Law.

    This has little to do with posting the 10 commandments in public.

    It has a lot to do with much of what we take for Justice in the modern world.

    Christian values are deeply embedded; as are Jewish.

    I have been thinking however: If we achieve Justice, what will be left for those who still Suffer?

  59. Christianity thrives as the persecuted minority, but fails miserably as the powerful majority. It’s obvious that C.S. Lewis was warning about the dangers of allowing those lines to become blurred, thus confusing our priorities. The past few decades in the US are an excellent example of ignoring that warning. Lots of legislation passed, but at what cost?

    Believers are far more effective as examples of God’s love than as political powerhouses. Of course, that presupposes that we are not acting like asses — not a good bet at all these days.

    Matt 20:25

  60. It’s a thoughtful review. Jayhuck, but not exactly the one I would/will write (if I can get it together amid other deadlines). I may not agree with all the authors say, but that review is a bit too much of a brush stroke.

    Christianity thrives as the persecuted minority, but fails miserably as the powerful majority

    Wow. Truer words were never spoken, David. Also, we need to ask who/what gets to define “new era.” Culture changes, trends come and go. Some things never do seem to change, though. The temptations of the human heart, for instance. Power is seductive and dangerous in any form.

  61. I think we could give each other some leeway.

    Thanks.

    The problem with blogging is there is no real, established etiquette, and even if there were, rapid-fire written communication without the benefit of immediate clarification, voice inflection, etc. is a hard way to go on its on.

    As for the Screwtape quote, it is to be understood in a larger context, I think. I don’t think Lewis meant for us to infer that Christians ought not be involved in the political process. It’s how we do it (and become blinded by it) that was the concern.

    I will mention this book one more time, maybe only for your sake, David B., as you may be the one more likely to pick it up: City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Eraby Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. Makes a rational, historical and theological case for Christian cultural and political engagement done right.

  62. Christianity thrives as the persecuted minority, but fails miserably as the powerful majority. It’s obvious that C.S. Lewis was warning about the dangers of allowing those lines to become blurred, thus confusing our priorities. The past few decades in the US are an excellent example of ignoring that warning. Lots of legislation passed, but at what cost?

    Believers are far more effective as examples of God’s love than as political powerhouses. Of course, that presupposes that we are not acting like asses — not a good bet at all these days.

    Matt 20:25

  63. David,

    I think it goes to whether you believe the Kingdom of Heaven is a civil institution which imposes God’s law on the citizens, or if you believe the Kingdom of Heaven is within the hearts of believers and has no imposition of faith.

    I can see abolition or increased rights for women as noble causes brought about by the kingdom in our hearts. They gave people that they effected better lives and more freedom.

    But when we begin to impact people negatively because of the Kingdom in our hearts, that stops sounding much like Jesus.

  64. Maybe we should give each other some leeway. It’s not pretense for either of us. It’s genuine concern, justified anger at times, getting it right some and getting it wrong some. Gay activism that does not show the hypocrites a better way is no more abhorrent than Christian hypocrisy or activism that sullies Christ. The one is misdirected bitterness while the other is misdirected high-mindedness. There is no place for either. No moral high ground. Both sides demonize wrongly at times.

    I think we could give each other some leeway.

  65. @ Warren,

    In regards to Screwtape…boy, I don’t know how to put that all together.

    C.S. Lewis is a genius, but…

    There have been many Christians who have been quite active in politics for centuries under the rubric of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven here (i.e. living out the Sermon on the Mount and the Two Commandments).

    Many reformation movements, from the right of women to vote, to prohibition, to ending slavery to civil rights have Christian proponents…

    The establishment of the US was born of a trail of tears by many protestant faiths persecuted in their home countries in Europe.

    Western Europe, as we know it today, would not exist…there would be no Socialist Europe post WWII. England would have been starved out and HItler and Stalin would have fought to a stalemate, or worse.

    Some Christian Virtues become Political Crusades…for good reason.

  66. This has been my experience from time to time here…

    You read into what everyone here says instead of just reading.

    I write shorter posts to try and keep my meanings clear.

    I find when I write longer posts that the harder work I put in them can be quickly ignored when a small facet of the post is interpreted in a selective way.

    Outrage and claims of insensitivity follow.

    It’s like being held hostage to another’s need to interpret rather than read.

    After a while, you shut up…and maybe that is the point.

  67. Timothy, it’s the way both sides go at it that must be most offensive to God. Yes, I am part of that offending at times, too. There are things to be observed and worthy of being pointed out on both sides. We’ll keep doing that. We’ll hear sometimes and we’ll be shouting too loudly at others.

    Maybe we should give each other some leeway. It’s not pretense for either of us. It’s genuine concern, justified anger at times, getting it right some and getting it wrong some. Gay activism that does not show the hypocrites a better way is no more abhorrent than Christian hypocrisy or activism that sullies Christ. The one is misdirected bitterness while the other is misdirected high-mindedness. There is no place for either. No moral high ground. Both sides demonize wrongly at times.

    I think you know this.

    Yes, I know that. Do you also know the flip side of it? I won’t presume to tell you what’s in your heart if you’ll do likewise for me.

  68. This has been my experience from time to time here…

    You read into what everyone here says instead of just reading.

    I write shorter posts to try and keep my meanings clear.

    I find when I write longer posts that the harder work I put in them can be quickly ignored when a small facet of the post is interpreted in a selective way.

    Outrage and claims of insensitivity follow.

    It’s like being held hostage to another’s need to interpret rather than read.

    After a while, you shut up…and maybe that is the point.

  69. This is the kind of hypocritical saber-rattling that shuts down any attempt at meaningful discourse here, Timothy. “Your heart longs. …” Bull. You haven’t a clue what my heart longs for. Never will.

    I know enough to be offended by pretenses.

    Your babble-speak about God is equally insulting to a thinking person, Christian or not. You read into what everyone here says instead of just reading. In fact, you tell the ignoramuses what they really believe and are really saying. The height of arrogance and ignorance. And a perfect illustration of why gay activism is so abhorred in the eyes of so many.

    Ah yes, because I’m “the height of arrogance and ignorance”, then “gay activism” is abhorred.

    No Debbie, “gay activism is abhorred in the eyes of so many” because of anti-gay activists over the past few decades who have demonized gay people. Most of them did so either from a pulpit or bearing the mantle of Christianity.

    I think you know this.

  70. David Blakeslee has made some valid points here. You cannot summarily dismiss them. Your “logic” is a real piece of work, brother.

    Debbie – I don’t see Tim “summarily dismissing” anything. Tim has argued rather logically and effectively against David’s “points”.

  71. We will see what we will see about where things are headed. God will remain on His throne. I’ll be banking on that and that alone.

    FYI – it looks like Hawaii is set to be another state to institute civil unions 😉

  72. This is the kind of hypocritical saber-rattling that shuts down any attempt at meaningful discourse here, Timothy. “Your heart longs. …” Bull. You haven’t a clue what my heart longs for. Never will.

    I know enough to be offended by pretenses.

    Your babble-speak about God is equally insulting to a thinking person, Christian or not. You read into what everyone here says instead of just reading. In fact, you tell the ignoramuses what they really believe and are really saying. The height of arrogance and ignorance. And a perfect illustration of why gay activism is so abhorred in the eyes of so many.

    Ah yes, because I’m “the height of arrogance and ignorance”, then “gay activism” is abhorred.

    No Debbie, “gay activism is abhorred in the eyes of so many” because of anti-gay activists over the past few decades who have demonized gay people. Most of them did so either from a pulpit or bearing the mantle of Christianity.

    I think you know this.

  73. David Blakeslee has made some valid points here. You cannot summarily dismiss them. Your “logic” is a real piece of work, brother.

    Debbie – I don’t see Tim “summarily dismissing” anything. Tim has argued rather logically and effectively against David’s “points”.

  74. We will see what we will see about where things are headed. God will remain on His throne. I’ll be banking on that and that alone.

    FYI – it looks like Hawaii is set to be another state to institute civil unions 😉

  75. No it doesn’t. Your heart longs for gays to be denied civil rights and hopes to smugly gloat in the way that you opened your comment. That’s just an arrogant self-congratulatory way for you to justify your own love of supremacy.

    This is the kind of hypocritical saber-rattling that shuts down any attempt at meaningful discourse here, Timothy. “Your heart longs. …” Bull. You haven’t a clue what my heart longs for. Never will.

    Your babble-speak about God is equally insulting to a thinking person, Christian or not. You read into what everyone here says instead of just reading. In fact, you tell the ignoramuses what they really believe and are really saying. The height of arrogance and ignorance. And a perfect illustration of why gay activism is so abhorred in the eyes of so many.

    David Blakeslee has made some valid points here. You cannot summarily dismiss them. Your “logic” is a real piece of work, brother.

    We will see what we will see about where things are headed. God will remain on His throne. I’ll be banking on that and that alone.

  76. No it doesn’t. Your heart longs for gays to be denied civil rights and hopes to smugly gloat in the way that you opened your comment. That’s just an arrogant self-congratulatory way for you to justify your own love of supremacy.

    This is the kind of hypocritical saber-rattling that shuts down any attempt at meaningful discourse here, Timothy. “Your heart longs. …” Bull. You haven’t a clue what my heart longs for. Never will.

    Your babble-speak about God is equally insulting to a thinking person, Christian or not. You read into what everyone here says instead of just reading. In fact, you tell the ignoramuses what they really believe and are really saying. The height of arrogance and ignorance. And a perfect illustration of why gay activism is so abhorred in the eyes of so many.

    David Blakeslee has made some valid points here. You cannot summarily dismiss them. Your “logic” is a real piece of work, brother.

    We will see what we will see about where things are headed. God will remain on His throne. I’ll be banking on that and that alone.

  77. Tim,

    You are entitled to your own views, Debbie, but I’m not goimng to play into your self-righteous charade. You don’t get to simultaneously seek harm to gay people and also pretend that your intentions are loving.

    Its also hard for me to take Debbie’s “my heart goes out to them” schpeal seriously. It was utterly patronizing, to me anyway.

  78. Debbie,

    That’s interesting, Timothy. Did you notice how many state houses flipped from Democratic to Republican on Tuesday? Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices were ousted—nearly unheard of— and one almost lost the retention vote in Alaska. Governorships? Check out those election results. Why did all this happen? Because only idiots or bigots voted?

    Did you follow this campaign? AT ALL???

    One of the points noted on EVERY news source (yes, including FOX) is that Republicans refused to discuss social issues this campaign. Well virtually all of them and those who did emphasize social issues were the few who lost.

    You do know what these state results mean for more potential marriage amendments, right? Marriage amendments have languished in some states because liberals blocked them. A number of those folks were given the boot Tuesday. And New Hampshire now will probably join Maine in reversing its course on marriage.

    In your dreams baby. You seem to think that every Republican holds the same anti-gay animus that you do. It just ain’t so. Not in New Hampshire.

    When the repeal vote came up earlier this year, 40 Republicans voted “no”. Not one of them were voted out. On the other hand 4 Democrats voted yes and two were removed.

    I know that you really want to believe what you want to believe. But those of us who actually read before we state opinions have a hard time respecting views that are based on, well, nothing.

    “… endowed by their Creator (that’s God) with certain inalienable rights.”

    The word “Creator” was selected so as to avoid the word “God”. Remember this document was written by Deists and Anti-theists. The Creator was a Deist term, not a Christian term.

    And as for your legal analysis, I can’t comment without sounding insulting. When you have read the legal arguments, let me know. Otherwise please avoid expressing uninformed opinions, it’s embarrassing.

    My heart goes out to gays who believe they ought to be entitled to marry each other.

    No it doesn’t. Your heart longs for gays to be denied civil rights and hopes to smugly gloat in the way that you opened your comment. That’s just an arrogant self-congratulatory way for you to justify your own love of supremacy.

    You are entitled to your own views, Debbie, but I’m not going to play into your self-righteous charade. You don’t get to simultaneously seek harm to gay people and also pretend that your intentions are loving.

  79. Tim,

    You are entitled to your own views, Debbie, but I’m not goimng to play into your self-righteous charade. You don’t get to simultaneously seek harm to gay people and also pretend that your intentions are loving.

    Its also hard for me to take Debbie’s “my heart goes out to them” schpeal seriously. It was utterly patronizing, to me anyway.

  80. And David, we’ve constantly been pointing out

    To you the reasons people are viewing

    Some evangelicals this way. It’s what they’ve

    Spent a bulk of their time energy and money on – somehow

    You keep missing the point.

  81. @ Jayhuck,

    Let them maintain their obsession and move even further into irrelevance in the eyes of the public

    I have been talking this whole thread that the rabbi is inaccurate in describing Evangelicals…as being single-mindedly obsessive. It is a characteristic of politics to describe people in simplistic ways and as “obsessively preoccupied.”

  82. Some of this discussion ought to have been on the election thread. It got rolling here instead. The topic was on the table.

  83. Debbie,

    That’s interesting, Timothy. Did you notice how many state houses flipped from Democratic to Republican on Tuesday? Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices were ousted—nearly unheard of— and one almost lost the retention vote in Alaska. Governorships? Check out those election results. Why did all this happen? Because only idiots or bigots voted?

    Did you follow this campaign? AT ALL???

    One of the points noted on EVERY news source (yes, including FOX) is that Republicans refused to discuss social issues this campaign. Well virtually all of them and those who did emphasize social issues were the few who lost.

    You do know what these state results mean for more potential marriage amendments, right? Marriage amendments have languished in some states because liberals blocked them. A number of those folks were given the boot Tuesday. And New Hampshire now will probably join Maine in reversing its course on marriage.

    In your dreams baby. You seem to think that every Republican holds the same anti-gay animus that you do. It just ain’t so. Not in New Hampshire.

    When the repeal vote came up earlier this year, 40 Republicans voted “no”. Not one of them were voted out. On the other hand 4 Democrats voted yes and two were removed.

    I know that you really want to believe what you want to believe. But those of us who actually read before we state opinions have a hard time respecting views that are based on, well, nothing.

    “… endowed by their Creator (that’s God) with certain inalienable rights.”

    The word “Creator” was selected so as to avoid the word “God”. Remember this document was written by Deists and Anti-theists. The Creator was a Deist term, not a Christian term.

    And as for your legal analysis, I can’t comment without sounding insulting. When you have read the legal arguments, let me know. Otherwise please avoid expressing uninformed opinions, it’s embarrassing.

    My heart goes out to gays who believe they ought to be entitled to marry each other.

    No it doesn’t. Your heart longs for gays to be denied civil rights and hopes to smugly gloat in the way that you opened your comment. That’s just an arrogant self-congratulatory way for you to justify your own love of supremacy.

    You are entitled to your own views, Debbie, but I’m not going to play into your self-righteous charade. You don’t get to simultaneously seek harm to gay people and also pretend that your intentions are loving.

  84. David,

    Going back to the topic at hand – I say, if Evangelicals want to dismiss/ignore the Rabbi’s observations and warnings, then so be it. Let them maintain their obsession and move even further into irrelevance in the eyes of the public

  85. Debbie,

    Can’t say what the near, mid- or distant future look like at this point. Gay marriage has only prevailed in states where either judicial or legislative fiat allowed it to. But it’s part of the system we have, so we roll with it, when we like it and when we don’t. The other part of that system is voters voting their convictions. Majority (or electoral college) wins. The pendulum swings. It may be one step forward and two back or vice versa. Presidents also have veto pens and executive orders. Checks and balances, all.

    My point, Debbie, is that the clear and consistant movement of gay rights over the past 30 years has been in one direction – and this change in attitudes and laws shows no signs of stopping. Gay marriage has prevailed in this country in many instances because, as they had to during the Civil Rights area, courts have stepped in to do their job and protect a minority from the Tyranny of the majority. Checks and balances Debbie!

    But apparently not enough yet to roll back the 31 state marriage amendments or prevent a few more that may come to the fore.

    Not yet – but soon! 🙂

  86. Regretting returning to gay marriage discussion…

    Sorry.

    Trying to keep it on the Rabbi.

  87. People are increasingly becoming accepting of Gay marriage

    Some are, to be sure. But apparently not enough yet to roll back the 31 state marriage amendments or prevent a few more that may come to the fore. Every state that has been allowed to vote on an amendment has passed one. Gay rights will seek and find ways to move forward here and there because of some committed and creative people.

    Can’t say what the near, mid- or distant future look like at this point. Gay marriage has only prevailed in states where either judicial or legislative fiat allowed it to. But it’s part of the system we have, so we roll with it, when we like it and when we don’t. The other part of that system is voters voting their convictions. Majority (or electoral college) wins. The pendulum swings. It may be one step forward and two back or vice versa. Presidents also have veto pens and executive orders. Checks and balances, all.

    In the meantime, both sides have their prognosticating heyday. It’s part of the temporary spoils of “war.” 🙂

  88. And David, we’ve constantly been pointing out

    To you the reasons people are viewing

    Some evangelicals this way. It’s what they’ve

    Spent a bulk of their time energy and money on – somehow

    You keep missing the point.

  89. Debbie,

    “historic” elections seem to be happening all

    The time.

    The facts:

    – People are increasingly becoming accepting of

    Gay marriage

    – republicans and other conservatives are increasingly

    Supportive of gay marriage and gay rights in general

    I won’t say that there wasn’t anything in this election

    To give me pause but I’m not overly concerned for

    The cause of gay rights

  90. It took 48 years for anything of this magnitude to happen. This is not a mirror image of 2008. What remains to be seen is exactly what it all will lead to. The things I cited are either hard facts (the demographics) or realistic projections based on what likely will happen, especially at the state level.

    I believe both sides in this debate are seeing what they want to see in the election results. Always happens. None of us has a crystal ball. Attitudes toward gay people are becoming more compassionate, but there are some lines folks are not yet ready to cross. That is not being overstated at this point.

    Will can agree to disagree and move on.

  91. Sorry – I should have said;

    However, many of the people elected to office this time ran on a fiscally conservative platform, not a social one – …

  92. @ Jayhuck,

    Let them maintain their obsession and move even further into irrelevance in the eyes of the public

    I have been talking this whole thread that the rabbi is inaccurate in describing Evangelicals…as being single-mindedly obsessive. It is a characteristic of politics to describe people in simplistic ways and as “obsessively preoccupied.”

  93. Some of this discussion ought to have been on the election thread. It got rolling here instead. The topic was on the table.

  94. And Jayhuck, you are in the wishful thinking category for the time being. This historic election will have sweeping ramifications. I didn’t even mention the impact of redistricting. Even so, Republicans had better be ready to take their jobs seriously. They’ve failed before. The country is watching, with 2012?s ballot in hand.

    Debbie – this is me, I had to sign on under a different name. LOL – the only person here who is in the wishful thinking Category is you. You are completely ignoring/denying the fact that attitudes about gay marriage are changing, that this HISTORIC election elected our first 4th openly gay congressman to office and Kentucky’s first openly gay mayor.

    Obama’s election and all the hoopla that surrounded is was called historic as well. As soon as the honeymoon is over and the disillusionment sets in with these candidates, as it has for all candidates elected in, well, I don’t know how long, the pendulum will swing again. However, many of the people elected did so on a fiscally conservative platform, not a social one – The vast majority of the candidate’s that the anti-gay NOM supported for office were not elected – some dems that we thought for sure were going to be kicked out were not.

    This HISTORIC election as you call it will be replaced with another HISTORIC election in the not too distant future.

    Attitudes are changing Debbie. Gays can and do already get married in this country. Gay couples, gay families are not going away – I’m afraid you’re just going to have to get used to these facts and figure out a way to live with gay married couples and families in peace

  95. David,

    Going back to the topic at hand – I say, if Evangelicals want to dismiss/ignore the Rabbi’s observations and warnings, then so be it. Let them maintain their obsession and move even further into irrelevance in the eyes of the public

  96. Going to the topic of Warren’s post, here is Brown’s response to Rabbi Boteach that he said the WaPo refused to print. I have not yet had time to watch the debate. I plan to.

    And Jayhuck, you are in the wishful thinking category for the time being. This historic election will have sweeping ramifications. I didn’t even mention the impact of redistricting. Even so, Republicans had better be ready to take their jobs seriously. They’ve failed before. The country is watching, with 2012’s ballot in hand.

  97. Debbie,

    Can’t say what the near, mid- or distant future look like at this point. Gay marriage has only prevailed in states where either judicial or legislative fiat allowed it to. But it’s part of the system we have, so we roll with it, when we like it and when we don’t. The other part of that system is voters voting their convictions. Majority (or electoral college) wins. The pendulum swings. It may be one step forward and two back or vice versa. Presidents also have veto pens and executive orders. Checks and balances, all.

    My point, Debbie, is that the clear and consistant movement of gay rights over the past 30 years has been in one direction – and this change in attitudes and laws shows no signs of stopping. Gay marriage has prevailed in this country in many instances because, as they had to during the Civil Rights area, courts have stepped in to do their job and protect a minority from the Tyranny of the majority. Checks and balances Debbie!

    But apparently not enough yet to roll back the 31 state marriage amendments or prevent a few more that may come to the fore.

    Not yet – but soon! 🙂

  98. Regretting returning to gay marriage discussion…

    Sorry.

    Trying to keep it on the Rabbi.

  99. Debbie,

    You do know what these state results mean for more potential marriage amendments, right? Marriage amendments have languished in some states because liberals blocked them. A number of those folks were given the boot Tuesday. And New Hampshire now will probably join Maine in reversing its course on marriage. Those fed up with runaway judges, arrogant legislators, and out-of-touch governors found their voice at the ballot box, a weapon far more powerful than protest signs and rallies. Dinosaurs? Hardly. Regardless of precisely what motivated voters the most, the results are the same. Lots of pro-life, pro-family men and women are going to state houses and Congress.

    Means nothing of the kind Debbie – opinion on gay marriage is slowly but surely changing in this country and every poll that’s been taken on the subject is showing that. There will be no rest until gay people have the equality they deserve under our Constitution – no rest at all.

    And judges are only “runaway judges” when they make rulings you don’t like – I’m really tired of hearing that nonsensical term.

    A 4th openly gay congressman was actually elected for the first time in history and Kentucky has its first Openly gay mayor – don’t count anything out just yet 😉

  100. Debbie,

    The need is in the process of being illustrated, but that is another point. Gays can marry, just not each other. When did same-sex marriage become an intrinsic right? That’s presumptive. Most people get that. That’s a mighty large boulder you are rolling up the hill, Sisyphus.

    Nope Debbie – what the courts have consistently found is that there is no need to deny gay couples rights – none at all. Your side has had ample opportunity to present its case, and each and every time they do the courts have found the evidence to suggest that there is NO need to deny gay couples rights. There is no need what so ever to deny gay couples the right to marry or for gay couples to have and raise children – PERIOD!

    And you are wrong again that gays cannot marry each other – they can, just not in every state yet. Gay people CAN and DO marry each other. What’s so interesting is that in EVERY state, Gays can have a religious ceremony, its just not recognized by the secular state every time. What gays should be able to have, and will at some point, is the ability for the state to recognize those unions.

    My heart goes out to gays who believe they ought to be entitled to marry each other. But I cannot defy God or natural law on that issue. The Rabbi, as I suggested earlier, is correct in that Christians—he’s wrong that it’s only evangelicals—have many problems to correct in our midst.

    Oh – really? Does your heart go out to them? That’s so…..well, I don’t know what it is but its not sweet. What you CAN do Debbie is stop forcing your beliefs on a group of people who want to marry under SECULAR law.

  101. It took 48 years for anything of this magnitude to happen. This is not a mirror image of 2008. What remains to be seen is exactly what it all will lead to. The things I cited are either hard facts (the demographics) or realistic projections based on what likely will happen, especially at the state level.

    I believe both sides in this debate are seeing what they want to see in the election results. Always happens. None of us has a crystal ball. Attitudes toward gay people are becoming more compassionate, but there are some lines folks are not yet ready to cross. That is not being overstated at this point.

    Will can agree to disagree and move on.

  102. But there are no rallies, no political campaigns, no advocacy organizations, no constitutional amendments, no signs being waved, no protesters, etc. Even PromiseKeepers seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

    That’s interesting, Timothy. Did you notice how many state houses flipped from Democratic to Republican on Tuesday? Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices were ousted—nearly unheard of— and one almost lost the retention vote in Alaska. Governorships? Check out those election results. Why did all this happen? Because only idiots or bigots voted?

    You do know what these state results mean for more potential marriage amendments, right? Marriage amendments have languished in some states because liberals blocked them. A number of those folks were given the boot Tuesday. And New Hampshire now will probably join Maine in reversing its course on marriage. Those fed up with runaway judges, arrogant legislators, and out-of-touch governors found their voice at the ballot box, a weapon far more powerful than protest signs and rallies. Dinosaurs? Hardly. Regardless of precisely what motivated voters the most, the results are the same. Lots of pro-life, pro-family men and women are going to state houses and Congress.

    The founding fathers weren’t talking about “equal in God’s eyes”, they were talking about having an equal standing in society.

    “… endowed by their Creator (that’s God) with certain inalienable rights.”

    By social contract I mean the agreement we make to live in peace with each other.

    Do we have such an agreement? Do you mean the Constitution, which prevents anarchy? Are we living in peace with one another right now? Lots of people are ticked off at other people.

    if the 14th Amendment includes gay people, then the majority cannot deny a right from gay people that it grants to other people without illustrating a real and significant need to do so.

    The need is in the process of being illustrated, but that is another point. Gays can marry, just not each other. When did same-sex marriage become an intrinsic right? That’s presumptive. Most people get that. That’s a mighty large boulder you are rolling up the hill, Sisyphus.

    Have the laws been singling out gay people for centuries? No, for centuries it was understood what marriage was. Every person has inherent self-worth. Every philosophy does not.

    My heart goes out to gays who believe they ought to be entitled to marry each other. But I cannot defy God or natural law on that issue. The Rabbi, as I suggested earlier, is correct in that Christians—he’s wrong that it’s only evangelicals—have many problems to correct in our midst.

  103. And Jayhuck, you are in the wishful thinking category for the time being. This historic election will have sweeping ramifications. I didn’t even mention the impact of redistricting. Even so, Republicans had better be ready to take their jobs seriously. They’ve failed before. The country is watching, with 2012?s ballot in hand.

    Debbie – this is me, I had to sign on under a different name. LOL – the only person here who is in the wishful thinking Category is you. You are completely ignoring/denying the fact that attitudes about gay marriage are changing, that this HISTORIC election elected our first 4th openly gay congressman to office and Kentucky’s first openly gay mayor.

    Obama’s election and all the hoopla that surrounded is was called historic as well. As soon as the honeymoon is over and the disillusionment sets in with these candidates, as it has for all candidates elected in, well, I don’t know how long, the pendulum will swing again. However, many of the people elected did so on a fiscally conservative platform, not a social one – The vast majority of the candidate’s that the anti-gay NOM supported for office were not elected – some dems that we thought for sure were going to be kicked out were not.

    This HISTORIC election as you call it will be replaced with another HISTORIC election in the not too distant future.

    Attitudes are changing Debbie. Gays can and do already get married in this country. Gay couples, gay families are not going away – I’m afraid you’re just going to have to get used to these facts and figure out a way to live with gay married couples and families in peace

  104. Going to the topic of Warren’s post, here is Brown’s response to Rabbi Boteach that he said the WaPo refused to print. I have not yet had time to watch the debate. I plan to.

    And Jayhuck, you are in the wishful thinking category for the time being. This historic election will have sweeping ramifications. I didn’t even mention the impact of redistricting. Even so, Republicans had better be ready to take their jobs seriously. They’ve failed before. The country is watching, with 2012’s ballot in hand.

  105. Debbie,

    You do know what these state results mean for more potential marriage amendments, right? Marriage amendments have languished in some states because liberals blocked them. A number of those folks were given the boot Tuesday. And New Hampshire now will probably join Maine in reversing its course on marriage. Those fed up with runaway judges, arrogant legislators, and out-of-touch governors found their voice at the ballot box, a weapon far more powerful than protest signs and rallies. Dinosaurs? Hardly. Regardless of precisely what motivated voters the most, the results are the same. Lots of pro-life, pro-family men and women are going to state houses and Congress.

    Means nothing of the kind Debbie – opinion on gay marriage is slowly but surely changing in this country and every poll that’s been taken on the subject is showing that. There will be no rest until gay people have the equality they deserve under our Constitution – no rest at all.

    And judges are only “runaway judges” when they make rulings you don’t like – I’m really tired of hearing that nonsensical term.

    A 4th openly gay congressman was actually elected for the first time in history and Kentucky has its first Openly gay mayor – don’t count anything out just yet 😉

  106. But there are no rallies, no political campaigns, no advocacy organizations, no constitutional amendments, no signs being waved, no protesters, etc. Even PromiseKeepers seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

    That’s interesting, Timothy. Did you notice how many state houses flipped from Democratic to Republican on Tuesday? Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices were ousted—nearly unheard of— and one almost lost the retention vote in Alaska. Governorships? Check out those election results. Why did all this happen? Because only idiots or bigots voted?

    You do know what these state results mean for more potential marriage amendments, right? Marriage amendments have languished in some states because liberals blocked them. A number of those folks were given the boot Tuesday. And New Hampshire now will probably join Maine in reversing its course on marriage. Those fed up with runaway judges, arrogant legislators, and out-of-touch governors found their voice at the ballot box, a weapon far more powerful than protest signs and rallies. Dinosaurs? Hardly. Regardless of precisely what motivated voters the most, the results are the same. Lots of pro-life, pro-family men and women are going to state houses and Congress.

    The founding fathers weren’t talking about “equal in God’s eyes”, they were talking about having an equal standing in society.

    “… endowed by their Creator (that’s God) with certain inalienable rights.”

    By social contract I mean the agreement we make to live in peace with each other.

    Do we have such an agreement? Do you mean the Constitution, which prevents anarchy? Are we living in peace with one another right now? Lots of people are ticked off at other people.

    if the 14th Amendment includes gay people, then the majority cannot deny a right from gay people that it grants to other people without illustrating a real and significant need to do so.

    The need is in the process of being illustrated, but that is another point. Gays can marry, just not each other. When did same-sex marriage become an intrinsic right? That’s presumptive. Most people get that. That’s a mighty large boulder you are rolling up the hill, Sisyphus.

    Have the laws been singling out gay people for centuries? No, for centuries it was understood what marriage was. Every person has inherent self-worth. Every philosophy does not.

    My heart goes out to gays who believe they ought to be entitled to marry each other. But I cannot defy God or natural law on that issue. The Rabbi, as I suggested earlier, is correct in that Christians—he’s wrong that it’s only evangelicals—have many problems to correct in our midst.

  107. I also need to make a correction.

    Dr. Michal Brown has not held anti-gay rallies this year. His last was in 2009.

  108. I will defer to you on this Tim. I was wrong and you are correct. Hate IS the wrong term to use in this instance and Presumption of superiority, ignorance and gullibility are things that make more sense.

  109. Just keep clinging to your belief that many conservative Christians aren’t hateful David. That must be how you sleep at night

    No, I disagree.

    Many many many conservative Christians do not operate out of a paradigm of hate.

    It is my opinion that there are stronger motivators:

    1. Presumption of superiority. The idea that because I’m a Christian then therefor what I believe is by definition true. Especially if I think that the Bible backs me up.

    2. Ignorance. Unawareness of the facts and reliance on what has always be believed.

    3. Gullibility. The willingness to believe what truly unscrupulous people tell them in the name of God. If you heard it on Christian radio then it must be true.

    I really think that it is only the scoundrels and unscrupulous who are motivated primarily by hatred, greed, and bitterness.

  110. Just keep clinging to your belief that many conservative Christians aren’t hateful David. That must be how you sleep at night

  111. I am willing to bet that you will consistently get one response. And there has to be some reason why virtually every non-conservative-evangelical has the same impression. Because if the Rabbi is plain wrong, it isn’t because he’s either alone in his impressions or basing them on something other than what he sees.

    Here’s the challenge: if indeed Evangelicals are not obsessed about homosexuality, then how did everyone come to get that impression? And what are Evangelicals willing to do to change it?

    I’m willing to bet as well because I know I will win 🙂

  112. I think seeing Gallagher through the prism of NOMA is narrow.

    Of course you do. You are not a target of NOM’s efforts. When someone is hitting you with a stick today, it is of less importance that seven years ago they were baking cakes and knitting sweaters.

  113. France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

    Civil unions…I think.

    Like California…

    Like Oregon…

    No, David, they have PACS.

    One need not be hateful to not allow civil equality. But surely you agree that you also CAN be hateful and endorse inequality.

    The proof of a lack of hatred certainly is not a lack of equality. If so, then Oklahoma would be the very definition of a loving place. And even you can see that there is a lot of real genuine hatred aimed at gay people in Oklahoma.

    Many people voted for Proposition 8 without experiencing overt hatred. Some simply enjoyed their sense of superiority, others were afraid of new things, and some were uncertain as to the nature of same-sex relationships.

    But do not be fooled; the campaign for Proposition 8 was driven entirely out of a desire to ensure that same-sex relationships were given a social definition of inferiority. It was anti-gay animus in its purest forms. I live here, I experienced it. And I’ve read the trial transcripts.

    If you wish to assert a claim that animus was not at the core of the campaign, then first read the transcripts and the submitted materials.

    As Jayhuck said

    That countries are moving slowly to recognize same-sex marriage is one thing. That a large group of conservative Christians is obsessed with preventing marriage equality is something else.

  114. David,

    The Rabbi is just plain wrong.

    The proof is in the pudding. I challenge you to ask outside of the Evangelical circle exactly what conservative Christianity is best known for.

    Ask people who don’t attend church, who don’t read Christian websites, who don’t attend seminary or Sunday School or even vacation bible school.

    I’m serious, give it a try. I am willing to bet that you will consistently get one response. And there has to be some reason why virtually every non-conservative-evangelical has the same impression. Because if the Rabbi is plain wrong, it isn’t because he’s either alone in his impressions or basing them on something other than what he sees.

    Here’s the challenge: if indeed Evangelicals are not obsessed about homosexuality, then how did everyone come to get that impression? And what are Evangelicals willing to do to change it?

  115. David,

    France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

    Once again – not the point. That countries are moving slowly to recognize same-sex marriage is one thing. That a large group of conservative Christians is obsessed with preventing marriage equality is something else.

  116. Debbie,

    The judiciary does do those things, but it also is subject to a check of its own from the people, especially where judges are elected. It would be naive of any of us to deny that the judiciary has acted outside of jurisprudence in many cases, thereby inviting the people’s rebuke.

    An independent judiciary is just that. One of the reasons it exists is to protect people from a Tyranny of the majority. The conservative groups who poured thousands of dollars into Iowa to oust those three judges because they didn’t like the fact the judges were doing their job, better REAL careful because, when their opinions are actually the minority, and that day is coming, they may not have anyone their to defend them – and they won’t have ANYONE to blame but themselves.

  117. @ Timothy and Jayhuck,

    France does not have Same Sex marriage…hateful?

    Civil unions…I think.

    Like California…

    Like Oregon…

  118. @ Timothy,

    I think seeing Gallagher through the prism of NOMA is narrow. I am familiar with her multifaceted attention to the family and public policy through this site from as early as 2003

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/

    She suggested I visit Blankenthorn…so I know she respects him highly. I am grateful she referred me.

    I think the Rabbi’s Characterization is quite simplistic…We all know that Evangelicals are pushing also for stricter divorce laws in many states and changing legal guidelines to slow divorce proceedings to encourage attempts to repair the marriage.

    The Rabbi is just plain wrong.

  119. @ Timothy,

    But Brian Brown is motivated, driven, and animated by a deep and strong vein of pure hatred.

    Brian Brown, who is an Evangelical, and informs Evangelicals.

    Evangelicals, please don’t listen to Brian Brown.

  120. I also need to make a correction.

    Dr. Michal Brown has not held anti-gay rallies this year. His last was in 2009.

  121. I will defer to you on this Tim. I was wrong and you are correct. Hate IS the wrong term to use in this instance and Presumption of superiority, ignorance and gullibility are things that make more sense.

  122. Just keep clinging to your belief that many conservative Christians aren’t hateful David. That must be how you sleep at night

    No, I disagree.

    Many many many conservative Christians do not operate out of a paradigm of hate.

    It is my opinion that there are stronger motivators:

    1. Presumption of superiority. The idea that because I’m a Christian then therefor what I believe is by definition true. Especially if I think that the Bible backs me up.

    2. Ignorance. Unawareness of the facts and reliance on what has always be believed.

    3. Gullibility. The willingness to believe what truly unscrupulous people tell them in the name of God. If you heard it on Christian radio then it must be true.

    I really think that it is only the scoundrels and unscrupulous who are motivated primarily by hatred, greed, and bitterness.

  123. Just keep clinging to your belief that many conservative Christians aren’t hateful David. That must be how you sleep at night

  124. David,

    The Rabbi is just plain wrong.

    The proof is in the pudding. I challenge you to ask outside of the Evangelical circle exactly what conservative Christianity is best known for.

    Ask people who don’t attend church, who don’t read Christian websites, who don’t attend seminary or Sunday School or even vacation bible school.

    I’m serious, give it a try. I am willing to bet that you will consistently get one response. And there has to be some reason why virtually every non-conservative-evangelical has the same impression. Because if the Rabbi is plain wrong, it isn’t because he’s either alone in his impressions or basing them on something other than what he sees.

    Here’s the challenge: if indeed Evangelicals are not obsessed about homosexuality, then how did everyone come to get that impression? And what are Evangelicals willing to do to change it?

  125. By the way, this is the course of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. I encourage you to do as I did and read the testimony, review the amicus briefs, apply logic and thought.

    Setting aside ones religious convictions or prejudices towards conclusions, it is virtually impossible to come to a resolution based on thought and careful consideration that differs significantly from that of Judge Walker.

  126. Debbie,

    All men and women are created equal in God’s eyes, but not all relationships are equal or prudent. And what do you mean by “social contract”?

    The founding fathers weren’t talking about “equal in God’s eyes”, they were talking about having an equal standing in society. Those who believe that gay couples should not have an equal standing to heterosexual couples do so in contradiction to these American principles.

    Yes, I know that some people don’t care a fig about American principles and filter everything through “what do I believe that God wants”, but I believe that in a civil society it is irrelevant what any person or denomination thinks that God wants.

    By social contract I mean the agreement we make to live in peace with each other. The agreement that you can believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and I can believe that Joseph Smith interpreted gold plates with magic glasses and that neither of us can coerce the other to follow our beliefs. The contract of life, liberty, property, speech, privacy, happiness, and individual responsibility (and right) to our own selves. We encode this social contract in our Constitution.

    Yes, I know that some think the Constitution is valid only to the extent that it agrees with what they interpret from what they read in the Bible, but I value our social contract.

    Of course a gay person is a person.

    I’m glad you agree.

    But if so, then due process and equal protections apply. In other words – and this is a technical issue so please feel free to read up on it – if the 14th Amendment includes gay people, then the majority cannot deny a right from gay people that it grants to other people without illustrating a real and significant need to do so.

    Now in the past, some have said, “oh but a gay person has the right to marry the opposite sex”. Yet such an argument is nothing more than saying, “a gay person is not really a person, not really gay”. Because if a “right” requires that a gay person not be gay in order to get it, then it isn’t really a right which is granted to gay people. It excludes them, by definition, from protections.

    Or, as Justice Ginsberg put it, “a law against yarmulkes is a law against Jews.”

    That you think it a stretch is completely irrelevant. Constitutional scholars are increasingly finding it obvious. It comes down to a very simple equation:

    1. Do gay people exist, and do they exist as such?

    2. Are gay people protected by the Constitution from laws which single them out for adverse treatment? I.e. does “any person” include gay people

    3. Are there legitimate reasons – other than animus or a desire to consider gay people and their relationships unequal or imprudent – to disadvantage gay people?

  127. OK, I decided to revisit this discussion. Lots of strong sentiment here, understandably.

    Jayhuck:

    That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

    The judiciary does do those things, but it also is subject to a check of its own from the people, especially where judges are elected. It would be naive of any of us to deny that the judiciary has acted outside of jurisprudence in many cases, thereby inviting the people’s rebuke.

    Timothy:

    In actuality, conservative Christianity in this country is demanding that gay people be excluded from the protections of the Constitution and that they be denied inclusion in the social contract by which we get along. They are seeking to change the underlying premise of all of our founding documents – that all men are created equal, even those of whom we disapprove.

    All men and women are created equal in God’s eyes, but not all relationships are equal or prudent. And what do you mean by “social contract”?

    Timothy again:

    In reality, this is a matter of whether the US Constitution includes a gay person as a “person” when it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Of course a gay person is a person. They have never been viewed as chattel, as slaves once were. Looked down upon, yes. So are many other people groups or individuals.

    How can the State legally deprive a gay person of “life, liberty, or property” unless said person has committed a capital offense or other crime? Gay people can own property the same as everyone else, and they do because, on average, they have a goodly income. Their lives are as valuable as any other person’s, citizen or no, and are far better than what many less fortunate people claim. They can walk about freely and openly as gays. Yes, they are widely denied the benefits that have been preserved for marriage only. That is a valid area of debate for a variety of reasons.

    Seems to me you might have a legitimate beef with Mr. Jefferson over his phrase “the pursuit of happiness.” That one is surely open to interpretation. The others you have cited? Way too big of a stretch.

    We know gays do face discrimination of all sorts. The government is always there for them to redress these wrongs, and the process is ongoing. Many gains have been made so far. More undoubtedly will be, even if universal same-sex marriage remains a distant pipe dream.

  128. I disagree that those issues are excluded. Participation in any Evangelical community will find an emphasis on strengthening marriage, parent training, adolescent services to strengthen skills against peer pressure, support groups for addicts of several kinds, training in money management, encouragement for charitable giving both locally and overseas….I am sure there is more, stop in some time or take a look at a budget.

    Absolutely true.

    But there are no rallies, no political campaigns, no advocacy organizations, no constitutional amendments, no signs being waved, no protesters, etc. Even PromiseKeepers seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

    If we are to judge the abundance of the heart by what comes out of the mouth, then it would appear to the casual observer who doesn’t stop in to look at the budget as though Conservative Evangelical Christianity has an abundance of concern about denying civil equality to about 7% of the population and not so much about the failings of the other 93%.

    And that’s Rabbi Schmuley’s point.

    (What was the sole purpose of the last two The Call rallies?)

    You may not like Gallagher and others, but a reading of all of their literature (to include Blankenthorne’s work) suggests broad concern with a variety of social ills associated with fatherlessness, promiscuity, poverty and the importance of faith in the public arena.

    Well, no, that actually isn’t true.

    Blankenhorn (who is a good and honest man) is seriously concerned about fatherhood. He’s not obsessed with homosexuality at all.

    But Gallagher (and Brian Brown, her cohort) are single focused. There may have been a time that she had other social ills about which she was concerned but at present they spend 100% of their time “protecting marriage” from threats like me. Yes, they talk about faith in the public arena, but that is only in context of advancing their own personal Catholic dogma through the advancement and enforcement of anti-gay laws.

    I’m on their mailing list. I read what they say. And let me assure you that Rabbi Schmuley’s level of offense to you as an evangelical pales (actually is invisible) compared to the bald animus that oozes from ever single solitary vile thing that Brian Brown says.

    I am not one who accuses most anti-gay activists of “hate”. Frankly, most folks who oppose my equality don’t do so out of hatred or conscious bigotry. But Brian Brown is motivated, driven, and animated by a deep and strong vein of pure hatred.

  129. David,

    You may not like Gallagher and others, but a reading of all of their literature (to include Blankenthorne’s work) suggests broad concern with a variety of social ills associated with fatherlessness, promiscuity, poverty and the importance of faith in the public arena.

    To say I don’t like Gallagher would be an understatement. I will say she and NOM don’t use logic or reason – they aren’t rational in their arguments, at least when it comes to gay marriage. They are vicious, they lie and they use fear to further their agenda. Judging from the election, it appears most America sees through their ridiculous arguments

  130. David,

    Again, I think you’re missing the point. The Rabbi didn’t say those things weren’t there, he was saying they take a back seat to the level of obsession to homosexuality. This doesn’t come from a narrow understanding of Evangelicals, it comes form watching what they are doing

  131. I disagree that those issues are excluded. Participation in any Evangelical community will find an emphasis on strengthening marriage, parent training, adolescent services to strengthen skills against peer pressure, support groups for addicts of several kinds, training in money management, encouragement for charitable giving both locally and overseas….I am sure there is more, stop in some time or take a look at a budget.

    You may not like Gallagher and others, but a reading of all of their literature (to include Blankenthorne’s work) suggests broad concern with a variety of social ills associated with fatherlessness, promiscuity, poverty and the importance of faith in the public arena.

    It is silly that people persist with such a narrow understanding of Evangelicals or Religious conservatives in general.

  132. By the way, this is the course of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. I encourage you to do as I did and read the testimony, review the amicus briefs, apply logic and thought.

    Setting aside ones religious convictions or prejudices towards conclusions, it is virtually impossible to come to a resolution based on thought and careful consideration that differs significantly from that of Judge Walker.

  133. I disagree that those issues are excluded. Participation in any Evangelical community will find an emphasis on strengthening marriage, parent training, adolescent services to strengthen skills against peer pressure, support groups for addicts of several kinds, training in money management, encouragement for charitable giving both locally and overseas….I am sure there is more, stop in some time or take a look at a budget.

    Absolutely true.

    But there are no rallies, no political campaigns, no advocacy organizations, no constitutional amendments, no signs being waved, no protesters, etc. Even PromiseKeepers seems to have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

    If we are to judge the abundance of the heart by what comes out of the mouth, then it would appear to the casual observer who doesn’t stop in to look at the budget as though Conservative Evangelical Christianity has an abundance of concern about denying civil equality to about 7% of the population and not so much about the failings of the other 93%.

    And that’s Rabbi Schmuley’s point.

    (What was the sole purpose of the last two The Call rallies?)

    You may not like Gallagher and others, but a reading of all of their literature (to include Blankenthorne’s work) suggests broad concern with a variety of social ills associated with fatherlessness, promiscuity, poverty and the importance of faith in the public arena.

    Well, no, that actually isn’t true.

    Blankenhorn (who is a good and honest man) is seriously concerned about fatherhood. He’s not obsessed with homosexuality at all.

    But Gallagher (and Brian Brown, her cohort) are single focused. There may have been a time that she had other social ills about which she was concerned but at present they spend 100% of their time “protecting marriage” from threats like me. Yes, they talk about faith in the public arena, but that is only in context of advancing their own personal Catholic dogma through the advancement and enforcement of anti-gay laws.

    I’m on their mailing list. I read what they say. And let me assure you that Rabbi Schmuley’s level of offense to you as an evangelical pales (actually is invisible) compared to the bald animus that oozes from ever single solitary vile thing that Brian Brown says.

    I am not one who accuses most anti-gay activists of “hate”. Frankly, most folks who oppose my equality don’t do so out of hatred or conscious bigotry. But Brian Brown is motivated, driven, and animated by a deep and strong vein of pure hatred.

  134. “Constitutional” is an agreed addition to my statement above.

    Then we are in agreement.

    I return to the original topic of the thread, the Rabbi simplifies Evangelicals. We would not tolerate such a simplistic understanding of other groups.

    I do not seek to stereotype Evangelicals (and indeed, he should distinguish between conservative Evangelicals and liberal Evangelicals). But his point is that there has been an obsession over the past decade on the part of those he criticizes on the issue of homosexuality to the exclusion of many many other social issues.

    Do you disagree that this is true?

  135. Timothy,

    “Constitutional” is an agreed addition to my statement above.

    I disagree with your understanding of how sexual ethics informed public law prior to the sexual revolution.

    I return to the original topic of the thread, the Rabbi simplifies Evangelicals. We would not tolerate such a simplistic understanding of other groups.

    I do not understand why such contrived simplicity is posted here.

  136. Outrage over the Judicial process in support to GLBT rights is meant to make sure that their decisions fit in the confines of the Constitution.

    As Tim notes, the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment.

    Sometimes Judges decide issues without proper deference to the scope and role they are to play by the Constitution.

    This statement is predicated on the notion that the confines of the Constitution may legitimately exclude gay people from the definition of “all people”. This notion is contrary to the underlying premises of this nation.

    Sadly, that matters little to some who would place their own personal animus towards gay people above the principles for which my ancestors fought. Let’s hope that in time they all come to recognize this sad truth and reconsider their ideals.

  137. David B,

    In Oregon we underwent a legitimate legislative process….representative government working.

    Quite true. And in California we underwent a judicial review of the initiative process to be certain that it wasn’t an effort by a slim majority to deny fundamental rights to an unpopular minority. Constitutional government working.

    Christians have been outraged by the “new sexuality ethic” for the last 60 years…it applies to every detour from biblical sanctions. They called us puritans and prudes in the 60?s and 70?s, now we are bigots.

    Ah, but the difference is that when you were prudes, you did not seek to impose your will on those who adopted the new sexuality ethic. You only did so when you could identify a class of people to whom to deny rights.

    It started as parental rights (ala Anita Bryant) and veered towards employment rights (ala John Briggs) and took a detour towards good citizenship (DADT) before culminating in a vicious multi-state decades long attack on fundamental marriage rights.

    Disagreeing with a position is not bigotry. Identifying a class of people and relegating them to a lesser status is, by definition, bigotry. Christendom in America has engaged in bigotry, whether or not that was their motivation or intent.

    When the legal definition of marriage is expanded to include extra partners, we will be called something else.

    Deliberately correlating same-sex relationships with polygamy is offensive. Doing so with full knowledge of one’s impact is deliberately offensive. Doing so in order to demean a class of people is bigotry.

    We are debating whether government should sanction such relationships

    Well, no. We’re not. We are debating whether government should condemn such relationships.

    Allowing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is neither an act of acceptance or sanction or condemnation. It is absent any opinion, just as government makes no opinion about John McCain’s marriage or that of Britney Spears. It is simply applying the American notion that people are free to live in accordance with their own conscience and that government not interfere.

    We are not asking for “sanction”. We don’t care what opinion that government may have.

    However, conservative Christendom is demanding that government weigh in with condemnation. They are not content that they, their denomination, their community, or their god may condemn same-sex relationships; they insist that government condemn them as well.

    In actuality, conservative Christianity in this country is demanding that gay people be excluded from the protections of the Constitution and that they be denied inclusion in the social contract by which we get along. They are seeking to change the underlying premise of all of our founding documents – that all men are created equal, even those of whom we disapprove.

    You, David, may see this as a matter of “definition of marriage.” But that argument ignores the bigger picture.

    In reality, this is a matter of whether the US Constitution includes a gay person as a “person” when it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Anti-gay activists argue that you and Warren and Debbie are each a “person”. As is Mother Teresa and Charles Manson and the Menendez brothers. But not me. I am excluded from the protections of the Constitution. I, due to being gay, am not entitled equal protection or due process.

    I think you would agree that representative government works for all of us or it works for none of us…

    I strongly disagree and the history of this nation supports me.

    Those who appeal to representative government (ie “the will of the people”) want to deny constitutional protections. This isn’t surprising – they also wanted “the will of the people” to outweigh the protections of Catholics, Jews, African-Americans, Japanese, Chinese, and Irish. I invite you to read the amicus briefs submitted in Perry v. Schwarzenegger from a number of ethnic minority groups who remind the court that we’ve been down this road before, that “representative government” was the means by which atrocities were committed against them and their ancestors.

    I believe that a constitutional representative government works for all of us or none of us. Without constitutional protections, we have nothing but mob rule. Without a constitution protected by independent judiciary we are nothing more that The Lord of the Flies.

  138. @ Jayhuck,

    agreed:

    Second – representative government does not always work and its not always the best way to make sure minorities are treated fairly. If we had left many civil rights for African Americans up to representative government only, they very well may still be suffering under archaic laws. The legislative process can and does oppress people – sometimes a majority is wrong. That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

    Please see this which I wrote earlier:

    The risk of the President is of a Dictator

    The risk of the Congress is of the Mob

    The risk of the Judge (or Judges) is of Fiat…shall we always assume good judgment in the Judge, benevolent guidance of the president, democratic governance by the Congress?

    No.

    Outrage over the Judicial process in support to GLBT rights is meant to make sure that their decisions fit in the confines of the Constitution.

    As Tim notes, the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment.

    Sometimes Judges decide issues without proper deference to the scope and role they are to play by the Constitution.

    As I have said a lot, we agree a lot…I understand their are many wounds inflicted by others that need to be vented.

  139. David,

    Again, I think you’re missing the point. The Rabbi didn’t say those things weren’t there, he was saying they take a back seat to the level of obsession to homosexuality. This doesn’t come from a narrow understanding of Evangelicals, it comes form watching what they are doing

  140. David,

    For the record, I don’t lump all Evangelicals together. There are many thoughtful, compassionate and reasonable Evangelicals. I’m proud to call several of them friends

  141. David,

    You seem to be missing many key points:

    But there is truth to the assertion that it is about individual rights and personal freedom. We are debating whether government should sanction such relationships

    I think you would agree that representative government works for all of us or it works for none of us…

    You are right – we are talking about the government treating GLBT people equally – not religion or religious institutions. I’m glad you brought that up

    Second – representative government does not always work and its not always the best way to make sure minorities are treated fairly. If we had left many civil rights for African Americans up to representative government only, they very well may still be suffering under archaic laws. The legislative process can and does oppress people – sometimes a majority is wrong. That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

  142. To add…politically and legally you are winning because you are assembling an argument worthy of the rights you seek and presenting it in nearly every arena necessary to get the change you seek.

    More power to ya.

    Stop bashing Evangelicals globally and simplistically (or conflating one public evangelical with all evangelicals)…as victims of such abuse you shame yourselves by using the same blunt tool that was used on you.

    We have all been on a trail of tears…

  143. @ Tim and Jayhuck,

    Glad you are calming down.

    Hawaii leads to DOMA? I think that is right.

    SF and Portland were clear events. Both were overturned. In Oregon we underwent a legitimate legislative process….representative government working.

    Christians have been outraged by the “new sexuality ethic” for the last 60 years…it applies to every detour from biblical sanctions. They called us puritans and prudes in the 60’s and 70’s, now we are bigots. When the legal definition of marriage is expanded to include extra partners, we will be called something else.

    But there is truth to the assertion that it is about individual rights and personal freedom. We are debating whether government should sanction such relationships

    I think you would agree that representative government works for all of us or it works for none of us…

    That even means when seeking correction in the area of GLBT rights that the democratic processes are respected and honored.

    Your outrage and judgment is tiresome and self-righteous. To repeat

    People were right to be outraged at such a usurpation (word?) of the democratic process. But it did start an important discussion and process that is moving forward democratically and legally; based upon human rights, scientific evidence and individual freedom.

    You guys are fighting ghosts from a different battle here…enjoy your projections.

    My original argument stands: Boteach is creating a straw man; he doesn’t understand Evangelicalism and therefore cannot represent it accurately.

    Imagine if I summarized the American Jewish position as being solely focused on the preservation of State of Isreal.

    Absurd.

  144. Oh boy. This thing got a tad heated up while I checked out. Lots to do today, so I will have to refrain from wading in any deeper. Please take no offense at or do not misinterpret my refusal to engage. I just haven’t the time. And, I also can see clearly that this will only head in the direction where so many of these jump-the-shark discussions go as it continues.

    It’s unfortunate that we so easily get our backs up (but we do sometimes need to get our backs up) without just taking a bit of time to consider how debate-as-usual will come off here. I think I see what David B. was saying, and I don’t believe he meant any gross offense by it. For Pete’s sake, you can’t sit around worrying over how every single word or phrase or idea will be received when we all agree that the stakes are so high at this time in history. Sit, think, pray and then hit the button, if you must. Sometimes we need to do more of those three things before shouting.

    When the shouting commences, as it always will, the listening usually ceases. The political process, as our Founders conceived it, is supposed to be big enough and good enough to handle these pendulum swings. The process is one thing. Human nature is another.

    FWIW.

  145. David B,

    In Oregon we underwent a legitimate legislative process….representative government working.

    Quite true. And in California we underwent a judicial review of the initiative process to be certain that it wasn’t an effort by a slim majority to deny fundamental rights to an unpopular minority. Constitutional government working.

    Christians have been outraged by the “new sexuality ethic” for the last 60 years…it applies to every detour from biblical sanctions. They called us puritans and prudes in the 60?s and 70?s, now we are bigots.

    Ah, but the difference is that when you were prudes, you did not seek to impose your will on those who adopted the new sexuality ethic. You only did so when you could identify a class of people to whom to deny rights.

    It started as parental rights (ala Anita Bryant) and veered towards employment rights (ala John Briggs) and took a detour towards good citizenship (DADT) before culminating in a vicious multi-state decades long attack on fundamental marriage rights.

    Disagreeing with a position is not bigotry. Identifying a class of people and relegating them to a lesser status is, by definition, bigotry. Christendom in America has engaged in bigotry, whether or not that was their motivation or intent.

    When the legal definition of marriage is expanded to include extra partners, we will be called something else.

    Deliberately correlating same-sex relationships with polygamy is offensive. Doing so with full knowledge of one’s impact is deliberately offensive. Doing so in order to demean a class of people is bigotry.

    We are debating whether government should sanction such relationships

    Well, no. We’re not. We are debating whether government should condemn such relationships.

    Allowing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is neither an act of acceptance or sanction or condemnation. It is absent any opinion, just as government makes no opinion about John McCain’s marriage or that of Britney Spears. It is simply applying the American notion that people are free to live in accordance with their own conscience and that government not interfere.

    We are not asking for “sanction”. We don’t care what opinion that government may have.

    However, conservative Christendom is demanding that government weigh in with condemnation. They are not content that they, their denomination, their community, or their god may condemn same-sex relationships; they insist that government condemn them as well.

    In actuality, conservative Christianity in this country is demanding that gay people be excluded from the protections of the Constitution and that they be denied inclusion in the social contract by which we get along. They are seeking to change the underlying premise of all of our founding documents – that all men are created equal, even those of whom we disapprove.

    You, David, may see this as a matter of “definition of marriage.” But that argument ignores the bigger picture.

    In reality, this is a matter of whether the US Constitution includes a gay person as a “person” when it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Anti-gay activists argue that you and Warren and Debbie are each a “person”. As is Mother Teresa and Charles Manson and the Menendez brothers. But not me. I am excluded from the protections of the Constitution. I, due to being gay, am not entitled equal protection or due process.

    I think you would agree that representative government works for all of us or it works for none of us…

    I strongly disagree and the history of this nation supports me.

    Those who appeal to representative government (ie “the will of the people”) want to deny constitutional protections. This isn’t surprising – they also wanted “the will of the people” to outweigh the protections of Catholics, Jews, African-Americans, Japanese, Chinese, and Irish. I invite you to read the amicus briefs submitted in Perry v. Schwarzenegger from a number of ethnic minority groups who remind the court that we’ve been down this road before, that “representative government” was the means by which atrocities were committed against them and their ancestors.

    I believe that a constitutional representative government works for all of us or none of us. Without constitutional protections, we have nothing but mob rule. Without a constitution protected by independent judiciary we are nothing more that The Lord of the Flies.

  146. Tim,

    I keep re-posting your words, but I just can’t seem to say what I want to say any better then you. I’m still outraged at Blakselee’s insensitive and unthoughtful, even downright ignorant, statement above

    And Evangelicans have for the past few decades found it VERY VERY important to attack the lives, the freedoms, the rights and the dignity of gay people.

  147. After Dr Brown’s last visit here, I stopped reading or seeking out any of his opinions. He’s really not worth the effort Zoe 😉

  148. @ Jayhuck,

    agreed:

    Second – representative government does not always work and its not always the best way to make sure minorities are treated fairly. If we had left many civil rights for African Americans up to representative government only, they very well may still be suffering under archaic laws. The legislative process can and does oppress people – sometimes a majority is wrong. That is why we, thankfully, have the judiciary, as a separate branch, to help right those wrongs and to stand as a voice separate from a majority that can and has oppressed people.

    Please see this which I wrote earlier:

    The risk of the President is of a Dictator

    The risk of the Congress is of the Mob

    The risk of the Judge (or Judges) is of Fiat…shall we always assume good judgment in the Judge, benevolent guidance of the president, democratic governance by the Congress?

    No.

    Outrage over the Judicial process in support to GLBT rights is meant to make sure that their decisions fit in the confines of the Constitution.

    As Tim notes, the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment.

    Sometimes Judges decide issues without proper deference to the scope and role they are to play by the Constitution.

    As I have said a lot, we agree a lot…I understand their are many wounds inflicted by others that need to be vented.

  149. @ Tim and Jayhuck,

    Glad you are calming down.

    Hawaii leads to DOMA? I think that is right.

    SF and Portland were clear events. Both were overturned. In Oregon we underwent a legitimate legislative process….representative government working.

    Christians have been outraged by the “new sexuality ethic” for the last 60 years…it applies to every detour from biblical sanctions. They called us puritans and prudes in the 60’s and 70’s, now we are bigots. When the legal definition of marriage is expanded to include extra partners, we will be called something else.

    But there is truth to the assertion that it is about individual rights and personal freedom. We are debating whether government should sanction such relationships

    I think you would agree that representative government works for all of us or it works for none of us…

    That even means when seeking correction in the area of GLBT rights that the democratic processes are respected and honored.

    Your outrage and judgment is tiresome and self-righteous. To repeat

    People were right to be outraged at such a usurpation (word?) of the democratic process. But it did start an important discussion and process that is moving forward democratically and legally; based upon human rights, scientific evidence and individual freedom.

    You guys are fighting ghosts from a different battle here…enjoy your projections.

    My original argument stands: Boteach is creating a straw man; he doesn’t understand Evangelicalism and therefore cannot represent it accurately.

    Imagine if I summarized the American Jewish position as being solely focused on the preservation of State of Isreal.

    Absurd.

  150. Tim,

    I keep re-posting your words, but I just can’t seem to say what I want to say any better then you. I’m still outraged at Blakselee’s insensitive and unthoughtful, even downright ignorant, statement above

    And Evangelicans have for the past few decades found it VERY VERY important to attack the lives, the freedoms, the rights and the dignity of gay people.

  151. Warren is a Christian too remember, and an Evangelical. He doesn’t just accept Dr Brown’s axioms, he believes them to be true, unlike me.

    Not sure this is 100% true – but like your message 🙂 Warren is much, much more reasonable that Dr Brown

  152. I’m not asking Dr Brown to give up his beliefs, but to fulfil them.

    As regards giving up – I lasted 47 years with a male body, doing the “boy act” because I felt I had to. Half of those in that situation attempt suicide before age 20.

    Those that do eventually transition do not give up easily. Sheer Darwinian selection.

    This sometimes means we can be a little… ok, a lot… not just persistent, but obstinate. Pig-headed. Intransigent. We don’t know how to give up, because if we did, we’d be dead.

    The only way I will cease is if he convinces me he’s correct. Not the correctness of the basic axioms of his theology, I’ll accept those as true, I mean that it is internally consistent. Or if I can show him that Christianity and his actions regarding homosexuality are incompatible, as I believe they are. I have hopes there, he’s a decent man, so my work is 90% done.

    Warren is a Christian too remember, and an Evangelical. He doesn’t just accept Dr Brown’s axioms, he believes them to be true, unlike me.

  153. Dr Brown is as firm and unyielding in his beliefs as Pat Robertson – not worth the effort – Really! 🙂

  154. I have a lot of work to do on Dr B. *SIGH*

    Just when I thought I was getting through to him too.

    *SIGH* again.

    I hope you aren’t referring to Brown, because if so you may as well stop now,

  155. Don’t be surprised that everyone else noticed, including the Jews.

    AAAAAAAAA – Men!!! 🙂

  156. Ugly on both sides Debbie? You are wrong! Health care reform for patients was ugly on only one side. I was sad to see so much debate surrounding reform – predominately from Republicans – that would actually help patients.

  157. It’s amazing what a good dose of fear can do to sabotage a good idea.

    You have no idea how many patients will suffer if Obama’s healthcare reform doesn’t proceed 🙂 Its incredibly sad that partisanship trumps good health care in some instances. Gotta love Fox TV

  158. Warren is a Christian too remember, and an Evangelical. He doesn’t just accept Dr Brown’s axioms, he believes them to be true, unlike me.

    Not sure this is 100% true – but like your message 🙂 Warren is much, much more reasonable that Dr Brown

  159. I have a lot of work to do on Dr B. *SIGH*

    Just when I thought I was getting through to him too.

    *SIGH* again.

    Oh well, if a job is worth doing, it’s worth persisting with.

  160. It’s amazing what a good dose of fear can do to sabotage a good idea.

    You have no idea how many patients will suffer if Obama’s healthcare reform doesn’t proceed 🙂 Its incredibly sad that partisanship trumps good health care in some instances. Gotta love Fox TV

  161. The health care revisions (popularly called Obamacare) were a strong factor in the huge shift in representation in the country.

    I think it is called that mostly by those who deride it. It’s amazing what a good dose of fear can do to sabotage a good idea. I’m close to thinking that we should just extend Medicare to all, and that’s quite a shift for me. It does work, and the current system most certainly does not for many.

    But I have to agree with Timothy, this is the first election I can remember in a long time when abortion did not seem to be a major issue at all. Regardless of one’s opinion on the “where life begins” argument, it seems more are coming to the realization that abortion isn’t going away. Making it as unnecessary as possible might be the only plausible way to go.

  162. Its Fiat when you don’t appreciate judges interpreting the constitution AS IS THEIR JOB, and acting as a different branch of government that has a history of protecting minorities? I get it

  163. Forgive me for borrowing your words Tim, but I have to echo this sentiment:

    and ps, yes you did piss me off with what I considered to be glib dismissal of legitimate concerns on the part of those who are set aside and excluded from equality… I’ve cooled off a bit now

  164. (and ps, yes you did piss me off with what I considered to be glib dismissal of legitimate concerns on the part of those who are set aside and excluded from equality… I’ve cooled off a bit now)

  165. David,

    You are mistaken by placing over–importance on SF or Portland.

    The birth of the battle over whether gay people are entitled to all of the same civil protections as anyone else – including marriage – was started in Hawaii by their supreme court.

  166. David Blakeslee,

    What a troubling post…evangelicals are not for strengthening marriage, or against the sexualization of teens?

    What kind of straw man is the rabbi trying to set up here?

    I am unaware of any rallies held by Dr. Michael Brown to strengthen the family or desexualize teens during the past year. He has, however, held rallies in opposition to gay civil equality.

    It’s not a strawman to point out that one’s actions betray ones priorities.

    Expanding the definition of marriage is a reasonable concern; and having it changed by legal fiat is also a serious democratic concern.

    By “expanding the definition”, you clearly mean “applying the same rules to gay people that we apply to straight people”. My oh my, it is reasonably concerning when we don’t get to set aside the folks whom we think are sinners and make sure they know their place and stay in it.

    And by “legal fiat”, you must mean the outrageous discovery by constitutional jurists that “any person” in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution does not have an asterisk that says “other, of course, than any gay person”. (But, Gee, we always thought “any person” meant “any person that I approve of”).

    And “serious democratic concern” is, no doubt, the same thing as running a religion-based campaign that was – by ANY objective observer – a recitation of lies (not exaggerations, but outright lies) in order to deny some citizens the rights that you personally think aught to be reserved for people like you.

    And this came to a head in 2004 because of actions in San Francisco and Portland and elsewhere.

    How uppity of those homos to act like they are just like regular folk. All this San Francisco “action” reminds me of the last time folk got all uppity down in Selma and Birmingham. (And if you don’t like that comparison, take it up with Howard University, whose amicus brief in Perry v. Schwarzenegger brought tears to my eyes).

    It’s very simple. We all do what is important to us.

    And Evangelicans have for the past few decades found it VERY VERY important to attack the lives, the freedoms, the rights and the dignity of gay people.

    Don’t be surprised that everyone else noticed, including the Jews.

  167. @ Jayhuck,

    Judges take risks with democracy when they act even in accordance with their mission…as do Presidents and Congress. Sometimes acting that way is outside the lines of constitutional government, hence a three part government to protect.

    The risk of the President is of a Dictator

    The risk of the Congress is of the Mob

    The risk of the Judge (or Judges) is of Fiat…shall we always assume good judgment in the Judge, benevolent guidance of the president, democratic governance by the Congress?

    No.

    In Portland and San Francisco, it wasn’t Judges, it was two city leaders…changing the definition based upon the allegation of bigotry (one by a philandering mayor, the other by someone bruised in fundamentalist religion)…and their change of the definition automatically effects the entire state…and the country.

    People were right to be outraged at such a usurpation (word?) of the democratic process. But it did start an important discussion and process that is moving forward democratically and legally; based upon human rights, scientific evidence and individual freedom.

  168. David,

    How is it that when judge’s step in to protect a minority group this is somehow a danger to the democratic process. Much of the changes that came about in the civil rights area to help African Americans came about because the judiciary stepped in where voters feared to tread.

    Its ridiculous at this point in time to suggest that gay marriage is a threat to opposite sex marriage. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is.

  169. What a troubling post…evangelicals are not for strengthening marriage, or against the sexualization of teens?

    What kind of straw man is the rabbi trying to set up here?

    Expanding the definition of marriage is a reasonable concern; and having it changed by legal fiat is also a serious democratic concern.

    And this came to a head in 2004 because of actions in San Francisco and Portland and elsewhere.

    We’ll let the democratic process and the legal process sort itself out…but it is beyond absurd to paint evangelicals in this way; or value voters (a broad description which includes individual responsibility among many other attributes).

    Painting them this way is a tool of simplistic marginalization. Back to narcissism and splitting defences.

  170. It was quite a bit, but we’ve needed reform for at least 20 years Debbie – don’t know if it was really too much too soon. Yes, I keep hearing about some doctors warning they will leave their practice and others who are embracing the new reforms. The fact is health care reform was endorsed by almost all major medical organizations. We will never be able to make everyone happy, but we have to make sure our organizations don’t fail us all completely. These are good reforms. I am not saying that more cannot be done though, and we have to remember, as long as we demand the best and state of the art healthcare, regardless of whether its actually beneficial, we will all have to pay for it. Many doctors were going to have to leave whether health care reform was enacted or not. Premiums did not start going up over night and doctors haven’t been in danger of losing their practices over night either – these are mostly not the results of health care reform

  171. Yeah, as well as “Republicans want you to die quickly.” It was ugly on both sides.

    How many people really could grasp what was in so mammoth a bill? Too much too soon.

    Meanwhile, one of my mom’s trusted doctors of many years is leaving his practice as he no longer can afford it. One of many, no doubt. No matter how affordable health care is for patients, we still need enough doctors to provide it.

    I guess this is still on-topic, sort of.

  172. @ Jayhuck,

    Judges take risks with democracy when they act even in accordance with their mission…as do Presidents and Congress. Sometimes acting that way is outside the lines of constitutional government, hence a three part government to protect.

    The risk of the President is of a Dictator

    The risk of the Congress is of the Mob

    The risk of the Judge (or Judges) is of Fiat…shall we always assume good judgment in the Judge, benevolent guidance of the president, democratic governance by the Congress?

    No.

    In Portland and San Francisco, it wasn’t Judges, it was two city leaders…changing the definition based upon the allegation of bigotry (one by a philandering mayor, the other by someone bruised in fundamentalist religion)…and their change of the definition automatically effects the entire state…and the country.

    People were right to be outraged at such a usurpation (word?) of the democratic process. But it did start an important discussion and process that is moving forward democratically and legally; based upon human rights, scientific evidence and individual freedom.

  173. Obama’s healthcare reform was much-needed and will be a helpful to many patients.

    Some kind of health care reform is much-needed.

    And abortion is and will continue to be on the radar, as will be demonstrated in the forthcoming legislative process.

  174. David,

    How is it that when judge’s step in to protect a minority group this is somehow a danger to the democratic process. Much of the changes that came about in the civil rights area to help African Americans came about because the judiciary stepped in where voters feared to tread.

    Its ridiculous at this point in time to suggest that gay marriage is a threat to opposite sex marriage. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is.

  175. Tim,

    I’m not sure I would say it was soundly rejected. Fear played a big part in the undermining of Obama’s healthcare reform, not sound or rational argument.

  176. The health care revisions (popularly called Obamacare) were a strong factor in the huge shift in representation in the country. It was soundly rejected – not only by the populace in voting Republican but in the Democratic candidates who campaigned in opposition.

    But Debbie is completely and entirely wrong in assuming that abortion was even on the radar in this vote. It was not.

  177. It was quite a bit, but we’ve needed reform for at least 20 years Debbie – don’t know if it was really too much too soon. Yes, I keep hearing about some doctors warning they will leave their practice and others who are embracing the new reforms. The fact is health care reform was endorsed by almost all major medical organizations. We will never be able to make everyone happy, but we have to make sure our organizations don’t fail us all completely. These are good reforms. I am not saying that more cannot be done though, and we have to remember, as long as we demand the best and state of the art healthcare, regardless of whether its actually beneficial, we will all have to pay for it. Many doctors were going to have to leave whether health care reform was enacted or not. Premiums did not start going up over night and doctors haven’t been in danger of losing their practices over night either – these are mostly not the results of health care reform

  178. Debbie,

    I would argue that one very important social issue was on the table this time around: abortion, via Obamacare

    Obama’s healthcare reform was much-needed and will be a helpful to many patients.

  179. To call GW Bush ‘the most hated man on earth’ is not an exaggeration: it is an example of hyperbole, a time-honored rhetorical device which allows the speaker or writer to make a statement in such a way that the listener or reader is supposed to understand that it is not meant literally. ‘Obamacare’ , on the other hand, is a neologism devised by the insurance companies and K Street consultants to slander and deride president Obama’s modest attempt to move the country towards a more rational and economical model of health care. As such it is an example of flak-speak and should be used with extreme caution.

  180. Sorry. My tired brain forgot that you can’t italicize something the blockquote is already going to italicize. The emphasis was on “George W. Bush being the most hated man on earth.” Should have BFd it.

  181. Perhaps the rabbi couldn’t convince his audience because he is inclined to make statements like this:

    I pointed out how in 2004, amid President George W. Bush being the most hated man on earth he still won the election because of evangelical support

    .

    The emphasis, mine, points to a silly and needless exaggeration. And I think he is a tad naive in some of his assessment, while he also has highly salient points that always bear repeating.

    I would argue that one very important social issue was on the table this time around: abortion, via Obamacare. The country is trending more strongly pro-life now. It matters to a great many voters.

    Finally, you make good use of our old wiley “pal” Screwtape. Like that. 🙂

  182. Debbie,

    I would argue that one very important social issue was on the table this time around: abortion, via Obamacare

    Obama’s healthcare reform was much-needed and will be a helpful to many patients.

  183. To call GW Bush ‘the most hated man on earth’ is not an exaggeration: it is an example of hyperbole, a time-honored rhetorical device which allows the speaker or writer to make a statement in such a way that the listener or reader is supposed to understand that it is not meant literally. ‘Obamacare’ , on the other hand, is a neologism devised by the insurance companies and K Street consultants to slander and deride president Obama’s modest attempt to move the country towards a more rational and economical model of health care. As such it is an example of flak-speak and should be used with extreme caution.

  184. Excellent posting and kudos to Rabbi Shumely! This was also discussed elsewhere and leaves me with an important unresolved question. The rabbi says that homosexuality (at least in Judaism) is a ‘religious sin’ and not a ‘moral sin’. I would like to understand better his meaning here; and are there degrees of religious sin? His advice to gay couples was delightful. In that there are 613 laws, when gay couples disregard the commands to be fruitful and instead engage in homosexual (non-procreative) relations, they may have broke two of the laws but still have 611 to be busy working with. 😉

Comments are closed.