Greg Bouchillon has a post up taking on the latest batch of Anti-Gay Industry talking points, being disseminated far and wide. As he illustrates (several times), it is a wonderland of hypocrisy. He calls it “the bigot tactic,” but I think a better term is “the victim tactic.”
[blah, blah, yackity blat]…countless attacks on people of faith and even secular citizens who simply believe marriage is, as it has been understood for millennium, between one man and one woman.
The people crafting these arguments simply want to get their way, period. They are overgrown playground bullies. It doesn’t matter how they get their way. Logical consistency, factual accuracy and ethics are not required.
Of course, the ‘one man – one woman’ meme doesn’t even hold up in terms of Christian millennium. The real “Biblical model of marriage” is polygamy, with women as property. To quote Russell Moore (hat tip to Mainstream Loudoun), theology dean and academic vice president at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: “Patriarchy is good for women, good for children and good for families.” Christians need to recover an “authentic biblical patriarchy” to counter the arguments of evangelicals who “accept male headship in theory but in practice make decisions in the home through negotiation, mutual submission and consensus.”
Get back in the kitchen, woman, and make me some pie. That’s what “traditional marriage” means to the groups who are really driving this campaign, but of course this is not showcased on the pro-amendment websites festooned with gauzy wedding photos.
Given the rhetoric about an “activist judiciary” (a completely fabricated concept on its face) taking away the right of the legislative branch to decide, one would think that when an elected body votes for equality, that would be satisfactory. No, because all that matters is the bullies getting their way. When the California legislature this year voted for marriage equality, there was immediate howling that the legislature was defying a ruling by the courts!
The last thing the AGI wants is for the legislative branch to resolve this issue. They can see the direction that will go, so they have to foreclose on that possibility before the next generation takes the reins of government.
What we are witnessing are the last, desperate thrashings of a dying ideology. By this I mean the leaders who are in the business of consciously churning out these talking points, both those secular far right leaders who are cynically using people of faith for their own political gain, and those who genuinely want theocratic rule and regard our Constitution as an impediment. I do not mean those people who simply believe that marriage is a specific male-female relationship and are trying to reconcile that belief with a genuine desire not to harm anyone. Mostly they are confused by the rhetoric and don’t have enough information to see that they are being used.
Regarding Boston Catholic Charities: It’s pretty easy to draw a bright line at the mission of an adoption agency. The Boston agency was staffed by good people who were acting in the best interests of children before they were ordered to stop by the Church. What the Church is demanding, in the guise of religious freedom, is an exemption from the requirement that they, in their capacity as an adoption agency, put the best interests of children first. That’s all. I don’t think that’s a reasonable demand. If you aren’t willing to put the best interests of children first, you shouldn’t be running an adoption agency.
This latest batch of coordinated talking points and the source of this religious liberty argument, was laid out by Maggie Gallagher in a Weekly Standard article. There is an analysis of that article and a link here.
The victim tactic
Greg Bouchillon has a post up taking on the latest batch of Anti-Gay Industry talking points, being disseminated far and wide. As he illustrates (several times), it is a wonderland of hypocrisy. He calls it “the bigot tactic,” but I think a better term is “the victim tactic.”
The people crafting these arguments simply want to get their way, period. They are overgrown playground bullies. It doesn’t matter how they get their way. Logical consistency, factual accuracy and ethics are not required.
Of course, the ‘one man – one woman’ meme doesn’t even hold up in terms of Christian millennium. The real “Biblical model of marriage” is polygamy, with women as property. To quote Russell Moore (hat tip to Mainstream Loudoun), theology dean and academic vice president at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: “Patriarchy is good for women, good for children and good for families.” Christians need to recover an “authentic biblical patriarchy” to counter the arguments of evangelicals who “accept male headship in theory but in practice make decisions in the home through negotiation, mutual submission and consensus.”
Get back in the kitchen, woman, and make me some pie. That’s what “traditional marriage” means to the groups who are really driving this campaign, but of course this is not showcased on the pro-amendment websites festooned with gauzy wedding photos.
Given the rhetoric about an “activist judiciary” (a completely fabricated concept on its face) taking away the right of the legislative branch to decide, one would think that when an elected body votes for equality, that would be satisfactory. No, because all that matters is the bullies getting their way. When the California legislature this year voted for marriage equality, there was immediate howling that the legislature was defying a ruling by the courts!
The last thing the AGI wants is for the legislative branch to resolve this issue. They can see the direction that will go, so they have to foreclose on that possibility before the next generation takes the reins of government.
What we are witnessing are the last, desperate thrashings of a dying ideology. By this I mean the leaders who are in the business of consciously churning out these talking points, both those secular far right leaders who are cynically using people of faith for their own political gain, and those who genuinely want theocratic rule and regard our Constitution as an impediment. I do not mean those people who simply believe that marriage is a specific male-female relationship and are trying to reconcile that belief with a genuine desire not to harm anyone. Mostly they are confused by the rhetoric and don’t have enough information to see that they are being used.
Regarding Boston Catholic Charities: It’s pretty easy to draw a bright line at the mission of an adoption agency. The Boston agency was staffed by good people who were acting in the best interests of children before they were ordered to stop by the Church. What the Church is demanding, in the guise of religious freedom, is an exemption from the requirement that they, in their capacity as an adoption agency, put the best interests of children first. That’s all. I don’t think that’s a reasonable demand. If you aren’t willing to put the best interests of children first, you shouldn’t be running an adoption agency.
This latest batch of coordinated talking points and the source of this religious liberty argument, was laid out by Maggie Gallagher in a Weekly Standard article. There is an analysis of that article and a link here.