Conservatives refusing to be radicals

I’m Not Emeril has posted a fine article making the conservative case for opposing the Marshall-Newman amendment.

I’ve never been too fond of jumping blindly into a muddy stream. I won’t do it this time either. I’ll vote no. There are too many ways this amendment could be interpreted in the future.

In addition to laying out the expected consequences of the amendment’s second paragraph with clarity, he nicely distinguishes between two very different versions of conservatism by way of a preamble dealing with “biblical” objections to gay relationships.

This ostensibly is an exploration of his own views on “morality” and “sin,” but it also functions to name what is really motivating some of the amendment’s institutional proponents – in spite of their denials.

Many, if not most, Christians believe they were freed from the “curse of the Law” when the Temple veil was rent in two at the time of the crucifixion. Put simply, that’s when Surf and Turf and cheeseburgers and violations of Moses’ building codes and homosexuality became “legal”. Shellfish consumption and the combining of meat and dairy in one dish is no longer looked upon as an abomination by most Christian denominations. But homosexuality still is.

The unasked question is still hanging there: How is it possible for anyone to justify enshrining in our constitution a view of gay relationships that is based on biblical law (let alone arbitrary biblical law)?

Also, this morning Vince at Too Conservative weighed in as still undecided. He dislikes the name-calling on both sides of the issue. I agree. There are people who are emotionally attached to the idea of “marriage” for cultural reasons, but really don’t want to do harm to anyone. When they realize what the amendment says, they have to reconcile those two impulses. Calling them bigots doesn’t help them to do that.