Convenient Adherence (Updated Below)
The passage of Proposition 8 in California has resulted in much debate across the country. Recently, a Des Moines Register blogger named Shane Vander Hart published a blog piece entitled “Faux Marriage,” in which he made the case against gay marriage, primarily on biblical grounds, while making only a perfunctory attempt at a Constitutional argument, which I would argue lies at the very heart of the matter, when one considers we live in a Constitutional Republic. I would like to respond to Mr. Vander Hart’s piece.
The United States Constitution is quite explicit on the subject of civil rights. The 1st Amendment clearly states,“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”Additionally, the 14th amendment adds, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.” Here in lies the heart of the matter.
The 1st amendment, in part, makes it clear that we are not a theocracy and cannot be forced to adhere to the teachings of a particular religious doctrine, at the same time guaranteeing that we can choose, as individuals, to practice whatever religion we like, as long as in doing so we do not infringe upon the civil rights of others. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law. What does this mean? In the case of gay marriage, it simply means the gay marriage minority cannot be treated differently under the law than the anti-gay marriage majority. If one group has the right to marry, under the law, we cannot deny these rights to others.
Quite often, we hear those battling against gay marriage rights denounce the courts for “activism” when they rule against the “voice of the people,” having voted on legislation, such as proposition 8. How could a judge overrule a majority vote by the people within a democracy, they ask? This logic requires an utter lack of understanding of the Constitutional republic in which we live. The Judicial branch of government has equal powers under the Constitution, which allows it to serve a ‘check and balance’ to the other two branches of government. This isn’t “activism,” so much as merely adherence to their mandate within the Constitution. (Update: The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the legal challenges to Prop 8, which I fully expect will lead to a reversal of this unconstitutional measure and more fraudulent outcries of "judicial activism" from the Christian Right.)
The subtext of the equal protection clause can be summed up quite neatly:
We are free to live our lives as we wish, so long as in doing so, we do not infringe upon the civil rights of others.
The confusion comes from those who believe we live in a society under the banner of “majority rule.” We don’t. And the brilliance of the founding fathers is in their understanding of the pitfalls of such a system. There was once a time in our nations history when the majority (including the majority of WOMEN, mind you) believed that women had no business taking part in the political process, with much of the arguments against the women’s suffrage movement relying on the same “historical definition” argument. Though the battle was long and hard, we saw that the brilliance of the Constitution prevailed, as it was ruled a “tyranny of the majority,” which violated the civil rights of our female citizens. Civil rights advances follow this exact same formula throughout our history. In this context, the argument that the majority should rule falls on its face. In order for those who want to ban gay marriage to prevail, they must prove that by the very act of marrying, gays are infringing upon the civil rights of others. This argument, as far as I can tell, hasn’t even been attempted, as it would no doubt be very difficult (impossible, in my opinion) to prove.
Instead, what we see, more often than not, is the lament that the gay community is “changing the definition of marriage.” Now, before tackling this concept, it must be pointed out that merely having a different definition of a word cannot be proven to constitute an infringement on another citizen’s civil rights. That case simply cannot be made. We are protected in this regard quite clearly. I am free to believe that black is white and up is down, if I so choose. My having these bizarre beliefs would not, by any rational argument, constitute “changing a definition” for the population at large. But getting back to the concept in general. Those making such an argument do so under a foundation that HIS OR HER definition is, in fact, THE definition and therefore anyone with a differing opinion is therefore changing THE definition. They point to many factors in backing up this assertion, such as how marriage has been defined throughout history and as in the case of Mr. Vander Hart, how it is defined in the bible. Here’s the problem with such arguments; if historical definition is the benchmark for how we live our lives, then we would have to reverse the numerous and widespread civil rights advances which we have already achieved. The word “politician” certainly didn’t include those of the fairer sex for much of human history. Marriage, historically speaking, has also had an ever-evolving definition, which is conveniently ignored by those making this argument. For thousands of years, marrying outside of your religion or class or nationality was forbidden and certainly not the “norm.” Why does that historical legacy suddenly disappear when this “historical” argument is made?
But arguing against the “changing the definition” mantra along these lines is pointless, as common sense dictates that human beings have different definitions of countless words. Since when do we live in a society that forces its citizens to think in lockstep? I am a straight male, and my definition of “marriage” is different than that of most others, including many proponents of gay marriage, in that I find no religious significance within the institution. Historically speaking, I am completely “wrong” in this regard, but that doesn’t stop me from sticking to my own definition. How does my having this opinion “change” the definition for Mr. Vander Hart and others, who all have their own version? It doesn’t. Simply put, one person’s opinion isn’t another person’s opinion. Mr. Vander Hart is free to base his definition on the writings of nomads who lived thousands of years ago, if he so chooses. More power to him in this regard. Does this change my opinion? Not in the slightest. Narrowly applying the “historical definition” standard constitutes a convenient adherence to historical definitions, in general. In the same way, Mr. Vander Hart must use convenient adherence to the words of the bible. As we all know, there are numerous “rules” laid out in the bible’s teachings, particularly in the Old Testament, which would never be permitted in our society, and with good reason. I’d hate to live in a society that stones people to death for working on a Sunday, for example. But again, this is beside the point, as noted above, because we do not live in a theocracy. We are protected by the Constitution against having to live under a specific religious doctrine. Mr. Vander Hart can list passage after passage from the bible until the cows come home, and it won’t make a difference. The bible, nor any other religious doctrine, is not the law of the land in the United States. The Constitution makes that quite clear.
Another constant refrain often heard is that gay marriage advocates are trying to “impose their views on others.” Mr. Vander Hart made this proclamation in his blog. I contend that he has it completely backwards. The gay community cannot “force” Mr. Vander Hart to change his opinion on the nature of marriage. They may attempt to convince him that his viewpoint is wrong, but these attempts are not by use of “force” as he contends. I attempt to change other people’s opinions on numerous topics virtually all day long, but none of my arguments constitute using “force” or “imposing” those arguments. On the other hand, when people like Mr. Vander Hart TAKE ACTION, which actively stops the gay community from living their lives under their own definitions, THEY are the ones guilty of “imposing their views on others.” Simply put, two men marrying on the steps of San Francisco City Hall doesn’t infringe upon Mr. Vander Hart’s civil rights in the slightest, but when Mr. Vander Hart actively pursues a policy that PREVENTS those people from doing so, he is certainly violating their civil rights by forcing them to adhere to HIS definition. Who is really IMPOSING their views on others? Honest assessment can only come up with one answer to this question. As is often the case, it helps to put on the sandals of those with whom you disagree and walk around a bit. One must imagine how it would feel if Mr. Vander Hart awoke one morning to find out that there was to be a vote to determine if his marriage was legal. What a preposterous idea! Yet this exact idea is being applied to a minority segment of the population.
Mr. Vander Hart takes it one step further, as he charges that gay marriage advocates aren’t merely concerned with civil rights, but also have the desire for “unconditional acceptance and legitimacy.” What a strange argument. Who doesn’t want acceptance and legitimacy? Nobody I know. But the actual flaw in his argument is in the use of the word “unconditional.” How, exactly, does one achieve “unconditional” acceptance? Will they use mind control to get Mr. Vander Hart to change his views by force and make him accept their lifestyle? It’s an absurd concept on its face. The subtext is clear, however. Mr. Vander Hart fears a world in which the gay community is seen no differently than any other segment of the community. He is free to have this fear, as is his right, but that doesn’t provide justification for actively pursuing steps that force others to live under this banner. The moment a minority is actively marginalized, they are being forcibly prevented from pursuing “acceptance and legitimacy.” In my opinion, organized religion is ultimately detrimental to the planet, but I will still fight tooth and nail against anyone attempting to infringe upon a citizens right to worship as they choose. Why? Because I respect the Constitution and the freedoms that it represents.
There are numerous other arguments being put forth by the anti-gay marriage crowd which fall apart even easier than those listed above. The procreation argument falls flat in that it would automatically preclude those incapable of having children from being allowed to marry. The “threat” that people will then want to be allowed to marry children is another red herring, as children, being minors, do not have the same rights as adults and are therefore protected by statute. The “civil union” argument, which fails to survive the arguments I have already put forth on numerous levels, is essentially a “separate-but-equal” concept, which has already been deemed unconstitutional in its previous forms. Have we not learned from the past?
Mr. Vander Hart, in his feeble attempt at arguing his point on a civil rights level, lazily points to the fact that the African American community voted overwhelmingly for the passage of prop 8, as though the black community is incapable of bigotry simply because they were victims of it themselves. As absurd as this argument is on its face, it shows a complete lack of awareness of the standing of gays and lesbians within the African American community in general, not to mention a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, and the numerous examples of victims, upon gaining rights formerly denied them, then turning around and victimizing others in much the same way. Simply put, the African American community is behind the curve in regards to gay rights across the board, which is unfortunately resulting in more people living secret lives which has led to an enormous increase in the acquisition of the AIDS virus. The African American community has a bigotry problem in regards to homosexuality, which needs to be addressed; but the existence of this bigotry problem, in and of itself hardly constitutes “proof” that gay marriage isn’t a civil rights issue.
This IS a civil rights issue. And as with any civil rights campaign, each day that passes without affording equal protection to a segment of the population, is another day where real people are being hurt in very real and fundamental ways. This is unacceptable in a nation built on such a brilliant foundation, as seen in the principles put forth in our most sacred documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The good news is, as hopeless as it seems for those who fight for gay rights, they can take solace in the fact that history has proven that the human race truly does evolve over time. One hundred years from now we will look back on these days much the same way we now look back on the racism of the passed centuries.
Mr. Vander Hart's blog ends with the following proclamation (which incidentally undermines his argument that the gay community is forcing him to live under their definition):
"So even if homosexuals do end up with the ability to marry in all 50 states, it will be a faux marriage. Instead of being a covenant witnessed by God it will be nothing more than a legal contract approved by the State."
I guess, Mr. Vander Hart, you can take consolation in the fact that you will be free to believe this statement for as long as you like, and that this belief of yours will be protected by the same Constitution which you are so blithely defying in your intolerant and active condemnation of the gay community.
Mr. Vander Hart's blog on the topic, titled "Faux Marriage" can be found here:
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/...
UPDATED:
As disappointed as I am that Mr. Vander Hart couldn't find the time to respond to this thread, it isn't all that surprising. Much like his reasoning for "home schooling" his children, he apparently prefers life in a protected bubble, away from the scary, threat-filled secular world; venturing outside only on the rare occasion in which he can undermine the U.S. Constitution based on his religious ideology.
In any case, I am prepared to tackle the additional arguments he and others have made in the comments section of his "Faux Marriage" blog. One of his guests, named Eric Goranson, makes several points in the comments section, which Mr. Vander Hart apparently agreed with. To wit:
Mr. Gorenson: However, if I believe that the Scriptures are from God and He says throughout them that homosexuality is not part of His plan (yes, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament too ie. Romans 1), than I cannot condone government sanctioning it anymore than I could support government recognizing as legitimate any other behavior that is contrary to God’s Words. For example, if the government said it was OK to not honor a contract for any reason or that I could steal from a neighbor, I wouldn’t support it."
This argument ignores the fact that the Bible is filled to the brim with "teachings," which we are allegedly to follow, like the above mentioned "stoning people to death for working on a Sunday" command, which are conveniently ignored, as God apparently must have been not quite as serious about "those" commands, or perhaps he was only joking when he had them transcribed into the "good book." But this is beside the point, once again, as Mr. Goreson reveals the somewhat typical lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. His example is yet another false equivalency; one in which he equates gay marriage rights to a fantasy land in which we have the "right" to "steal from a neighbor." His example is ludicrous, in that it is inherently unconstitutional, as stealing from a neighbor is quite clearly an infringement upon that neighbors rights. For this example to have legs, Mr. Gorenson would have to prove that by the very act of getting married, homosexuals would be infringing upon the civil rights of other citizens. This example doesn't even attempt to prove this charge. He does, however, try to prove that allowing gays to marry will "affect every citizen both culturally and financially." How so? Mr. Gorenson explains that, "Opening marriage to homosexuals will not only open the door to more and different types of litigation (divorce, annulment, etc.) into an already overwhelmed court system but begs the question: “what next?” At some point, a line has to be drawn in order to prevent chaos. It sounds crazy to suggest that people may be able to marry an animal or that polygamy will be legal in 25 years. But so did gay marriage sound outrageous just a generation or two ago. We must also remember that, although Separation of Church and State is a sacred cow these days, the civil marriage was simply a recognition of the Church’s definition. It’s a tradition and worldview that was meant to keep civilization healthy and procreating."
Let me tackle these 'arguments," one at a time. First, the suggestion that a segment of the population could be denied equal protection based on saving the "already overwhelmed court system," hardly stands up to common sense, let alone constitutional scrutiny. If "overwhelming the court system" is a violation of the civl rights of the citizenry, then ALL marriage would have to be banned. Otherwise, what's good for straight couples MUST be good for gay couples. It's called EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. He then follows up with the classic strawman argument, which asks "what next?" and "where do we draw the line?" Included in this argument is the usual inflammatory rhetoric in regards to "marrying animals," which again reveals the complete lack of understanding of the tenets of the Constitution which governs us. Let me put it as simply as I can; the Constitution protects the rights of human beings from being impacted by the whims of the majority. Animal rights are in the hands of the legislature, which allows for the human "majority" to create laws in regards to animals in any way society sees fit. Majority CAN rule in this regard. On a Constitutional level, this ridiculous argument holds no water. Where do we draw the line? Another simple answer; we draw the line when all human beings have equal rights and protections under the law, regardless of the race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
That's where we "draw the line."
Mr. Vander Hart follows these points by, not only showing support for them, in spite of their utter failure to pass the Constitutional sniff test, but adds his own followup points as well. He laments, "I find it interesting that when I am sharing about what the Bible says about marriage, I’m homophobic," which is almost immediately followed by an assertion that, "I’m also concerned for my kids and other kids who are being taught (indoctrinated) that this is an acceptable lifestyle and perfectly normal. It isn’t."
We can assume that Mr. Vander Hart is oblivious to the obvious contradiction in these sentiments. Perhaps he has fooled himself into thinking he isn't homophobic by merely substituting the word "concerned" for the word "fearful"? Mr. Vander Hart follows this up by condemning "gay-bashing," as though forcefully prohibiting homosexuals from living their private lives the way they want to, while unapologetically condemning their lifestyle as "unacceptable," "depraved," and "sinful" isn't the very definition of "gay-bashing."
Mr. Gorenson returns in a following response in which he makes the argument that "If we truly believe in equal protection, than anything that blatantly violates my religious convictions shouldn’t be imposed on me by the state. And that is what gay marriage legislation does..."
Of course, we are back in the land of "convenient adherence," as this idea, extrapolated, would inherently lead to a theocracy, ruled by the laws of the bible. More importantly, this sentiment again reveals the author's utter ignorance to what constitutes an "imposition" that violates his civil rights. He cites the threat of "indoctrination" (without a hint of irony), in that his children will be taught that homosexuality is "normal," in violation of his spiritual rights. By this logic, science classes in public school would not be allowed to teach evolution. It's the exact same sentiment. Evolution speaks directly against the teachings in the bible. Should we ban that as well? More importantly, the Constitution protects us from having to live under a specific religious ideology. If our public schools were forbidden to teach based on what is approved in the Christian bible, then we would be violating the 1st amendment. Equal rights for homosexuals is NOT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, it is a civil right. If it was a religious belief, then Mr. Gorenson would have an argument. It isn't. Additionally, if Mr. Gorenson was FORCED to marry another man, then he'd have a point. That would certainly qualify as an imposition upon his "spiritual rights." But that isn't what is being discussed here.
Mr. Vander Hart follows with yet another point which highlights his ignorance to history and the Constitution under which we live. He asserts, "Everybody already has the right to be married… to the opposite sex."
This argument fails, once again, on several levels. The Supreme Court defined Marriage as a "fundamental right" in the 1948 case of Perez Vs. Sharp. Later, in 1967, the case of Loving Vs. Virginia declared that the state's anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. The state argued that all adults were "free to marry, as long as it was to someone of the same race." They argued that it wasn't racial discrimination, as people of every race were free to marry. The court ruled that it clearly stopped people from freely marrying whomever they WANTED to marry based on race. It was discrimination. The only difference in Mr. Vander Hart's argument, is that the discrimination is based on sexual orientation. Secondly, one must merely ask how Mr. Vander Hart would feel if the reverse were true? Would he feel discriminated against if the law allowed for ONLY same sex marriages? Would he blithely accept living under the umbrella that "everybody has the right to be married... to the same sex"? Of course not. Why? Because it is a clear violation of his freedoms. It's called "equal protection under the law," and it applies to everyone.
Mr. Vander Hart closes with one final misunderstanding of the Constitutional process. He states that, "Constitutionally the people have a right to amend the Constitution."
This is true, but it ignores the parameters with which the population is allowed to undertake a Constitutional amendment. A simple majority vote, as we saw with Prop 8, cannot be enough to amend a Constitution is such a way that violates the civil rights of a minority. Perhaps Mr. Vander Hart could explain the Constitutional justifications for his beliefs? instead, he pretends his opinion is merely in regards to his biblical teachings (even as he sprinkles these arguments with erroneous constitutional arguments and implications), and thus avoids the actual battle, while ultimately revealing his utter contempt for the sacred principles put forth by our founding fathers in our most venerated national documents, the Declaration of independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Vander Hart and his christian fundamentalist friends need to come to terms with the nation in which they live. It is a Constitutional Republic, not a Christian theocracy. This means that inherently they are going to have to accept the existence of beliefs and lifestyles of their fellow citizens, regardless of whether those beliefs or lifestyles violate their personal standards. Failure to accept these terms is tantamount to undermining the very foundation of the United States. I recommend they take a refresher course on U.S. civics, as their ignorance to the principles under which we are obligated to live is quite widespread and obvious.
I welcome any response from Mr. Vander Hart (though I'm not holding my breath)....
UPDATE II
A follow-up analysis of another Shane Vander Hart Blog:
Recently, fellow DMR blogger Shane Vander Hart posted a piece titled, "Natural Inclinations,” which slams those who criticized Barack Obama for his choice of Rick Warren as a speaker at his upcoming inauguration. I’d like to respond to Mr. Vander Hart’s myopic viewpoint. Mr. Vander Hart begins:
"The brouhaha over President-Elect Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Forest Lake, CA, and author of The Purpose Driven Life, to give the invocation at his inauguration is mind-boggling to me. Because he supported Proposition 8, he in the minds of the homosexual community, is unfit to pray. Ok then. Same old, same old, yarn - because you don’t support gay marriage you are a homophobe. You are a hate monger, etc., etc. Yawn."
After reading this premise, I was left to wonder which was more offensive, Mr. Vander Hart’s intellectual dishonesty or his utter laziness in presenting his argument. A serious case can be made for both.
To begin with, he presumes those opposing Mr. Warren belong solely to the “homosexual community,” and base their opposition simply on Warren's “support for Proposition 8.” His proof backing these assertions? A single link to a report on the FOX news website. That’s it. As though anyone living in a reality-based universe still believes FOX news is a reliable source of critical opinions; particularly when it comes to criticism of conservative personalities. His additional assertion, that opponents believe Warren is "unfit to pray," is so ridiculous that it isn't even implied within the cited Fox report.
In reality, the backlash against Obama’s choice of Rick Warren involves a much wider demographic and ideological base. A simple internet search finds numerous cogent and varying arguments. To wit:
Glenn Greewald @ Salon:
“Of all the preachers Obama could have selected to elevate and validate (and, in every sense, it was Obama's choice), Warren is one of the most destructive -- not only having been one of the most vocal supporters for Proposition 8, but also using the most inflammatory rhetoric on gay issues generally, expressing anti-abortion views in the most fanatical terms possible, and even sitting with Sean Hannity recently and urging the murder of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (making his prominent inclusion in Obama's inauguration -- as Atrios notes -- a rather odd step for a President who claims devotion to a diplomatic resolution with that country).
There is a respectful and civil (even if clearly wrong) case to make against gay marriage, or against abortion, or in favor of a hard-line towards Iran. But in each case, Warren opts for the most hateful, not respectful, rhetoric to defend his position. Embracing someone like Warren is no more "inclusive" than inviting a White Supremacist or, for that matter, a Christian-hater to deliver the invocation. People like that espouse views that are shared by many Americans; why not include them, too, or have Pat Robertson deliver a nice prayer?”
Ezra Klein @ The American Prospect:
“He is not simply a religious figure. He is a political figure. He explicitly involved himself and his flock in the fight over Proposition 8. He has gone on Sean Hannity's show and commented on war with Iran. He hosted a presidential forum, where he asked political candidates questions on everything from Supreme Court justices to taxation.
Warren is a religious leader who leverages his prominence and spiritual credibility for political purposes. That is an understandable decision. But it makes it impossible to argue that he should be understood as a purely religious figure. He has a discrete policy agenda, he uses his prominence to advance it. Thus, when asking whether Obama should give Warren the most important religious-political honor available, you have to ask whether it's a good thing for Warren to be a more powerful political figure.”
Digby:
"There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama's part --- by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views --- the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don't make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won't work, obviously.) It doesn't leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that's a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women's civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn't need them. They may see the way to permanent realignment to be the replacement of liberals (who are universally loathed among their friends) with the salt-of-the-earth, well organized and easy to appease social conservatives. It makes some sense. It would keep liberals rootless and powerless but they could continue to serve as the useful punching bag for the political establishment."
Michelle Goldberg @ Religion Dispatches:
“Yet this is symbolism with real-world consequences and concrete implications. First of all, it reifies the image that Warren has been assiduously constructing for himself as ‘America’s Pastor,’ a post-partisan and benevolent figure with a quasi-official role atop the nation’s civic life. When it comes to his public persona, Warren is something of a magician. He has convinced much of the media and many influential Democrats that he represents a new, more centrist breed of evangelical with a broader agenda than the old religious right.
The truth is that the primary difference between Warren and, say, James Dobson is the former’s penchant for Hawaiian shirts. Warren compares abortion to the Holocaust, gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and social gospel Christians as “closet Marxists.” He doesn’t believe in evolution. He has won plaudits from some journalists for his honesty in forthrightly admitting that he believes that Jews are going to hell, but even if one sees such candor is a virtue, the underlying conviction hardly qualifies him as an ecumenical peacemaker.
Warren is not just anti-abortion—he is anti-egalitarian. A page on his Web site Pastors.com, a resource for his fellow Christian leaders, features a woman named Beth Moore explaining and even celebrating the necessity of wifely submission. ‘God granted women a measure of freedom in submission that we can learn to enjoy,’ she explains. ‘It is a relief to know that as a wife and mother I am not totally responsible for my family. I have a husband to look to for counsel and direction. I can rely on his toughness when I am too soft and his logic when I am too emotional.’
The point is not that Obama believes this stuff, or even that he should only surround himself with liberal spiritual advisers. But his inauguration is supposed to be a celebration of concord, of transcendence of the divisive culture war politics of the last eight years. By choosing Warren, he is suggesting that Warren’s positions on gay people, women and Jews aren’t really that bad, and that he can be a unifying force in American life. Whether Obama intends to or not, he’s pulling a Sister Souljah on some of his most ardent backers, writing them out of the American mainstream at precisely the time when, thanks to his election, they were so dearly hoping to reenter it.”
Blue Texan @ Firedoglake:
“So equating homosexuals with pedophiles and calling for the murder of foreign heads of state is part of the "magic of this country," while Jeremiah Wright's remarks are "inflammatory and appalling." Interesting.
… does Obama really think that Warren's comments about gays aren't degrading? The real problem for Obama isn't that Warren's against gay marriage and abortion. Joe Biden's parish priest probably is too. No, the problem is that, by giving Warren this honor, he's elevating someone who engages in the same kind of hateful remarks he's already on the record condemning. And it's very difficult to explain that contradiction except to conclude that it's exceedingly cynical on the part of Obama.
Questioning the morals of the gays, not a problem. Questioning the morals of the United States? Unacceptable.”
One can see from only a few examples out of a pool of thousands, the reasons for opposing Obama’s choice are not nearly as simplistic as Mr. Vander Hart would like to believe. Perhaps instead of spending so much time “yawning,” Mr. Vander Hart should spend more time doing adequate research.
In any case, Mr. Vander Hart continues his piece by including a transcript of a recent Warren interview with NBC’s Ann Curry, in which Warren lays out his case against homosexuality as follows:
“…the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.”
This sentiment is echoed by Mr. Vander Hart himself, who closes with the lament, “Just because we have a natural predisposition toward a particular sin or vice does not mean we have license to engage in that behavior. It may seem natural to do so, but that doesn’t make it right. So the natural inclination argument for homosexual behavior doesn’t wash.”
To begin with, the arrogance shown by both of these men is astounding on several levels. First, we are evidently supposed to credit Mr. Warren with having to endure the enormous sacrifice of only being able to have sex with his WIFE, and not every woman on the street as well! How noble! Second, both men reveal their utter contempt for the free country in which they live; as these opinions, in particluar Mr. Vander Hart’s arrogant dismissal of the “natural inclination” argument, ignore the fact that in this country, we do not need permission from religious fanatics in order to live our lives as we would choose. We need not have to prove ourselves to a complete stranger to seek his or her blessing. This is the problem in a nutshell. Mr. Vander Hart and his ilk seem to believe that the rest of us must live according to moral judgements as voted upon by a majority of our peers and based in the bible’s teachings. The reality? We DO have “license” to engage in any legal behavior, even if Mr. Vander Hart and his self righteous brethren find it to be a “sin” or a “vice.”
It’s called living in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. Mr. Vander Hart should try to learn the difference.
Additionally, and perhaps most inexplicably, these final thoughts reveal hypocrisy of the highest calibre. They assume, erroneously, that the homosexual community must SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that their natural inclination is hereditary. Imagine that! Religious zealots, who scorn science whenever possible, and believe in a God without scientific evidence, while demanding Constitutional protections for these evidence-free beliefs, have the audacity to DEMAND scientific proof from the gay community??? Beyond belief. Apparently, Mr. Vander Hart is under the impression that in order for homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit, they need to convince HIM that their reasoning is sound. As he dismissively puts it, if their arguments "don't wash", then they haven't earned the right to live as they choose. Apparently HE is the "decider" in this regard. The world must convince HIM of its legitimacy. Astonishing arrogance.
Unfortunately, as many who have attempted to engage people like Mr. Vander Hart have discovered, a reasonable discourse is an impossibility. Why?
Simply put, they don't have opinions; instead, they have "truth." They KNOW. They can say, with utter conviction, that homosexuality is a sin, as determined by God himself. Debate is futile.
Of course, lost in the minds of the "knowing" Christian is the fact that fundamentalists of other religions "know" that their faith is the "true' faith, with just as much certainty. Of course, these fundamentalists from numerous faiths with conflicting doctrine cannot all be right, as they claim. By definition, only one can actually be the truth. Yet they all believe fully and completely and without question that theirs is the true way and all the others are false. But someone has to be wrong. In fact most have to be wrong. And it only follows that if some of these folks who "know" are wrong, then perhaps they are ALL wrong. Logic dictates this. Rational analysis makes this possibility clear. But, alas, there-in lies the rub. When rational thought is rejected as a REQUIREMENT of faith, then these logical conundrums are easily tossed aside, like so much rubbish. And as we have seen on this and many other threads, once rational thought is deemed meaningless, it becomes very easy to apply this embrace of the irrational in support of any number of positions; be it supporting Bush's war crimes without question, or denying science whenever possible, or my personal favorite, tossing the U.S. Constitution in the gutter to deny equal rights to a minority.
Meanwhile, everyone must fall over themselves in tolerance to the intolerance of the Christian right. Yet, that obvious hypocrisy could never be acknowledged, as it requires rational thought.