Ups and Downs

Home

Charts and More

Prepared To Be A "Bigot"?

Posted by Rebecca Teti in Marriage on Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:57 AM

Meet Owen & Eunice Johns, about whom more later….

A group of us were chatting after Mass last Sunday about an absolutely unhinged conversation taking place on a neighborhood listserve.

You can guess the topic: same-sex marriage, which is in the news again because the President recently instructed the Justice Department not to defend the federal law protecting marriage.

(Which—constitutional questions notwithstanding—is something of a relief because the Obama DoJ was using the weakest possible arguments in court; let someone who actually believes in marriage defend it.)

You can probably also guess the level of vitriol in the remarks—which is almost funny, since the conversation thread began as a rant against the obnoxious cult that goes around protesting soldier’s funerals, claiming to be glad they died, because their deaths are God’s punishment for our nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. It’s sufficient to say that in the bulk of commentary, anyone opposed to same-sex marriage was assumed in colorful terms to be on the same side as the nuts.

I’m not party to this listserve, which is good, because I’d be tempted to ask whether the participants consider their remarks to be superior in tone to the cult group’s signs or no. And then few of my neighbors would be talking to me.

Anyway, a friend was telling us about a class he’d had in law school taught by a lesbian feminist who supported same-sex marriage personally—but would not allow anyone to denigrate defenders of marriage.

When someone made the typical noises about ignorant bigotry, she very fairly pointed out that there were serious questions involved, and they were not going to get away with avoiding them in her class; they were going to have to read and think and contend with them.

God bless her for that!  There’s a person who, while mistaken, is still open to the truth and feels a duty to seek it. Someone who recognizes and respects a worthy opponent.

It caused my friend to observe that President Obama thinks very differently than his law professor; in the President’s view, there’s no battle to be had. It’s a post-Christian view; the matter is considered settled.  We need not negotiate or discuss—just as we wouldn’t “discuss” the merits of the Klan’s claims. Dealing with him is very different than dealing with, say, Hillary Clinton—who still at least wants to fight you!

I hadn’t thought of it in those terms before, but the observation strikes me as correct. Yes, I know, the President still claims to support traditional marriage personally, but I think it’s fair to say that if he did, he wouldn’t be abdicating the executive responsibility to enforce a duly-enacted federal law. If you just wanted a debate to play out in court, you’d make the best argument you could, not default.

At any rate, I’m not interested in getting sidetracked into divining what’s in the President’s heart, only in pointing out—again—that legal recognition of same-sex marriage by definition means the immediate marginalization of any committed Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist (the Dalai Lama is just as opposed as the Pope) or atheist who defends marriage into the same suspect class as Klansmen. Same-sex marriage is in direct opposition to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

We are starting to see this play out already—and not only in neighborhood listserves. In a discussion I was in last Fall about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I pointed out that the repeal of the policy would mean religious chaplains and others could not freely express their opinion on the morality of homosexual relationships, and asked whether the vast majority of soldiers had the right to the free exercise of their religion, a First Amendment freedom.

The real effect of repeal, I suggested, would be to apply Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rules to religious believers instead of homosexuals—and just by sheer numbers, could that be just? I was treated to some juicy epithets and told in no uncertain terms that, yes, they were happy to trounce the freedom of religion of any bigot. A bigot has no rights they feel bound to respect.

These were not leather-clad homosexual activists tossing over religious freedom so easily. These were “decent people,” my friends and neighbors!

(As an aside, for this reason, I worry less and less about specific moral questions, and more and more with the Pope that Western man is forgetting how to be free. I feel I have more in common with that lesbian law professor than some of my old Catholic school chums in that respect.) 

In Britain, just a wee bit ahead of us in the normalization of homosexuality, first they drove Catholic groups out of the adoption business (as has happened here in some states and DC).

And now a Christian couple has been forbidden to serve as foster parents over this issue. Owen & Eunice Johns are unfit parents because they are Christian.

A Christian couple facing a foster parenting ban because of their views on homosexuality were told by a court yesterday that gay rights ‘should take precedence’ over their religious beliefs.

Owen and Eunice Johns heard that their values could conflict with the local authority’s duty to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare’ of those in foster care.

The Johns are not hateful anti-homosexual crusaders like that cult alluded to above, either. They have a homosexual nephew whom they love and are on good terms with, and they note that most kids just want to play and be loved, not talk about sexuality. As Mrs. Johns put it:

‘This is a sad day for Christianity. The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We do not believe that this is so. We are prepared to love and accept any child.
‘All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.’

I should point out, too, that the Johns are only offering respite care, so the ruling is really that no child should be placed in the dangerous company of a Christian for even 24 hours!  I’m glad the British system has such a surfeit of care-givers it can afford to turn down help!

In the long run I have every confidence that one man, one woman marriage will carry the day. Every place it’s put to a vote, marriage wins.

But in the near term, it’s going to take an increasingly thick hide to be a practicing believer—or even a humane and tolerant lesbian law professor for that matter.

Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

 Print Blog   Email a Friend   

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Ups and Downs

Home

Charts and More