Every now and then I come across one of those posts where the author believes faithful observance is akin to hating teh gheys. This is one of them. Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher authored a post the other day displaying that sweet, liberal tolerance of accepting that sometimes, not all gay people are liberal, and that there exist bigger issues to drive political action besides sex. He bashed the RNC and applied his arbitrary definition of equality as the fulcrum with which to cast the RNC as bigots.
While many were offended by MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur‘s laughter at GOProud Chairman Christopher Barron‘s claim that the Republican Party is welcoming to gay people, today’s RNC Chair candidates’ debate provided a sobering contrast to the progress that people like Barron see. Asked if they support the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage‘s position on marriage, all five answered affirmatively, with varying degrees of lip service to the “individuality” and “dignity” of gay people, the classic “No offense, but you’re not equal.”
Interestingly, it was incumbent Michael Steele who treaded most lightly on the topic, saying he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman “not to the exclusion of anybody.”
WTH? No, no no. Let’s put the social justice wine cooler down for a moment and examine the egregious logical lapses and application of the term” equal” when the litmus is arbitrary.
Tommy Christopher’s reasoning is only valid if one presupposes that marriage is a union created and controlled by the state for business purposes; as my liberal feminist mother would say it’s a “piece of paper that lets you do your taxes together.” This is where the entire point is lost by the left. Republicans don’t believe that marriage is a state invention: they believe that it is divine and that to force people of faith to redefine their religious beliefs and practices to include behavior which is discussed in Scripture as being not one with which God jives – is actually the government breaking “separation of church and state.” Why is it that when the subject of rights comes up, people of faith are the ones that must compromise their rights, a practice instituted by a faith that they alone observe? How is it unequal that everyone can enter into the same civil agreement but those who follow a faith that others do not seek divine blessing on their union? It’s a benefits argument, so have civil unions – but if there is a desire for more than the equal benefits provided by government, it presents the question of whether it’s about benefits or destroying part of Christianity.
And if you’re displeased your perception of “inequality” so far as the tradition of “marriage” applies, take it up with God. That’s not inequality, that’s religious observance.
Government has no place in marital affairs and Christians themselves should have protested the moment that government observance morphed into interference; government regulation gives the false impression that marriage is just a fancy name for “union” and not, in fact, a blessed union by observance of faith. Government has no place to dictate to people of faith or to any other community. This is why Barron is a Republican; progressives believe that which is antithetical to this. Progressives believe that the government has the ultimate authority to manipulate people beyond which is enumerated in the Constitution.
The beauty of the Constitution is that while is acknowledges the Christian faith (Declaration of Independence is quite clear in that rights are divine and without the grubby fingerprints of man), citizens are not forced to follow the faith, only enjoy the freedoms it gives. Free gifts? I thought progressives LOVED free stuff!
While GOProud has made progress within the conservative movement, particularly with young conservatives, the wheels come off the “welcome wagon” when it comes time to actually grant them equal status as human beings.
Excuse me? Why is the compromise of religious faith by people who seek not to observe it necessary to “status as human beings?” Did Christopher get the vapors while writing this? Because I nearly got them while reading it. As Democrats penalize marriage and families (marriage tax, estate tax) I’m shocked that anyone who even sympathizes with the ideology can say that they’re supportive of the very thing some in the gay community seek. Shockers! Maybe that’s the goal! More revenue for Uncle Sam!
If people of faith didn’t observe what was written in the Scripture, according to Alinsky, it would be used against them to denigrate them with their own base. What Christopher doesn’t realize is that the right’s tent has grown considerably larger, more so than the left who drum out anyone unaffiliated with their socialist caucus, and that while not everyone views civil unions, marriage, and other issues the same way, people are united for a threat bigger than these issues. We understand that the status given to our relationships is irrelevant compared to the shadow of socialism which has grown over our country in a Tolkien fashion.
What’s really at work here, I think, is the difference between what many conservatives actually believe, and what they can say out loud.
The simple fact that this statement exists in a post where the author berates conservatives (RINOs in some cases) for saying out loud what’s in their hearts shows me the level of effort put into this piece’s logic.
*UPDATE: If you’re one of the haters so out of touch with pop-culture that you think the screengrab image above is in reference to anything other than South Park’s Kanye/gay fish episode, you might be a drama queen.