“The Repeal of Proposition 8” by Todd Bouldin (www.toddbouldin.wordpress.com, August 6, 2010).
“Marriage Untainted by Religious Motivation” by Alan F. H. Wisdom (The Washington Times, August 16, 2010).
“What is the ‘Gospel’ Response to the Prop 8 Ruling?” by Tony Jones (blog.tonyj.net, August 13, 2010).
“Same-sex Marriage and the Insignificance of the Nuclear Family” by Dennis Prager (The Washington Times, August 23, 2010)
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Bouldin, a Princeton Seminary graduate, attorney and entertainment industry consultant, lectures at Pepperdine and Abilene Christian and says that the day Judge Vaughn Walker (a Reagan appointee) ruled on Prop 8 “was among [my] best days.” Bouldin says he’s been passionate about the issue, both theologically and personally: “I don’t want to look back 20 or 30 years from now and wonder why I said nothing as I watched many of my fellow Americans suffer from discrimination.” He adds, rightly: “I do not believe that my friends, family and readers who disagree with this opinion are bigots [or] that those who are against gay marriage are hateful people.”
Hearing antigay religious rhetoric, he notes the Golden Rule: “I don’t want others binding their religion on me, and I must return the same favor to them.” He observes: “Many of God’s people seem to think that they are compromising something of their morals if they simply give others freedom to do what they themselves choose not to do for religious or traditional reasons.” But, he counters: “There is not one Scripture in the Bible that calls upon God’s people to tell the rest of ‘the world’ how to live. Scripture is a demand on those in the community of the faithful, not a demand on those outside of it.” In wise-as-serpent mode, he cautions Prop 8 backers: “Every time you’re tempted to vote to restrict someone else’s rights, remember that the person you are restricting may one day gather the votes to restrict yours.” In harmless-as-dove mode, he says: “Treat others the way you want to be treated.”
Wisdom, a former high school teacher, Presbyterian (USA) activist and officer in the conservative Institute on Religion & Democracy, faults Walker’s findings of fact, asking rhetorically: “What business does a federal judge have declaring as a ‘finding of fact’ that religious beliefs are harmful or beneficial to any group? Who is he to look into the hearts of religious believers and see only ‘stereotypes and misinformation’?” But Walker did not look into their “hearts”. He looked into their published arguments and found them to be based in “stereotypes and misinformation” refuted by psychosocial research. It was not anyone’s mere “religious beliefs” that Walker found to be harmful but the fact that religious beliefs were being used to deny gay and lesbian citizens the freedom to marry that’s granted to heterosexual citizens. Besides, by any religion’s reciprocity rule and a little empathy, it’s clearly unjust to deny to others what we cherish for ourselves. Also, the case’s major witness against gay marriage admitted under oath that, “gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit from having gay marriage.”
Sounding alarms akin to those against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, he writes: “When state policy dictates that there are no differences between marriage and same-sex relationships, then [citizens who oppose same-sex marriage] become enemies of state policy, and state power is brought to bear to make their consciences bend.” No. Their meddling is made to bend – not their consciences. And though both interracial and gay marriage opponents have cited Bible verses and both sets of verses remain in the Bible, only one set gets cited nowadays.
Jones, a Fuller and Princeton Seminary graduate, correctly points out that, “Both our sacred text and the Christian tradition equivocate on what, exactly, is marriage. It’s a fluid concept, and it has evolved over time.” He urges: “As Christians, we should have a voice in the continuing evolution of the concept of marriage. … The gospel of Jesus Christ does have something to say about marriage, namely, marriage should be [for Christians] Christ-centered and chaste (i.e., monogamous).” His psychologically sound advice is this: “As Christians, we should promote monogamy among all people, be they straight or gay. So, marry whomever you want in your church (sacramental marriage), but let’s all band together and encourage monogamy among our GLBT brothers and sisters by affirming Judge Walker’s ruling (legal marriage) overturning Prop 8, an unconstitutional law that denies equal protection under the law to non-heterosexual citizens of our country.”
Prager is usually reasonable. But this time, his column is rich in irrationality. He complains that same-sex marriage means that, “men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance.” But this very distinction is the very reason for same-sex marriage. All heterosexuals and all homosexuals are, by orientation, keenly aware of this distinction. Yet Prager repeatedly attacks “the gay rights movement [for] rendering gender insignificant” and for declaring men and women “interchangeable.” On the contrary, those who seem to think that men and women are “interchangeable” are those who tell gay men to stifle their sexual orientation and marry women and tell lesbians to stifle their orientation and marry men.
Discounting the history of marriage (e.g., arranged, levirate, polygamous, proprietary, sacred fertility, etc.) and the experience of jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal, he warns that same-sex marriage is “the end of marriage as every society has known it.”
This year is the centenary of The Fundamentals, orthodoxy’s pushback project against unbelief. James Orr’s essay, “Science and Christian Faith”, grants that, “the world is immensely older than the 6,000 years which the older chronology gave it.” Orr laments how Christians can “err in matters which they imperfectly understand, or where their prejudices and traditional ideas are affected.” Today’s antigay traditionalists “err in matters which they imperfectly understand.” They should get back to the fundamentals.