Camille Paglia agrees with me... on so much.

I make the point in an upcoming Out of Ur piece that the only way forward for our country in regards to the cultural war currently simmering over gay rights/marriage is for 

1. the Government to get out of the marriage business and issue only civil unions, leaving individual churches to determine who they will marry (or consider married) and individual people to seek "marriage" as a second step after acquiring a civil union.

2. It is counter to the interests of the Gospel for Christians to be publicly opposing others in their quest for equality and rights.

I think there's a middle way forward that allows gay folks the same rights as everyone else while avoiding allowing the government to define the meaning of what is essentially a religious term/concept. 

And I'm glad to see feminist (and lesbian) Camille Paglia agrees with me:

"After California voters adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, gay activists have launched a program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons. I thought we'd gotten over the adolescent tantrum phase of gay activism, typified by ACT UP's 1989 invasion of St. Patrick's Cathedral, where the communion host was thrown on the floor. Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That's the way to do it. 
I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book,"Vamps & Tramps") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement."

And finally, a bonus. This year, I've been advocating heavily for leaving "Silent Night" out of the lineup. Lord, I hate ending Christmas Eve services with a song so theologically meaningless (other than "Jesus, Lord at Thy birth" what does it say worth saying?) that even occult aficionado Stevie Nicks could sing/record it. 

Paglia says (Man, I love this woman...):

"I've often complained about my childhood oppression by saccharine Christmas carols, which were forced on us at school and in Girl Scouts. (The narcotized "Silent Night" was the worst torture of them all.)"

Amen. 

Comments

[Tyler (Man of Depravity)]

Bob- Totally agree with you on the gay marriage issue with one caveat. Christians who believe that the Bible teaches marriage between a man and woman only can still have convictions about that without opposing the other side. Now granted, many Christians who have convictions about that do oppose the other side, but I think we should be teaching people how to hold convictions without belittling the other side of our conviction.

[matybigfro]

spot on

[Danny]

You know, this is the first time I have read this suggested and I think it is a great idea. It should be up to each individual institution to decide the definition of marriage. This takes the state out of it and puts the power back in the hands of institutions. But what about homosexuals in our churches? It doesn't answer the question of how to treat them and what to call their relationships....

Eventually we still have to answer, how are we going to treat homosexuals in the church?

[bob]

I can't answer that completely- but as one who thinks that same sex sexual activity is off-limits for Christ Followers (as is much other activity, so I'm not singling this out), I think we can be welcoming of homosexuals without affirming certain choices they are making.

We have had (and currently do have) co-habitating couple at evergreen. We slowly and carefully walk through getting to know them, their stories and individual situations and then begin, as a natural part of the discipleship process, addressing this question with them, along with other questions.

I think the same model can work- though admittedly much more complicated, particularly with homosexual couples in long-term committed relationships...

[Danny]

Thanks for the reply, Bob.

If you could e-mail me, I would really like to discuss how your church deals with homosexuals.

[Vivian]

Interesting indeed! I've never heard your personal (or Evergreen's) stance/ideas on this issue, and wonder about it every time I get a little more comfortable with the gay brother's marriage in ABC's "Brothers & Sisters" :)

[Matthew Todd]

Bob, long time reader here (I sit in the wings and don't comment much). I have been wrestling through this issue like many others over the last few months. While I have seen some validity to the arguments that the non-SSM people raise, I have found myself not agreeing with all the logic they apply to their arguments (actually, that is true for both sides of it).

Making this distinction between civil union and marriage (as defined by a religion) seems to be the strongest option out there. This is such a sticky issues that sadly is dividing the church (like issue prior), families, friends, etc. It is as if people have forgotten Christ's call through scripture to maintain peace and unity amongst believers.

Also, how would you think the whole weaker/stronger brother from Romans might play into this? I feel like there are a lot of Christians out there asking some people to go against where their consciences have led them.