What’s Next?

I did an interview wth HuffPo Gay Voices. Of course some might call this an admission of defeat—because I repeat my belief that it is clear they now have 5 votes for gay marriage on the Supreme Court.

But really it is about taking up the next battle. If true, what next for those of us who do not believe in gay marriage?

A taste here:
‘ What’s next? In my view people who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage, and believe that it matters, have to become a creative minority, finding way to both express these sexual views, culturally, artistically and intellectually and to engage with the newly dominant cultural view of marriage respectfully but not submissively.

Lots of thoughts packed into the latter sentence.

As for social conservatives as a political movement, even to retain religious liberty protections is going to require a new and more serious engagement with politics. Gay rights people donate enormously more money to direct political action than Christian conservatives who tend to prefer giving to [501(c)(3) nonprofit, tax-exempt] ministries who do research, pastor-organizing and spokespersoning — which is fine as long as you don’t imagine you are going to have sufficient political influence that way. It’s a failed strategy on its own.’

On the Arizona religious liberty law Gov Jan Brewer vetoed;

‘What I see, as I suspect you do: powerful corporations, elite institutions are all lining up to protect and proclaim the dignity of gay people. Small numbers of unusually devoted Christians are just trying to feed their kids. I do not see who is benefited really by putting them out of business. Melissa has five kids, her husband (I was told) now hauls garbage. I understand it would be a rude shock to realize the woman happy to bake you cupcakes doesn’t want to bake your happy wedding cake, but I really don’t get deciding to put her out of business. It is abstract justice versus real concrete and unreasonable harm.”

On polls showing support for gay marriage growing, including among religious people:

‘ I would not expect religious people to remain insulated, which is one reason of course I thought the fight over [same-sex marriage bans] matters culturally and broadly. It is not just a matter of making some gay couples happy by providing benefits to help them live their lives with no consequences for anyone else. It’s a broad cultural shift redefining not only the place of gay people in society but of traditional religious believers as well. And also of what marriage is and what it means.

A lot of people are going to want to escape from the moral disapproval and really sometimes the open hatred directed at you for maintaining the classic view of marriage — the view that I would say goes something like this, at least in my head and heart: “We are born male and female, our bodies contain a call to come together in love to make and raise the next generation as their mothers and fathers. Yes, many people, for a variety of reasons some, under their control and many not, are not going to end up being married; we should be as kind to one another as we can manage.’

This is the view being discarded and many people will try in a variety of ways to reconcile the new culturally dominant marriage narrative with their religious views and their views about human nature. I am one of those who believe my job is to explain, first to myself and then possibly to others, why I cannot. ”

Thank you for our fellowship, and your courage. Together we face the next phase: creatively working to sustain a culture–or a subculture– of marriage under very challenging new conditions.

In Christ,
Maggie

8 comments
lhfry
lhfry

Those of us who oppose same sex marriage do so NOT on the basis of status, but because we object to the BEHAVIOR it represents. No one knows what "causes" homosexuality and no new advance has been made in our understanding of it that would cause the various psychological and medical associations to insist that we now view it as an inborn trait like race.  


In a recent article in The New Republic, the author, himself a homosexual, states the following:  "When we conflate race and sexuality, we overlook how fluid we are learning our sexualities truly are. To say it rather crassly: I’ve convinced a few men to try out my sexuality, but I’ve never managed to get them to try on my skin color. In other words, one’s sexuality isn’t as biologically determined as race."   (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116378/macklemores-same-love-sends-wrong-message-about-being-gay)That homosexuality may have a genetic component, much like (other) obsessive-compulsive disorders, may be true.   But the twin studies, in which in only less than half of the cases are both identical twins homosexual, raises questions about both the permanence and origin of homosexuality.  Moreover, when the closet burst open in the early 70s, homosexuals claimed that sexuality resided on a continuum and that any human being could engage in homosexual sex - and indeed should do so.   They claimed that true sexual liberation was not possible unless all types of sexual experiences had been essayed.    This attitude certainly underlay feminist attitudes about men and sex and consciousness raising groups for women advocated such experimentation.   Lots of simple minded women fell for it too.  


It is interesting that many on the left argue that both race and gender are social constructs.   But homosexuality is an immutable trait?   Seriously?


The cake bakers and photographers who refuse to participate in homosexual "wedding" ceremonies are perfectly within their rights.   Commercial enterprises may refuse service based on the behavior of the customers - as in no shoes, no shirt, no service.   It is mistake not to argue this point.  

Straight Grandmother
Straight Grandmother

"Lisa Boucher"- No the lesbian couple were not denied service on the basis of their POLITICAL position . Sweet Cakes discriminated against the couple based on their Status, it was Status Discrimination. It is the Status of their sexual orientation, homosexual, just like the Status of a persons race, say black. It's Status Discrimination. If you are going to bake wedding cakes in New Mexico you bake wedding cakes for everybody, regardless of their Status. Sweet Cakes had options available to them, they simply could have refrained from baking wedding cakes *for anybody*. They knew the non discrimination law and rather than put themselves in a situation that conflicted with their religious views, they could have simply not baked wedding cakes at all. They said they had no issues with any other type of bakery requests, it was simply wedding cakes they had an issue with, and it was within their control to manage that conflict in a legal way. They simply choose not to do so and thought they could get away with disobeying the law. I have a very compelling and rational basis of what Civil Marriage is which is described in the Testimony of Dr. Nancy Cott Harvard University Historian. In addition to Judge Walker in the Prop 8 Case, Judge Friedman in Michigan said just the other day in his ruling that her testimony is, and I quote, "Highly Credible." If you go to the AFER website they have Dr. Cotts testimony available for download. You just don't like her definition of marriage is all. And it is not her personal definition, it is the STATE'S Definition and Purpose of marriage which this immanent scholar studied for 10 YEARS before writing the definitive peer reviewed book on it. I can't help that you don't agree with Dr. Cott, the Judges do. I would be very interested in your commentary on the Muslim Cab Drivers story in the link I provided. Thank you.

Kathleen Logan
Kathleen Logan

I agree with you, Maggie. I'm afraid we are being voted out. When I stick to my beliefs regardng Gay Marriage, I am told that I am prejudiced! That's the way it is today, but I will not change some of my beliefs. What is "natural" will always be "natural".

Dana massey
Dana massey

Thank you, Maggie. You have the same steel in your soul as another great late woman named Maggie.

Robert Koomans
Robert Koomans

I read with some horror, that some or most "Christian" Churches have joined forces WITH SATAN to support SIN AGAINST GOD, instead of REBUKING all sin! - Why hasn't the "Christian" lobby at least come out an demand that the TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE LAWS be STRENGTHENED, by inclusion of words like "being of o naturally procreative opposite gender union" --- which would prevent any misguided and abominable laws which support sexual function deviation. NO GOOD CAN COME FROM ANAL INTERCOURSE, because therein lies the worst of viral and bacteriological contaminants, which many scientists are now warning us of, that will start the NEXT GREAT AIDS VIRUS EPIDEMIC.... one in which communities will see behave like AFRICAN EBOLA, and wipe out heterosexuals as well, in a shorter space of time, and affect Health professionals like it did in Africa.

StraightGrandmother
StraightGrandmother

Your move away from the National Organization for Marriage to the American Principals Project where you now focus on Religios Liberty has opened the door for you to truthfully now sign your posts, "In Christ, Maggie" Although you tried re a l hard to hide the basis for your fight against the gays (religion) and make a secular case for your POV, it was than, and is now, based on our religious views. It is nice for you to finally be open about this and sign your posts "In Christ". Bran Brown always was open even more so after you left, that it really is a religious war against sexual minorities. Here is what happens Maggie when you permit people on Mainstreet, to refuse service to anyone (on Mainstreet) based on their religious beliefs. This is a textbook example of Refusing to Serve someone based on your religious beliefs. I trust when you are finished reading it you will realize that this concept on Mainstreet is a very bad idea. All must be served with prompt service and a smile. If people have certain deeply held religious beliefs then the onus is on them to seek out a career or start a business that will not conflict with their religious beliefs. To burden others with refusal of service is not the solution. If a job require that you serve ALL the public and you cannot faithfully do that in that job, then don't take that job, or start that business. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800 Let's see if on MaggieGallagher.com perfectly polite and valid comments will be censored and/or deleted like on The National Review.

Lisa Boucher
Lisa Boucher

"StraightGrandmother" — The error in your reasoning is that you conflate discrimination on the basis of an innate trait with discrimination on the basis of POLITICAL views. The courts made that same mistake. The plaintiffs who put the bakery out of business were denied service on the basis of their POLITICAL position — i.e. trying to change the definition of marriage. Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not discriminate on the basis of the sexual psychology of the potential customer. They did NOT say, "I won't serve you because you're sexually attracted to someone of the same sex." The issue here is marriage — one that you and your allies continually conflate with the idea of "gay rights," without ever offering a rational or compelling definition of what you think marriage actually is. The postmodernist bandwagon simply wants to USE the idea of marriage as a vehicle for harnessing state power to force its political agenda. And you are willing to trample the First Amendment to get your way.

lhfry
lhfry

@Lisa Boucher  True. Good point, yet I would still argue that it is behavior that motivates the refusal of service, not objection to a political point of view.    But it does make sense, particularly since the potential customers here are targeting those whom they believe might refuse service in order to gin up lawsuits to intimidate others who might share their views.