Consistency in Virtue

The renewed battle over extending State benefits and rights (and official recognition) to same sex couples, while a favorite topic for the media watching the Capitol, it was really a minor skirmish in a session where budget shortfalls dominated the debates and discussions. Some well-covered rallies of red-shirted advocates may have given the impression that no other bills were moving. One of the arguments made by supporters of the proposed Civil Unions bill was that public opinion had shifted since the vote a decade ago authorized the legislature to define "marriage" as involving only opposite sex couples.
And the events in other states -- not just liberal New England but also Iowa -- seemed to reflect that history was moving against those who strongly expressed qualms about gay marriage in the late-20th Century.
Evangelical opponents are already looking at what underlies the "change."
Mark Gatti, a senior editor at Christianity Today, surveys the
state of the same sex marriage cultural war . One of his most telling observations is how the particular strain of Christianity growing in our country cuts against the "best" argument to be mustered against same sex marriage:

We are, of all Christian traditions, the most individualistic. This individual emphasis has flourished in different ways and in different settings, and often for the good. It has challenged moribund religion (Reformation), prompted revival (Great Awakenings), ministered to the urban poor (Salvation Army), abolished slavery (William Wilberforce), and led to explosive worldwide church growth (Pentecostalism). But it is individualism nonetheless, and it cuts right to the heart of one of our best arguments against gay marriage.

We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. We cannot say that an institution, like the state, has a perfect right to insist on certain values and behavior from its citizens while we refuse to submit to denominational or local church authority. We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment when we, like the rest of heterosexual culture, delay marriage until we can experience life, and delay having children until we can enjoy each other for a few years.

In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue. Until we admit that, and take steps to amend our ways, our cries of alarm about gay marriage will echo off into oblivion.

Gatti has a point. When I raised Jesus' comments about motes and logs in the eye with one Pastor of a large, conservative Church during the Session, the response was to denounce my godless reaction. Christians protesting the proposed bill seemed awfully focused on NOT extending the same benefits to one class of citizens as currently enjoyed by another; it was pointless to suggest that arguments simply based on their religiously-grounded values was not going to convince legislators and staffers who didn't share their assumptions about interpreting scripture. Screaming that a bill is an abomination simply gets tuned out -- the Bible says that believers may be the only model for God that others will see. We saw a rather intolerant, angry God and self-righteous God displayed during the session which for folks who instinctively want to help the "little guy" and the "persecuted" reflects why Lucifer was more sympathetic to humans in "Paradise Lost"; as in John Milton's cosmos, the better way seemed to be "better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven."