Atticus is the author of the progressive-right political and lifestyle blog BlogTruth. His experience spans almost a decade providing business and consulting services to firms across the globe. Stop by his blog and say hello.
**It should be noted that the ideas in this commentary do not reflect the opinions of the blog owner, John Barron.**
A study performed by the PEW research center in June 2013 revealed a strong correlation between religious affiliation and attitudes toward same-sex marriage. The research revealed that only 23% of white evangelical Christians and 32% of black evangelical Christians support same-sex marriage compared to 74% of people unaffiliated with a religious group. Overall, the research revealed that just over 50% of Americans support same-sex marriage. If the current trend continues – in only a few years those who oppose same sex marriage will be an extreme minority.
With these statistics in mind I wonder to myself if the old ideas and opposition toward gay relationships are becoming archaic. Are those in opposition to same-sex marriage falling to the way side similarly to those people in the civil rights era who opposed inter-racial relationships? Will they be laughed at in the history books?
I don’t know the answer to these questions, but if history is any indicator of how people who hinder the civil liberties of others will be thought of I’d say there is a clear loser – and it’s not the Gays.
Thoughts?
Read Atticus’s last post on Gay Marriage.
Check out Atticus’s blog posts about Gay Rights.
Sifting Reality 
Heres the trick with this issue. It is routinely framed in a way that asks if gays should be given the same rights as everyone else. The answer is ‘of course’. However when asked if marriage should be defined as 1 man 1 woman, 2 to 1 people still say yes. Its all in how you ask the question. With the exception of this last time out, voters vote by the same 2 to 1 margin to define marriage in the traditional sense.
Voters don’t have a say in what defines marriage John. No different than asking the voters on any other civil/human right.
Eh, I think the bible, torah and koran are pretty solid on homosexuality, but never show opposition to interracial relationships. They’re kind of non-related from the religious angle you’re presenting.
Well, the bible has a few passages regarding interracial relationships:
http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/bible_and_segregation
There’s a whole article on the subject.
@Atticus
That article is written by an idiot. None of the passages he lays out declares that the mixing of races on the basis of skin color is wrong. Yet, that seemed to be his point. It was wrong for the Israelite’s (God’s people) to mix (marry) with other cultures. That had nothing to do with God favoring certain physical aspects of one group of people over another. It had everything to do with mixing the beliefs of God and morality with those that did not know or practice belief in the true God or practice good morality. God knew the Israelite’s would be taken astray from the surrounding cultures, so he forbade them to mix with them. Over the course of time, that is what happened and God sent them punishments for it. In the context of today, Christians are still told to not seek marriage with those that don’t hold to our beliefs. Today, God is calling out a group of people from all cultures and walks of life. He is not limiting it to a select group of people.
I wasn’t saying I agree with the article. I was just saying that some Evangelicals do find proof in the bible to justify their distaste for interracial relationships.
In the not-too-distant future, opposition to gay marriage will seem bizarrely reactionary. We’re in a transition of cognitive dissonance, not unlike the Founding era over the issue of slavery (when proponents culled scripture for justification of that institution). It won’t take a civil war this time because anti-gay-marriage isn’t integral to the economic prosperity of anyone. Quite the contrary. Gay marriage is the *conservative* evolution of same-sex relationships, a way to stabilize those relationships and drain off some of the in-your-face, unrestrained sexuality of gay culture. More and more conservatives are coming to understand this, and to appreciate the value of inclusiveness and respect.
Great comment.
History also shows that societies suffer and crumble upon losing their identity. And like it or not, the United States has maintained a largely Christian identity since its inception. Once that dies, so too will the culture.
Kendrick,
It’s not the same. Slavery was mainly a Southern phenomenon. It wasn’t part of a culture-wide identity, but a matter of regional economics.
Terrance,
The ideals of indentured white servitude, women with zero rights and subservient on all matters to their husbands, the outlawing of Quakers beliefs and their subsequent imprisonment or murder by Puritans and the removal/elimination of 10 million natives…….is this the culture/identity that will be missed or lost?
This embodies dominionism and all of its evil tenets, but is often either whitewashed or unpleasantly and purposefully left out of the “christian” founding of the country.
Nash,
I don’t dispute that this nation has a long history of racial and religious persecution, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the cultural identity of the people is heavily influenced by Christianity, right or wrong.
Heavily influenced? Yes. In a positive way? I would say no. You would say yes.
I think our cultural identity is one of civil liberties and freedom. Not of anti-homosexuality and religion. So I think our culture is being preserved. The more free our people become the better off we are.
Remember that the founding fathers were not all religious people.
More than 90% of the founders were deeply religious. But in preserving the liberty of some you squash the liberty of those who dont agree. As we see photographers dont have the liberty to not photograph same sex weddings, or bakeries to not bake cakes. This issue is many times more involved than other issues. In order to ensure the liberty for same sex couples to wed, you remove the liberty of the religious to object.
I disagree. I think it is perfectly acceptable for companies to choose not to do business with same-sex couples in regards to a “religious” ceremony. In fact, I think that is protected by the constitution.
So no one’s liberty is smashed. SS couples can get married and religious people that choose not to do business with them can do that too.
Everyone wins.
But they dont have that liberty. They get sued and fined for refusing the business.
They may be sued by someone who doesn’t understand the law, but they wouldn’t win.
Atticus are you following the news? Just last month a photographer was sued and won for rejecting a same sex ceremony. Bakeries have been sued successfully and so have bed and breakfast owners. Dude you need to kerp up with the news. They are getting sued amd they are losing
I hadn’t heard that and I think that’s wrong, but doesn’t make same-sex marriage wrong. Since a marriage is a religious ceremony (at least in many people’s eyes) it should be protected. Do you have links of those instances? I’d like to read about it.
Atticus,
To suggest, even for a second, that Christianity hasn’t been a guiding light for this nation since its inception is positively ridiculous, and shows a complete and utter lack of historical acumen.
Atticus,
The New Mexico case of the photographer is the one you should research. The opinion of the judge in this case is chilling in its vacuousness.
Regarding the New Mexico case – I will be writing an in detail post about this soon on my blog. If anyone is interested here is the official court of appeals document. http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmca/slips/CA30,203.pdf
@TerranceH
I think Christianity has had as big of an effect as anything else, but there have been other factors too. Technology, popular culture, academia, Islam, Mormonism, etc. etc. etc.
However; our law is not derived from any of those things. And though there is some overlap – the constitution makes it clear that our legal system is independent from one groups theology.
This country was not founded on an Islamic, Mormon, Pop Culture, or technological foundation, but a Christian foundation, and that much is clear. John has provided ample evidence of this fact in at least a dozen posts available for review on this blog.
And no we shouldn’t legislate Christian morality for its own sake, and I’ve not suggested such a thing. My point is that if you chip away at the cultural foundation enough eventually you won’t have one.
You have very strong religious feelings. Not everyone does. So Christian values are irrelevant. What is important is the rule of law, freedom, and liberty. And we will always have a cultural foundation – it may just not be one you like. Foods, songs, beliefs, folklore, etc. will always exist – but they do not necessarily have to shape our legal system nor the moral foundation of the country. But I hear what you are saying.
@Everyone
I wrote a detailed article over the court case in New Mexico regarding the Photographer that was sued for not accepting the same-sex couples’ business. You can read that article here: http://wp.me/psW0l-1gw
R. Nash,
I tend to believe that Christianity has had an overall positive influence on Western civilization, yes.
Atticus,
My religious beliefs are irrelevant. Nash is anything but religious yet recognizes that Christianity has influenced this nation more than anything else. And my point is that once Christian identity of the culture disappears – and I believe this is happening slowly – then who will we be? Will we even exist? That’s my point.
I understand what you are saying. But society will not crumble – it will just be shaped by something else.
Yeah? Tell that to the Romans.
The Romans practiced a form of Empire based Dominionism….so yeah if you view the US as being an Empire, then that changes everything. They always, historically have a life span that is much shorter than other types of societies. Such is the price of unchecked imperialism.
I’d say there are some correlations there.
The United States could be considered an Empire, but that is neither here nor there. I mention the Romans for the simple fact that their society was a melting pot of different cultures and customs. There was nothing really to hold them together.
At present, 83% of the United States identifies as Christian and that number drops year after year.
Terrence,
Those stats are a bit debatable and they’re dropping every year. Not disagreeing with you, I just think it’s worse than what you thought. And to digress a bit, it seems the main reason for that is the current moral panic over LGBT, which is proving to have stronger gravity than the ‘casual Christian’ sees the Church having. And the percentage of Christianity among millennials and teens is much lower.
Haven,
I didn’t write this post. It’s been awhile since I’ve followed this thread, so maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think I offered any stats. That would be Atticus.
I was meaning the 83%. And I didn’t realize it had been a month since anyone commented haha.
Romans lasted about a thousand years. They were ordained (at least “allowed”) by God to created an extended empire and common language to enable the spread of the Gospel. The pre-hegemony Gospel, the gospel of life and love and salvation from death and hell. Death and hell follow the imposters who infiltrated the church and built power bases for their own ends.
Like today, the god of evil is pushing his debauched message of death (death to babies, the elderly and the infirm) and hell (veneration of Halloween, hate for those who denounce witchcraft, blaming Christ (Christians as their stand-ins) for their own evils.
For example, justifying theft by taxation with false reference to doing good. Jesus gave us the account of the Good Samaritan, who was neighbor to the fallen. No doubt a tax collector had taken everything and maybe the victim protested. Jesus didn’t say paying taxes was some commandment of God. He exposed the people who impose taxes by force as the thieves they are and he only paid them so they would leave them alone:
Matthew 17: 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
When the physiology and the psychology are out of synchronization, which one is more likely the deviation?
When a guy says he’s a duck, do you do surgery on him, give him a duckbill, and implant feathers on him and talk about racism?