Will Hinton is an entrepreneur and writer living in Atlanta, GA. His writing has appeared on various sites including the Q Ideas, Red State, Peach Pundit, and DailyKos. Politically conservative, rhetorically moderate, loving all made in the image of God.

     

Gay Marriage and the Hypocrisy of the Religious Right

Update: I thought it would be good timing to re-post this.

Yesterday I was listening to a piece on NPR about Fred Thompson's presidential campaign and how he was making sure that Republican audiences knew for sure that he is conservative enough. There was a mention of Thompson being adequately pro-life and adequately anti-gay rights to satisfy social conservatives and especially evangelical Christians.

I find this so troubling. No wonder the average person thinks that Christians are anti-homosexual and hypocritical. I'm trying to think through how a typical evangelical Christian might view the issue of gay rights/gay marriage. Usually the thought process is through the lens of "family values" and cultural norms; that is, gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage and is therefore bad for families and our society.

Unfortunately, this line of thinking belies the underlying hypocrisy. If conservatives and evangelical Christians are so concerned about family values and promoting the institution of marriage, then why aren't no-fault divorce laws at the forefront? It doesn't take a genius to understand how destructive no-fault divorce has been to families (children in particular), the institution of marriage, and "family values" in general.

As a result, this uproar over gay marriage and gay rights rings hollow. I'm not sure that heterosexual evangelical Christians have any ground to stand on regarding gay marriage if they aren't first addressing a far more common issue even in their own communities.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
No votes yet
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 12:46 - Will Hinton

Comments

Will, I consider myself a

Will, I consider myself a moderate, however I have to disagree. Divorce and Gay Marriage are 2 seperate issues. There is an issue of couples too easily throwing away their committments when time gets tough and not working through difficult times which is a major issue, However the 2 issues are not related and solving 1 doesn't impact the other. The fact is, marriage is a religious ceremony that leaks into government because of certain rights for husbands & wives like health insurance. If the question at hand is access to certain rights, there is no reason a civil union can't address these concerns. It is not right however for gov't to get involved in marriage, which is a religous ceremony between a man and woman. The reality is that most Christian based religions do not support homosexuality. If there is a religion that accepts homosexuality and allows for marriage then by all means there shouldn't be an issue to particiapte in a religous ceremony to celebrate the union. I think all to often people are supporting gay marriage, not because they believe it's the right thing but bc they think it is the "enlightened" thing to do. I do believe that if 2 men or 2 woman want to be permanantly committed, and have a ceremony to celebrate their union, wonderful and I would be their to celebrate with my friends. It importnat to make sure we don't call it something that it's not. BTW, like the forum you have here.
  Tue, 04/28/2009 - 21:57 — Travis (not verified)

Ummm, no. The rightness or

Ummm, no. The rightness or wrongness of "gay marriage" is an issue unto itself. Reminding conservatives of the dangers of no-fault divorce is fine, but your blog post sounds like an attempt to neutralize opposition to perversity.
  Mon, 11/17/2008 - 15:56 — Kevin (not verified)

Although I am a conservative

Although I am a conservative Christian I feel the premise of your blog is wrong- for me anyway. The first thing I think of is not "family values" because I believe anyone can fall in love, raise children or be otherwise very happy together, regardless of sexual preference; but that it will tear down our culture and society from within in many other ways. I could list probably 10 ways alone in which it would destroy America economically to allow same sex marriages. Rather than making "family values" the straw man that we may be able to knock down we must consider the whole picture of a society which allows/fosters homosexual relationships to become the norm. This is not to say that "family values" should not be a priority and that divorce should not be challenged more rigorously by the church, but isn't calling conservative christianity "hypocritical" a bit intellectually pretentious. It may sound right on the surface but belies a simpleton approach to some very sophisticated issues. Which in this case for a conservative Christian or a student of economics just won't work. By the way, the last time I checked, the church was full of hypocrites- nobodies perfect. Thanks and I love the blog!
  Thu, 11/06/2008 - 18:44 — Thomdude (not verified)

Been reading your blogs,

Been reading your blogs, bro. As a Centrist Catholic, I always put God's powerful words first, "Love They Neighbor." These words remind me that no matter what our differences are in life, in this case, Gay Marriage, we should still love our neighbors. This whole Prop 8 issue in California shows the fear and ignorance of my Christian friends who are to the right of the political spectrum. I just never felt it was ever my place to tell ANYONE (straight, gay, mixed-race, etc.) how to live their life, especially when two people love each other and want to make it official. I embrace the fact that two people from any walk of life want to make an official and religious commitment to each other before whichever God they worship. God bless us all.
  Wed, 11/05/2008 - 04:17 — Steve Tauvela Yagyagan (not verified)

I've tried this line of reasoning....

...with many conservative GOPers and the ones I know tend to dismiss it without giving it any real thought. I can understand like what Marc says about being bound to oppose both homosexuality and divorce. What always has bothered me about the strong conservative Christian movement against homosexuality is how it seems more focused on marriage than anything else (if the homosexuality is the sin, then the marriage piece is just that - a small piece of the whole issue) and how they don't push with 1/1000 of the effort and vigor to try to oppose other damaging things for marriages like no fault divorce, abuse, alcoholism, infidelity, etc.. Can you even concieve of the idea of James Dobson (or any other prominent conservative Christian) getting up and demanding congress make a law banning anyone who has ever cheated on their spouse/significant other from being married?
  Wed, 10/17/2007 - 08:59 — gurufrisbee

Debbie Downer says...

Before we get too caught up in the camaraderie of pointing out the hypocrisy of conservative Christians—and Will is right, it is hypocritical to decry homosexual rights and ignore no-fault divorce—let me point out that conservative Christians are bound to oppose both divorce and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not just a problem outside of their community; it is a moral issue in their own house. If the Religious Right is going to clean it's own house, it cannot afford to ignore either issue. I agree with Will that Christians should take up the divorce issue with as much vigor as anything else, but this isn't going to give evangelicals entree to the mainstream if they are consistent with all of their moral standards.
  Sat, 10/13/2007 - 18:56 — Marc Porlier

That's rich ...

"Assuming, that is, that the Coup hasn't gone down in the interim and the Dems haven't siezed [sic] absolute power by then. ("For the Common Good", of course.)" You meant to say, I assume, "Assuming, that is, that Bush has not declared marshal law in the interim and the Repubs haven't thrown out the rest of the Constitution while establishing their new theocracy (all for the common good of law abiding, obedient Christians, of course).
  Fri, 10/12/2007 - 12:22 — Stephen (not verified)

The Republicans split the

The Republicans split the vote and a Democrat wins the White House. Dobson then gets to go back to the Republican Party in 2012 and declare how utterly important he is to the Republican Party. Assuming, that is, that the Coup hasn't gone down in the interim and the Dems haven't siezed absolute power by then. ("For the Common Good", of course.) "The rule of The Party is FOR EVER." -- Comrade O'Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984
  Mon, 10/08/2007 - 13:03 — Ken (not verified)

Don't forget the news item

Don't forget the news item last week about a meeting of Christian Leaders (including James Dobson) about withdrawing Christian support from the Republican candidate and backing a Sufficiently Christian Third Party Candidate (sort of a born-again Ross Perot). AKA "If you don't give us the Right Candidate, we're taking our marbles and going home, Praise God!"
  Mon, 10/08/2007 - 12:46 — Ken (not verified)

Dobson speaks again...

CNN Political Ticker has that Dobson appears to be against a Giuliani candidacy because "At the very base, a candidate should support the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.” Now, if we ignore that no Democrat is actually against the sanctity of life (just the definition therein), the institution of marriage or families, we can still note that Dobson is again reinforcing what Christians are against. When will people start to disown him like they have done to Robertson and Falwell? Also of interesting political note: “After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate,” Dobson wrote. “Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.” This is genius. He tells the folks that listen to him to vote for a 3rd party. The Republicans split the vote and a Democrat wins the White House. Dobson then gets to go back to the Republican Party in 2012 and declare how utterly important he is to the Republican Party. He becomes virtual king-maker. Power, baby, it's all about the power....
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 23:47 — Expat Teacher

So does this mean conservatives have come around?

Not to be a "I told you so", but I think I might have to be. Progressives have been saying for at least 2 election cycles now that the pox is on both houses in terms of ruining the institution of marriage. That the large scale failure of heterosexual marriages is a much bigger problem than 5% of the population entering same-sex marriages. Now that we have a general agreement, where do we go from here?
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 23:43 — Expat Teacher

Thank you for posting this,

Thank you for posting this, Will. Also thank you to the respondents with whom I may disagree on many topics, but whose replies indicate a willingness to discuss the ideas and approach them like human beings. "Remember, son- I didn't sell out, I bought in."
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 23:39 — Scott McD

Agreed

I'll echo those amens and attaboys! You are so right on and yet conservatives eat this up. Did any of you see Dennis Prager's article a year or so ago in Townhall to the effect that divorce doesn't threaten marriage but homosexuality does. It's no longer on Townhall but is at Jewish World Review here - http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/prager_same_sex_marriage.php3 And I suppose there are a fair amount of Christians who buy his arguments. David Wayne Glen Burnie Evangelical Presbyterian Church http://jollyblogger.typepad.com
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 21:48 — David Wayne

Yes Indeed

I'm with you, Will. I reckon that divorce is more damaging to the social fabric that homosexual marriage.
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 15:05 — bjanaszek

Amen

Nice analysis, Will. I also think this movement by the Religious Right undermines the very real ways that some lesbian and gay Americans grapple with issues of faith. They should be able to contend with these questions of belief within the church and in dialogue with the church, but the political movement against gay rights and gay marriage alienates many (though not all) from the church, forcing them to face their faith and doubts alone. Dustin Kidd
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 14:34 — Dustin Kidd

Will, As one of those

Will, As one of those conservative Christians who is opposed to admitting homosexual marriage into the institution, I couldn't agree more. Philosophically, the gay marriage issue was lost in the 60s when divorce laws were changed. At that point, the meaning of marriage transitioned from an institution supported by society to an individual decision that meant whatever each partner said it meant. If that's our view of marriage, then (as you said) we have given up the philosophical ground to preventing homosexuals from deciding that they can be married too. I think conservatives didn't really understand the implications of what they were doing in letting no-fault divorce laws through. It's my hunch that it was motivated by a desire for cultural acceptance stemming from our general insecurity from being "out of power" for so long, a cultural "inferiority complex" that caused us to be afraid to stand up for marriage when we should have. I think marriage is just one of the institutions where a secular mindset has infiltrated evangelicalism without us realizing it (our approach to death being another). Sorry--I'll give you back your blog now. You just happened to touch on a soapbox of mine, though, and I got all excited.
  Thu, 10/04/2007 - 14:09 — Matthew Anderson (not verified)