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.

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

I'm with you, Will. I reckon that divorce is more damaging to the social fabric that homosexual marriage.

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

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."

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?

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....

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!"

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

"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).

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.

...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?