Are Christian Organizations Who Oppose Gay Marriage Hate Groups?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been a resource center for civil rights workers in the southern U.S. for decades. Among other things, it has become the best source of information about racist groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. It recently made a decision to identify some right-wing Christian groups who oppose gay marriage as "hate groups" who are working to oppress the civil rights of people who identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender al (LBGT). This will undoubtedly create a lot of poorly-informed, emotional debate and conversation that is rooted in the faith or non-faith of the participants.

Whether this is fair to organizations such as the Family Research Council is not something I am going to comment on. I do want to point out that when a Christian organization attempts to use the state, the law to enforce its beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs, then they open themselves to this kind of analysis and labeling. There are equally-conservative (theologically, Biblically) positions that do and can avoid such public conflict and name-calling.

No one, not even the most radical gay-marriage activists, has argued that denominations and local churches do not have the right to say, "Marriage as we see it in Scripture and understand it to be in God's will is between a man and a woman, and we will not sanction other marriages." Some who defend this viewpoint have tried to imply that if gay marriage becomes the law, conservative churches will be forced to conduct such marriages, but that is nonsense and everyone knows it. The Bill of Rights has long protected different views of marriage by various religions, for example as it relates to remarriage by divorced individuals.

The trouble begins when a religion (especially a dominant religion) wants to legally enforce its definition of marriage. Even if one agrees with that religion on how the Bible defines marriage, it is not necessary to go so far as to work for laws enforcing that view. The cultural consensus may today support traditional marriage formed with the strong influence of a traditional reading of Scripture. As sure as conservative Christians embed that view in law the day will come when the consensus will change and they will find themselves forced to live with a different definition of marriage. They have let the genie out of the bottle. Now they have to start living with it. Hopefully most Christians of all kinds will learn a lesson for the future when the issues may be even more consequential.            

Comments

[Trish]

I have long been interested in the money trail behind issues. (For example, the recent AZ border law was written and passage funded by the prison industry who saw this as an opportunity to make money by housing all the illegals rounded by the law.) When the issue of gay marriage first became a hot button issue, health insurance premiums, especially employer funded insurance, were rapidly escalating and public health officials were predicting an AIDS crisis.

Hmmmm...A 9-20-10 posting on The Michigan Messenger give a tantalizing hint. The article is mainly about the $1.4 million 2009 donation the Knights of Columbus ( a Catholic organization) gave to the National Organization for Marriage, a California non-profit group fighting against same-sex marriage. But the last paragraph of the article says something very interesting: The Knights, meanwhile, have come a long way from a lone fraternal council in New Haven to governing over 13,000 councils and 1.8 million members worldwide. “Their heritage was as an insurance company because Catholics were discriminated against and couldn’t get insurance,” observes Rev. Dr. Joseph Palacios, founding board member of Catholics for Equality. These days, however, they’re better known for fighting against the marriage rights of gays and lesbian citizens. http://michiganmessenger.com/42064/catholic-groups-spends-big-on-anti-same-sex-marriage-efforts

An examination of www.kofc.org does indeed reveal that they are a company offering "top-rated life insurance, long-term care insurance and retirement products. With more than $77 billion of insurance in force..." Their long term care insurance pays for long-term, out-of-hospital care (wonder if that includes long term care for AIDS).

So by fighting against gay marriage, they could effectively cut their insurance risk of alternate lifestyle policy holders in half because they would not have to extend spouse/family policies to such couples.

Let me be clear that I am speculating. I have no proof. Just putting together a few interesting facts and wondering if they fit. This issue has made for strange bedfellows.

[chris]

The Christian faith is a family comprising a multitude of faith perspective. How do we have a sense of ‘family’ when the grace extended to ‘family’ members by the dominant polar groups is less than a ham sandwich in a Jewish deli?

Both factions also compete in the ideas marketplace to influence society and have their views codified in law. Does being salt and light exclude one from influencing the governing entities? How does one represent core convictions in the ideas marketplace and live within the spirit of Biblical calling and constitutional guard rails in a gracious manner?

The SPLC had a stellar history of exposing the wickedness of racism. However, it later times as they expand their portfolio, labeling your political opponents with emotional tar instead of presenting a body of data and analysis makes them marginal in my mind. Can’t live off your legacy, but need to bring it in every era.

It is my conviction that the on-looking world will not extend much love or trust in squabbling factions of our family.

[Loren Seibold]

There's a nuance here that's worth mentioning. The SPLC wasn't placed on that list for opposing gay marriage, but for opposing it for untrue reasons, such as that homosexuals are usually pedophiles—not at all true. It's interesting that those who have fired back at the SPLC haven't mentioned that. They have chosen to say that it was for religious reasons they were targeted.