Did anyone see this great Jon Carroll column: The Purpose Driven Bigot.

[EFerrari]

The purpose-driven bigot
Jon Carroll

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Here's a lovely quote you may wish to put in your scrapbook:

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called 'gay marriage.' Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC, oppose watering down the definition of marriage. ... Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue. ... This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 8 - to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don't forget to vote!"

There's so much wrong with that quote, I don't know where to start. Islam, a reasonably well-known religion, has defined marriage as a contract between one man and as many as four women. I note that the speaker skillfully slides over that well-known custom; would he, one wonders, support a law allowing for polygamous marriages, since it is sanctioned by a popular monotheistic religion? No, he's just cherry-picking.

Homosexuality was and is permitted in many cultures around the world. Even where it is not sanctioned, it is common and tolerated. Sometimes it is forced underground, turning gay people into criminals and making them more susceptible to both blackmail and disease. Does the speaker believe that criminalizing that private and nonviolent behavior constitutes an action of Christian charity?

The Bible also allows for slavery and the stoning of adulterous wives. Would the speaker support those holy injunctions? God has clearly spoken about them, if you believe the Bible to be the word of God. But apparently God has a kind of variable infallibility index. The speaker is cherry-picking again.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/12/23/DDHR14RE7L.DTL

[joeybee12]

1. That's the real problem with kissing up to Warren, it's not just halting progress,

it's regressive. I expect nothing from Obama, but I refuse to allow him to turn back the clock.

[eleny]

2. k&r, thanks

[bluedawg12]

3. The irony, Obama has said:

" I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God’s mandate. I don’t think it’s healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.
- Candidate Obama

It does not seem to include the rickster.

[EFerrari]

4. Obama needs to figure out the difference between disagreement and

anti-American discrimination.

[bluedawg12]

6. disagreement is disingenuous about discrimination

in short: spin.

[donco6]

5. Has anyone heard of Al Rantel?

I went to his website - he appears to be a republican.

[snot]

7. Above all, why should REASON (not to mention compassion!)

carry NO weight?

E.g., marriage between two people who hate each other is fine, so long as they have the right bits of flesh between their legs?

[The Brethren]

8. I just love the irony

of religious bigots who claim such things as: "This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Well, actually it's a political issue which is why they're using our political system to make it law....civil law that is, not religious law.

In fact, if it weren't a political issue, I would care a great deal less what these idiots thought about gay people and our rights as long as they kept their "moral" views out of our civil laws.