I saw the latest poll on the constitutional amendment on the ballot in Virginia that would ban same-sex marriage (54% for, 40% against, no surprise there) and started thinking.
One of the main selling points those who seek to eliminate any chance of legally recoginzed marriage between people of the same gender is that the majority of the population does not want it. Unlike much of the propaganda put out by the religious right, this statement appears to be true. Voters in 20 states have already ratified similar amendments and several more likely will in November.
That doesn't mean they're right. The right wing uses the "voice of the people" when it supports their policies, but ignores the majority when they are looking the other way, such as the war in Iraq. A popularity contest is not by itself a legitimate value judgement. That's why it is important for those who believe in equality not to give up the fight.
After all, the final call on Jesus' crucifixion was the crowd who called for Pontius Pilate to release Barabbas, in jail for murder, rather than Jesus.
The majority, or sometimes the mob, may rule, but it often misses the mark, seeking its own will rather than that of Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting post. And a well-made point that the deeply-held American value of protecting minority rights and points of view usually has overridden the 'mob rules' mentality.
ReplyDeleteBecause American democracy is government with consent of the governed, a lot of people mistakenly assume that majority rule is more important than the Founders actually intended. Yes, we use majority rule to elect candidates and establish certain laws, but the Founders were very clear that civil rights were to be placed above majority rule, and that is why the judicial branch is supposed to be independent of the rest of the government: the idea of "accountable," elected judges is anathema to the set-up. If the question of who is entitled to civil rights could be settled by majority rule, then slaves would still only count as 3/5 of a person, women wouldn't be able to vote, etc. The argument that gay folk are not entitled to marriage because most of the country is opposed is actually the antithesis of democracy, which is not merely majority rule, but a system of government with inherent protections for minorities.
ReplyDelete((The majority, or sometimes the mob, may rule, but it often misses the mark, seeking its own will rather than that of Jesus.))
ReplyDeleteWhere, pray tell, does Jesus tell us that He is in favor of homosexual marriage?
Do you also support polygamous marriage?
John,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer either of my questions. Lose the rhetoric and answer the questions.
Gay relationships were a HUGE ISSUE in Roman times.
ReplyDeleteAnd to suggest that Jesus supports gay lifestyles because He never spoke out against it specifically is what's called an argument from silence, which is an invalid argument.
Jesus likely never spoke out against it because the Jewish Church clearly udnerstood from the Old Testament that God considers it to be wrong. Jesus generally spoke directly to areas of theological or moral confusion in His day and age. No Jewish theologian who was worth anything would have questioned the immorality of homosexual relationships. It simply didn't need to be addressed.
Were Jesus living in our day and age, you can bet that He would have spoken up about it....and not to affirm it.
_________
So, if you have no moral problems with polygamy, then why do you have legal problems with it?
Although I vowed to myself that I wouldn't engage Anonymous again regarding his rhetoric, characterized by a studied ignorance of the Greek words and context to which he was exposed by one of my articles on the subject that he said he read, but clearly didn't, I must deal with this issue.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote, "And to suggest that Jesus supports gay lifestyles because He never spoke out against it specifically is what's called an argument from silence, which is an invalid argument." If he had read this article, for example, he would have seen that in Matthew 8 Jesus healed the centurion's "slave boy" (pais) and never condemned that relationship, which He certainly would have done if He had viewed it as inappropriate or sinful, but, rather, merely commended the centurion on his faith. I am not using this point as any proof text, but, rather, suggesting that Anonymous' mind-set is not necessarily that of the culture of that time or of Jesus Himself.
((If he had read this article, for example, he would have seen that in Matthew 8 Jesus healed the centurion's "slave boy" (pais) and never condemned that relationship, which He certainly would have done if He had viewed it as inappropriate or sinful, but, rather, merely commended the centurion on his faith.))
ReplyDeleteOh good heavens. Talk about missing the boat completely.
First, you're making a huge assumption here that isn't warranted. "Pais" is NOT a word for homosexual slave boy. It has been rendered by hundreds of competent Bible scholars down through the centuries to mean "son" or "slave-boy". You're just assuming a relationship in order to buttress your argument.
Secondly, to suggest that because Jesus didn't condemn this so-called gay relationship means that He approved of it is ludicrous!!! Are you suggesting then that when the Pharisees were all ready to stone the adulterous woman, and then Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you. go and sin no more", He actually was approving of her adultery?
What a silly argument! It's time for a reality check, doc.
God help you!
ReplyDeleteHe is Jerry. That's why I'm on this blog.
ReplyDeleteYour are bickering like little babies fighting over a toy. Come on get a life pls. Your use His name "Jesus" like ... like ... heck. No one wants to lose to another one's arguments so I advise both of you to stick to your own arguments and stop calleging the other's anymore.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless Both Of You