Florida anti-marriage amendment

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...g_b_76877.html

The article points out that this is another Republican get out the vote for their 2008 presidential candidate effort.

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

It is amazing to me how organized these people are. It looks like a solid 90% of the organizing has been done through local congregations. They even have Marriage Sundays where local pastors can preach on the virtues of marriage.

http://www.florida4marriage.org/

[Emproph]

There are some quotes to die for in that article.

One fortunate thing in all this though, last election we passed an amendment requiring that all future amendments needed a 60% majority to pass, as opposed to simple majority.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

The article points out that this is another Republican get out the vote for their 2008 presidential candidate effort.

This is certainly the thesis of the article. I don't think the thesis is entirely correct. It is tempting to think that these "boobs" are puppets of the Republican Machine and the amendment is another "happy meal" on the road to the next Republican President.

If you look at their site, the vast majority of the petition drive occurred within Florida congregations. This type of political activity flows out of deeply held beliefs in these communities that are enshrined in the social creeds of the National Association of Evangelicals and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both of these social creeds make two challenges: for political engagement by the church and for protection of marriage between a man and a woman. Upholding heterosexual marriage is considered a fundamental social mandate.

Here are the social creeds for reference:

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizen...CStatement.pdf

National Association of Evangelicals:
http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf

Calling these people "boobs" with "happy meal" politics, while amusing, completely misunderstands the sincerity with which they are engaging in their work at stopping our civil rights advances.

[Zerbie]

Sincere or not, they're still playing right into the hands of politicians who deliberately use gay rights and abortion to get voters to vote against their own best interests. If I were at home right now, I could pull a book off the shelf where it cites that quoted.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Sincere or not, they're still playing right into the hands of politicians who deliberately use gay rights and abortion to get voters to vote against their own best interests. If I were at home right now, I could pull a book off the shelf where it cites that quoted.

I am not disagreeing with you on this point. They are definitely going to get voters for the Republican party. After all, that is where they find the most shelter for their ideas. It is a very symbiotic relationship. That said, they are operating from sincerely held beliefs based on their social creeds.

So how do you engage them? Calling them "boobs" playing "happy meal" politics is not going to be very effective.

I personally think that they need to be engaged with serious theological reflection on what the Bible really actually says about homosexuality. They need to be engaged with a solid ethical creed on how to treat homosexual people with dignity and justice. They need to be engaged with theological reflection on the proper role of the Christian church in society.

They take themselves seriously, but they are seriously wrong. I just don't see the Biblical or theological justification for what they are doing in American society. They need to return to an authentic faith.

[Steven E. Webster]

Calling these people "boobs" with "happy meal" politics, while amusing, completely misunderstands the sincerity with which they are engaging in their work at stopping our civil rights advances.

Anthony,
I think you are right to question the "boobs" and "happy meal" language. I don't think that's a fair characterization. I was more interested in what little meat there was to the story and not the childish put downs of our adversaries.

However, it was abundantly clear in Wisconsin, where I live, that the whole timing of the Amendment thing was to advantage the Republican party. Had they really thought the protection of marriage to be an urgent matter, they could have placed the amendment on a ballot at least 18 months earlier than they did. They deliberately delayed putting it on the ballot until the Democratic Governor was up for election. This was in 2006. The whole thing blew up in the Republican's face in Wisconsin--they lost the Governor's race, a U.S. House seat, control of the State senate, and several seats in the state Assembly. The loss was due to an unusual number of kids coming out to vote in college towns, because they had been motivated to vote for marriage equality.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I have to admit that I tend to identify with the Democrats and so from time to time I display maybe too much partisan feeling against the Republicans--however it strikes me that the Republican party has consistently placed itself on the wrong side of moral issues that will ultimately go against them. Examples of this: Republican opposition to the civil rights movement of the 60's means that now African Americans are one of the most solidly Democratic voting blocks. After trying to court the Hispanic vote for many years, the Republican party is now positioning itself as the anti-immigrant party is poised to hand over the Hispanic voting block to the Democrats as well. Do the Republicans show their Log Cabin (LGBT) Republicans much respect--no, and they make it difficult for LGBT people to support their party. Now young people are much more sympathetic to LGBT equality and are identifying less with the GOP.

The recent Barna Group data suggests that the Christian Church is also positioning itself to lose support among the younger generations who now view the church as backward and "anti-homosexual" and "too political" (I read that as "too Republican").

Steven Webster

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

I am not disagreeing with you on this point. They are definitely going to get voters for the Republican party. After all, that is where they find the most shelter for their ideas. It is a very symbiotic relationship. That said, they are operating from sincerely held beliefs based on their social creeds.

So how do you engage them? Calling them "boobs" playing "happy meal" politics is not going to be very effective.

I personally think that they need to be engaged with serious theological reflection on what the Bible really actually says about homosexuality. They need to be engaged with a solid ethical creed on how to treat homosexual people with dignity and justice. They need to be engaged with theological reflection on the proper role of the Christian church in society.

They take themselves seriously, but they are seriously wrong. I just don't see the Biblical or theological justification for what they are doing in American society. They need to return to an authentic faith.

Oh, I mistook you to be saying that the marriage amendments were a grassroots effort rather than a constructed wedge issue. Sorry.

I was alienated by the name calling too. Those are the folks we need to reach and persuade. Name calling won't do that.

If it were me though, I would engage them in a dialogue not of theology but of the civil realm. Point out to them the various repercussions of voting for the whole kit & kaboodle, in particular, describing the effects these marriage amendments have of erasing centuries of tradition of "common law" marriages, etc. That's assuming we're having an immediate conversation in the short term during a ballot initiative campaign. A community-wide theological discussion is highly unlikely to have an impact on anyone's voting decision, whereas the specific repercussions of the ballot initiatives may. It did in AZ.

For the long haul, the theological conversation needs to happen, but I'm not someone to have it with them. Maybe you are. Soulforce generally is well poised for this type of work, seems.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by antonyh

[...]they are operating from sincerely held beliefs based on their social creeds.
[...]
I personally think that they need to be engaged with serious theological reflection on what the Bible really actually says about homosexuality. They need to be engaged with a solid ethical creed on how to treat homosexual people with dignity and justice. They need to be engaged with theological reflection on the proper role of the Christian church in society.

As I see it, it’s not the theological position that is the inherent threat, it’s the politicization of it.

There are only so many people they can mobilize based on Scripture alone, religious people included. To convince the rest, they need to lie about us in order to make it appear gay marriage / people are a tangible threat. In so doing they simultaneously confirm the “evilness” of our sin to the religious fence sitters, and also make the basis of the issue a secular one that no longer necessitates Scriptural backing.

The whole purpose of illegitimately and dishonestly demonizing us (Florida4marriage) is to undermine any discussion that may be had on “how to treat homosexual people with dignity and justice.”

Scriptural views on homosexuality notwithstanding, I don’t see much hope for any meaningful engagement with them on the theological issue of same-gender attraction until the ethical issue of honesty and integrity can be engaged in and agreed upon.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

If it were me though, I would engage them in a dialogue not of theology but of the civil realm. Point out to them the various repercussions of voting for the whole kit & kaboodle, in particular, describing the effects these marriage amendments have of erasing centuries of tradition of "common law" marriages, etc.

It is already the case that many states simply do not recognize "common law marriages." If Florida already does not recognize common law marriage, the proposed amendment won't change that.

I understand that your state, Zerbie, was successful for "our side" because there are lots of heterosexual retirees in Arizona who were convinced that the Amendment would negatively effect their domestic partnership arrangements. There are also many retirees in Florida--is there a similar opportunity?

Arizona, so far, is the only state to turn back one of these ballot initiatives on marriage. It remains to be seen whether the success in your state, Zerbie, can be repeated elsewhere. I hope it can!

Steve W.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

The recent Barna Group data suggests that the Christian Church is also positioning itself to lose support among the younger generations who now view the church as backward and "anti-homosexual" and "too political" (I read that as "too Republican").

Yes, and herein is the opportunity. There is a growing sense among Evangelical Christians that the way the Religious Right has been treating homosexuals conflicts with the core of their faith. This "holy war" is not how you treat people made in the image of God. This political engagement is not what the church was called to be.

This is why I am suggesting that this is the time for a theologically sound, majestically written ethical statement on treating homosexual people with dignity and justice. Emproph is correct that this is the first step. The next steps would need to follow.

Then you can actively track the actions of the religious right and place their actions within the framework of this ethical statement. Sounds like an interesting blog idea.

Zerbie, I hear you about engagement in the civil realm. But they are theologically driven just like the Taliban. They believe their beliefs. I just think the best answer is to hold them to the standards of their faith which most fundamentally is "to love your neighbor as yourself".

So what would need to be done to get this ethical statement written?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by antonyh

This is why I am suggesting that this is the time for a theologically sound, majestically written ethical statement on treating homosexual people with dignity and justice. Emproph is correct that this is the first step. The next steps would need to follow.

Then you can actively track the actions of the religious right and place their actions within the framework of this ethical statement. Sounds like an interesting blog idea.

So what would need to be done to get this ethical statement written?

It does sound like an interesting idea. And simple enough too. Basically a glorified statement saying you pledge not to lie about LGBT people.

Rick Warren comes to mind. Not sure about the writing of it, but it would definitely need the stamp of someone of his type of public stature. Religious conservative in the Scriptural homosexuality sense, but integral in the honesty department. (correct me if I'm wrong)
~~~

The Church – the greatest force on Earth
by Rick Warren

4. The Church provides the fastest expansion.

Why is fast expansion important? If you’ve got a problem that’s growing at a rapid rate, then you need a solution that will grow even more rapidly. For instance, HIV/AIDS is growing at an incredibly fast rate in the world. Yet thank God the Church is outgrowing the disease, so more and more believers can help minister to those with HIV/AIDS.

If we’re going to tackle global giants like poverty, disease, or illiteracy, then we must be part of something that’s growing faster than the problem. The Church is doing just that!

http://www.rickwarren.com/

I'm not a fan, specifically because of his "Biblical" stance on gays, but if he can be reached as to the ethical problem, he'd be an ideal candidate to helping spread the solution.

P.S. Jim Wallis also comes to mind.