POLICY MAKING AND EXAMINED PREJUDICE
In a case that has caught the attention of those eager to promote the notion of a siege on Christianity, we find this comment from a reporter in Maine:
“They [the HRC] said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’
Two gay people standing up and saying, "I love you" doesn't obviously threaten anyone else's civil or religious liberty, does it? Given all that we know today, to say otherwise is tantamount to ignorance. It's an over-the-moon fallacy to suggest that merely asking for recognition of so much, even demanding it, is "hating" someone or something.On the other hand, why is holding a (privately) examined prejudice that would (publicly) deny "marriage" as a relationship recognition not seen as a denial of liberty, a restrictive act, a potentially misguided or even "hate filled" act, especially if one is wrong about that examined prejudice?
To be sure, there is more than one way to look at "hate" than in terms of civil liberty, but that is the proper context, I submit, for a civil dialog about it.
WWJD?
On Monday, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in New Jersey asked, as time wore on, "does anyone waiting to testify have something new to add?"
I do, especially for the Christians.
Here it is, part of it.
Rather than what the NOM New Jersey chairman asked, "What is the meaning of marriage?", I submit legislators should ask themselves, "What is the appropriate public policy, in the event that we are wrong about our personal judgments?"
Christ left clear "instructions" for decision making under uncertainty: Love one another and love the Father with all your heart (i.e. have humility).
If you can admit the possibility - the possibility - that homosexuality is not a choice for some, that it is, in fact, some part of God's good creation, natural for some*, then the course is clear. Humility and love would suggest making way in a just society for genuine expression of this kind.
Why? Because if one is wrong about making way, the harm is to the individuals, at most; and it is an inscrutable harm, as well, a question of conscience before God, as there is no worthy evidence that gay and lesbian people cannot live enlisted in the good fight. Any narrow purposes of the state remain fully served; their import for nongays, undiminished.
The idea that society or civilization crumble on the heels of this "mercy" is ludicrous, on face, and a vicious twisting of facts, at its worst. The real threat to civil society from sexual relations can be plainly articulated in other terms and should be fought by conservatives and progressives, orthodox and reform, alike.
This is why the retained, examined prejudice of some against gays and lesbians is NOT fully informative for public policy, is potentially gravely wrong, arrogant, bigoted, and hate-filled, to the extent that it is enforced by civil law or preached without care to its caustic consequences on gays and lesbians, especially the gay and lesbian kids.
Only with your heart will you see clearly the truth, that cries out through all the testimony you hear today.
Listen. Open your heart. Vote "Yes", without hesitation, knowing that it is the wise thing to do.
Christ left clear "instructions" for decision making under uncertainty: Love one another and love the Father with all your heart (i.e. have humility).
If you can admit the possibility - the possibility - that homosexuality is not a choice for some, that it is, in fact, some part of God's good creation, natural for some*, then the course is clear. Humility and love would suggest making way in a just society for genuine expression of this kind.
Why? Because if one is wrong about making way, the harm is to the individuals, at most; and it is an inscrutable harm, as well, a question of conscience before God, as there is no worthy evidence that gay and lesbian people cannot live enlisted in the good fight. Any narrow purposes of the state remain fully served; their import for nongays, undiminished.
The idea that society or civilization crumble on the heels of this "mercy" is ludicrous, on face, and a vicious twisting of facts, at its worst. The real threat to civil society from sexual relations can be plainly articulated in other terms and should be fought by conservatives and progressives, orthodox and reform, alike.
This is why the retained, examined prejudice of some against gays and lesbians is NOT fully informative for public policy, is potentially gravely wrong, arrogant, bigoted, and hate-filled, to the extent that it is enforced by civil law or preached without care to its caustic consequences on gays and lesbians, especially the gay and lesbian kids.
Only with your heart will you see clearly the truth, that cries out through all the testimony you hear today.
Listen. Open your heart. Vote "Yes", without hesitation, knowing that it is the wise thing to do.
*by the way, if one reads the Catholic Church's materials on this, they actually stipulate this is true! In their mistaken further analysis, they recommend celibacy; but, you know, for some, they are not suited to a posture of denial, of celibacy, that makes them rather like a cursed fig tree, but would rather their love shine forth, in its fullness.
