On Gay Marriage, Intolerance Cuts Both Ways - or does it?

On Gay Marriage, Intolerance Cuts Both Ways | RealClearPolitics

This is an intriguing emerging perspective and I'm not sure how I feel about it.  Should the SBC been held to account for their historical support of slavery and, subsequently, segregation?  I believe so.  Their moral authority to speak to the current marriage equality debate is critically compromised precisely because of this history.  They were wrong on people of color. They have been and continue to be wrong about women in society and the church.  They're wrong about LGBT people and marriage equality.  Why shouldn't their feet be held to the fire as a matter of moral accountability? How does that get defined as "intolerance"? Seems Orwellian double-speak to me.

I think that opposition to marriage equality is fundamentally rooted in bigotry, however it is rationalized and justified.  I see no essential distinction between religious arguments in support of opposite-sex only marriage and the religious arguments in support of slavery and segregation.  Ultimately the arguments are repugnant and do a disservice to the very Gospel they purport to serve.  Using those religious-based arguments in the civil arena is especially a no-go. So, being on the business end of this kind of discrimination, we're supposed to simply let it go and not call the perpetrators to moral account?  I don't get that.

On a minor note, reading about what was happening behind the scenes of the 2004 presidential campaign is endlessly fascinating.  The public persona of President Bush apparently simply didn't match his private beliefs.  Politics at it's worst.

No comments: