Gay Marriage: Time to Get Over It

This is not just my view, it is the view of a gentleman who is considered to be the leader of the religious right’s intellectual wing.   Dr. Albert Mohler’s remarks can be seen at Christianpost.com.  He is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

Mohler also registered his litany of complaints about other things.  He believes the President should have maintained opposition to the case for gay marriage.  He encourages everyone to keep working to turn around the public’s support.

Nevertheless, he said, Christians need to prepare for the normalization of gay marriage.  “I think it’s clear that something like same-sex marriage is going to become normalized, legalized and recognized in the culture. It’s time for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that,” he said.

So far as I know, this is the first Christian right celebrety to admit it is time to recognize that the legal argument against gay marriage is over. Mohler made another interesting prediction about acceptance inside the evagelical community. 

“I think we’re going to be surprised and heartbroken over how many people are going to capitulate to the spirit of the age,” he noted.  “We’re going to find now that there may not be as many of us as we thought.”

Long ago, I came to believe that if gay people could tell their story to the general public, discrimination against them would end.  Acceptance of gay marriage is a good step forward.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Gay Marriage: Time to Get Over It

  1. Tyler says:

    John,

    So I am glad I am a Catholic…anyways, Question 1 for you on this topic:

    1. Hypothetical: If there was no legal recognition of the union of anybody in the tax code and that marriage was completely regulated to the world of the private with no official government recognition of any 2 individuals or parties of people would that be okay with you?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Tyler 3:30 I actually like that question. But, focusing on the tax code seems to overlook all kinds of things. I know lots of gay couples and with current laws, they have to pay for legal help to navigate the most simple of things–inheritance, ownership, potential illnesses, children–it goes on and on. Marriages are contracts with the legal issues of contracts. Marriages need the government’s stamp. I’m for the truely traditional marriage. Traditional marriages were done by government, not representatives of religion. Families and tribes, the only government there was, arranged marriages for the good of the group. Churches only butted in on the marriages later on.

      • Tyler says:

        Jon,

        But you still didn’t answer my question. If the government did not recognize these unions of any kind. If the laws could be made to deal with the problems you mentioned without the legal recognition would you be okay with that? So that the only recoginition of a union of 2 or more individuals could be done by private organizations like Churches, etc. Let’s start there first please. Obviously to my mind if the Government does not recognize my marriage or two practicing homosexuals marriage we are equal under the law, in that the government will neither confirm nor deny our unions. What say you?

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Tyler 5:11 You are correct I did not address directly your hypthetical. I enjoy hypotheticals, but I can’t get my arms around this one because its nonsensical. That is, there is no marriage without the legal standing that the government provides. It’s like asking, “What would it be like if there were no marriages but people were married anyway?” If you eliminated all government marriage, there would simply be no “institution of marriage”.

          • Tyler says:

            John,

            There is a lot to pick on regarding your answer including the rabbit hole implications by your answer you gave, that the Government has “Quasi-God” like status in your world and only “It”, like my Judeo-Christian God, can recognize a marriage, which I reject.

            I wish you would just play out my hypothetical but you refuse to do so. It doesn’t take a genius to know why.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Tyler 3:38 I’m disappointed myself that I’m unable to do the mental gymnastics required in your hypothetical. Something else occurred to me about the article that fits in a little here. The authors do a little slight of hand at the beginning. They say, “A marriage is not just a contract.” They agree implicitely that it is a contract stamped by government. But, then they drop the contract part of it and in 20 pages never discuss it again. To them, and it seems to you, the marriage is one per cent contract and 99% moral and religious issues. To me, and to our legal system, it is 99% the contract. Another way of saying this is that to yourself and the authors, the spiritual realm is the real issue, but the practical world of settling who owns what, who has an obligation to do what and what is fair and not fair, is not important,or, not as important. I just happen to see it the other way around. I like the issues you bring up.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Tyler 3:38 Just another bit of responce about my “Quasi-God”, government. Yes, I admire the Quasi-God, government. It first establishes that a marriage took place by virtue of the Marriage License. Many legal issues fall out from that. Then, if the marriage should fail, the Quasi-God has a process that divides up the assets aquired and dissolves the marriage. No one goes to a Pastor or Priest to dissolve the marriage and divide up the assets. Their god just is unable to do that.

  2. boatrocker says:

    Well lets all stand up and shout hurray. Its seems that this blog author can ONLY make insults and derogatory statements towards Christians. I asked him in another blog to STATE what is so great about being atheist well he didn’t . He failed to defend his position . I would think someone who taught @ NDSU should be smart and strong enough to articulate his position on any subject . From his bio I read he an ex elected official for 16 years I guess he learned to speak from both sides of his mouth and still be able not to say anything meaningful. I don’t know who coined the phrase Politically Correct but for me I don’t care. I for one like to old way of doing things majority RULES so if you a minority your out of luck learn to live by the norms and mores of the majority its has worked that way for a long time and no need to change now. I have one question if gay life and marriage is so great how can you reproduce with just xx and yy on their own .

    • PK says:

      When has Jon said anything insulting or derogatory towards Christians? We live in a Constitutional Republic. Majority rules isn’t how our government is supposed to work. A republic protects the rights of every individual, not just the majority.

  3. entech says:

    Interesting post, Pk, Tyler and the others posting here are interested in discussing and expounding their beliefs and ideas, often vehemently but not truly derogatory. There are many places that descend to vulgar abuse and they become very boring very quickly.
    Tocqueville in his book(s) “Democracy in America” had high hopes, but he also warned of the “Tyranny of the Majority”.
    David

    • Tyler says:

      David,

      You assume to much. Primarily that “I” am in need of “Expounding my beliefs and ideas” and not the other way around.

      • entech says:

        Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, but, I did say interested not need. I find it all very interesting and useful in considering where my own beliefs and ideas come from, where they might lead as well as whether I can reasonably sustain them in light of different views.

        David

  4. Tyler says:

    As I await John’s answer and I’m hoping he takes the questions seriously instead of side-stepping it take a look at the following. Below is a link to paper by Sherif Girgis, Princeton University Department of Philosophy, Robert George, Princeton University – Department of Politics, Ryan T. Anderson, University of Notre Dame Department of Political Science…published recently in the Harvard Journal of Law 2010 Winter Edition entitled “What is Marriage?”

    The Professors give a very rigorous defense of marriage as one man/one woman and make a “Secular” case in law for its defense. I am sure it is meant to be the foundation of a legal argument as well as possibly many other tangent strings including, and I cringe that I actually have to say this, “Classical Marriage Apologetics”. But people like John are in love with the idea of turning the world upside-down more so than any one specific cause…to people like John..gay marriage is a means to a utilitarian utopian end.

    Thoughtful people of all opinions on this matter..you can read the abstract here and follow the link to download and read the whole paper in PDF Format.

    http://www.nomri.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=luLSJ8MQKrH&b=6408089&ct=8989801

    For those of you poor naive folk that think the culture war ends with Gay Marriage, think again…better yet have Maggie Gallagher do your thinking for you. She recently wrote an excellent commentary entitled: “The Left’s Endless Culture War”. Read it here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/23/the_lefts_endless_culture_war_108997.html

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Tyler 5:02 I appreciate you finding that article and posting it. I had not heard of it. I would reccommend to other readers here who have the time to look over a 20 page academic article to do so. I also had wondered from time to time what arguments might be made against gay marriage if one never used phrases like “God intended…”, etc. And, I wondered why the Obama administration refused to defend the Fed law. That is, I wondered why they concluded the case was so weak it was futile to defend. If this article was the best legal defense that can be mustered in opposition to gay marriage, it seems to me the case is lost before it even begins. It’s hard to get into discussing a 20 page article in these bits of writing we do here, but I’ll try to summarized my take on it. The authors seemed to come back always to producing children–that’s what marriage is and always has been about. They discuss infertility in marriage but without too much success, IMHO. Their biggest ommission was not discussing the state’s interest in allowing gay marriage. That is, gay couples pledge to care for one another in sickness and in health. I, a straight person, have an interest in this because the single person will not require as much taxpayer support. Another weakness in the article was speculating on what we might call the “where will this lead” concern. They did not bring out the old saw “this will lead to marriages between chickens and people”. But, they came pretty close. They almost predicted it would lead to polygamy. Of course, all change can lead to unintended consequences. But, those risks have to be balanced with the benfits. In addition, they did not address one huge part of the entire argument, how can the government leave gay people with the legal and economic standing of married people without granting them marriage. If you don’t have an argument to oppose that, case closed. Anyway, I enjoyed seeing the article, even if it doesn’t add anything to the case against gay marriage.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        When I look at this subject; I consider “The Doctrine of the Two Realms /Spheres, (the difference, the seperation, and the relationship.) I also consider the current term “Seperation of Church and State, (a shallow term), (the difference, the seperation, and the relationship). Both of these relate to the seperation and connection between the sacred and the secular. Another consideration is (in some groups), a definition of differences in ” Sacrament, Sacramental, and non-sacramental. Unfortunately, neither side is willing to understand the forementioned. My personal answer to this situation is the entirety of of Joshua 24;15, with particular emphasis to…”As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord”. I can’t force anyone to comply, nor should I. If I did, my credability would be void no matter what side I was on.

  5. entech says:

    Seems to me that too many people can’t see the difference between rites and rights.
    In a shrinking country town near where I live an old wooden church was de-consecrated and sold. The new owners renovated it and started a small restaurant, there was an uproar – surely there is a difference between the church and the building.

    David

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      “The blind man is King in Bogota”

      • entech says:

        Thank you for that. Takes me back 50 or 60 years, I can clearly remember teachers encouraging discussion of the didactic aspects of Dickens, Charles Kingsley and similar authors. But I mainly remember Wells for his science fiction and overlook some of the beauty and insights of his writing.
        David

        • entech says:

          PS. Should have added that his adoption of Eugenics is totally abhorrent.
          David

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            David; I totally agree with you on the eugenics part. There is also a consideration ; that at that time, the horrible results hadn’t yet come to its final conclusion, that is to say the holocost, and some of the practices that resulted. The rule of unintended consequences may apply here. In the final analysis though, Wells seems to forshadow a semi-dark side. I just don’t know. G K Chesterton did have a problem with Well’s overall phylosophy, along with other “Progressives” of that time, which has spilled over into the present.

  6. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Same gender couples want equal protection under the law that is provided by the purchase of a government document.

    Then, like every other couple on earth; we can decide which (if any) religious organization we would wish to sanctify and celebrate the purchase of that document.

    Or not.

  7. entech says:

    Wanna. Agreed, even the best of intentions can lead to awful results. In the end we are all brothers and sisters.

    David

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>