Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

Email Received

The following is an email we received. It reflects the attitude of a large number of fundamentalists and the more conservative evangelicals…a group that makes up a large component of the Tea Party movement.

The spirit behind the email boldly reflections what is termed as “American exceptionalism”….that America is the most enlightened country in the world, that it was created by God, whatever America does is right and the best, and its mission is to bring American democracy Republican democracy to the world. It also means that Americans cannot learn from other countries. as such cannot learn anything from other countries.

Though the content of email is posted as received, the font size was more than three times what follows.


WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN,


OR WHATEVER, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?


'My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq & Afghanistan regime has been completed.

Since Congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq & Afghanistan is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq & Afghanistan. This action will be complete within 30 days.. It is now time to begin the reckoning.


Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the

names of countries which have stood by our side during this conflict This list is short .. The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER It'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France ..

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations: Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China .

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin

towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors: Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. Its

president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple thousand extra tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska -which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens.. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.'

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet It is time to eliminate hunger in America . It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought : You might want to learn to

speak Arabic.

God bless America .. Thank you and good night.'

If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.

(Please forward this to at least ten friends and see what happens! Let's get this to every USA computer!)

An Irresponsible Statement From the Pastoral Office

On August 16, Reverend Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, an “old-fashioned, independent, fundamental, King James only, separated Baptist church” in Tempe Arizona informed his congregation that he is praying for the death of President Barack Obama. Anderson stated the he prays that Obama “dies and goes to hell.” He went on to say, “If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes. I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.” He not only mentioned it in his sermon, but has posted that sermon on his web site.

I do not know Anderson, but his statements alarm me on several levels. While I will not judge his spiritual standing, I do judge such statements as lunacy, irresponsible and most unbecoming of a man in his position. While we could be tempted to dismiss Anderson as a very rare case, he is not. Over the course of the last twenty years a good number of fundamentalist and evangelicals leaders, ministers and laity who have and continue to demonize those who do not think like them.

The roots of such thinking stem back to the early 1980s to Jerry Falwell’s defunct and failed “Moral Majority”. Falwell rightly encouraged the faith community to be engaged in the political sphere and to make decisions on voting not by party but by faith measures. It is the latter where the failed legacy of the Moral Majority’s continues to linger. Instead of encouraging people to make decisions in a balanced way on a wide host of issues and values they made at the time four issues exclusive measures, a) reversal of Rowe v. Wade, b) fighting the passage of the ERA – legislation that recognized the equality of women both in the home, law courts and work-place, c) fighting passage civil-rights laws, and d) standing firm against any laws that recognize gays as having and civil protection in the work-place or from prosecution. Since, the religious right has kept to a very narrow agenda and has increasingly become an extension of the right wing of the Republican party.

As for Anderson, let me deal with the cancer statement first. Anderson has implied that brain cancer is a divine judgment and rightly fitting those who are destined to hell. No doubt about it cancer is a curse but it is a curse that falls upon the just and the unjust. To imply that those who have cancer are under some sort of divine judgment is preaching a gospel that is not found in the Bible and but is a false man-made gospel.

Rather than starting with the Word and allowing it to speak and shape his mind, it is clear from these few statements that like all too many other’s on the far right that Anderson starts with a political position and belief system and then uses carefully selected Bible passages to justify his preconceived bias while dismissing others that would not support such a view. In other words he is an extreme Republican who happens to be a Christian and uses the church and the Bible to support his political views.

What is most alarming is not his views, but the context and venue in which they are uttered. As a citizen of the United States he is free to hold any view he so desires whether they are grounded in truth or not. Also he is free to express them freely to the cheers or jeers of the listener.

I take issue with Anderson as these comments are spoken from the office of pastor and in the venue of worship. Credible seminaries carefully remind their students that what one says from the pulpit and in the context of the pastoral office must done thoughtfully. They remind their students that the listener views their words as a divine message more than merely the opinion of a man or woman. Such views are taken seriously by their congregants and some will accept them uncritically. A thoughtless personal opinion the pastor sees as “just my opinion” is viewed as a divine opinion by the listener. The pastor therefore must be guarded in his opinion and is advised to be cautious in uttering them within the contexts of a sermon, prayer, worship, pastoral counseling, or pastoral pronouncements. Anderson either was never taught this wise instruction or he has ignored this fundamental pastoral teaching.

As mentioned, as a citizen he has a right to speak these things. If he said them apart from the pastoral role and worship I would have no issue as such other than to say that I would disagree. But to state these things as part of worship or in the formal context of fulfillign the pastoral role is another issue.

That said, many other evangelical and fundamentalist leaders likewise ignore the wisdom of their thoughtful teachers. Too many start with a political agenda, speak on that agenda while using faith statements to justify their position, without most in their congregations realizing that they minister has misused his office and Scripture to push a political agenda. What is also disturbing is that many pastors do not realize that they are starting with an external manmade agenda and labeling it as God’s agenda.

The response from the religious community at large when a religious leader utters such statements is disappointing. Instead of their supervisors and peers speaking out in various ways against such thinking, they remain silent, and thereby tacitly indicate that such an utterance is acceptable. Since Anderson is an independent fundamentalist separate Baptist, he has no supervisors or peer system to hold him accountable. It is up to the church and individuals at large to speak out against such statements, statements that harm civil discourse as well as the church body as a whole in the eyes of the world at large.

Conservative, Strict-constructionist Judiciary

As noted in my earlier post of November 10 I noted that in America the far political right holds that government has a narrow role to play in society. As part of their argument they frequently speak out about the need to eliminate “judicial activism”, that is, the courts by their ruling expanding civil liberties. They heatedly argue for a strict understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not within an evolving civil context but within the original setting. They hold that it is a travesty to read into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights issues not envisioned or addressed by the Founding Fathers.

Until recently have been somewhat perplexed by the strength of this narrow understanding of the role of the judiciary within the religious right who like Dr. Dobson openly call for the President and Congress to appointment “conservative, strict-constructionist judges.” They want judges who will strike down rulings laws that expand civil liberties, impact personal and corporate property and trade rights that are not in keeping with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Three issues drive their viewpoint,
1. Abortion
2. Gay rights and marriage
3. Broadening of the definition of the separation of Church and State which has led to the removal of the Lords’ Prayer and prayer in general from schools and the public square.

In all three areas the courts issued created rulings that permitted abortion, accepted the gay lifestyle that citizens are free to pursue rather than imprisoned as sexual perverts, and recognized the rights the validity of non-Christian faiths without being confronted daily in government settings by government sanctioned Christian worship and expression.

Many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians would freely nod in agreement that the courts have been prime movers in these areas. Hence, their stand against judicial activism makes sense, at least within a narrow context of just these issues over recent decades.

Their position puts the conservative strict-constitutionalist in a position of affirming that the courts were:
1. Correct in upholding the Dred Scott ruling and that slavery is an acceptable practice.
2. Wrong is upholding and expanding child labor laws.
3. Wrong is upholding minimum wage laws that helped to break the cycle of indentured servitude to their employers.
4. Wrong in its rulings such as Brown vs. the Board of education that integrated public schools.
5. Wrong in ruling after ruling of civil rights cases that eliminated segregation
6. Wrong in helping to define and uphold truancy laws.
7. Wrong in issuing rulings that eliminated laws that institutionalized the mentally handicapped.
8. Wrong in issuing rulings that allowed the mentally and physically handicapped to attend the same public schools as their neighbors rather than “special schools.”
9. Wrong in invalidating legal contracts with children that were not signed by the parents.
10. Wrong in granting Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent and be interrogated only with one’s lawyer present).
11. Wrong in allowing those who appear before the court to have a translator when they do not speak English.
12. Wrong in addressing in firm terms lynching and other forms of rush to judgments by the public.
13. Wrong in defining due processes that we now all value as part of our judicial system.
14. Wrong in defining slander and issuing other statements that affect the public safety of others, such as screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, as not protected free speech.

A host of other issues could be added to above list. While the modern strict-constructionist would distance himself/herself from issues on the list, by the very nature of their static view of justice, they are against each of the civil rights issues in the above list. If one is a strict-constructionist, one cannot pick and choose what rulings are judicial activist rulings were appropriate or not appropriate.

Even though the courts may issues rulings with which I do not agree, I am pleased that our judicial system recognizes that society progresses and evolves, and the laws need to be understood afresh within that changing context. Though we hold our Founding Fathers in respect, a dynamic view of the judiciary recognizes that their views and writings are not divine writ. They may have been insightful, but they did not envision our contemporary society with its plethora of issues, nor are their views without flaws that subsequent generations have had to address.

I am pleased with a dynamic posture of the judiciary for a fixed view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not justice. A static posture is blind legalism which as the decades pass creates an unjust judicial system that lacks wisdom.