Free Markets, Free People

RedState.com

On casting stones at same-sex couples

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson promoted a post in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage by “mjdaniels,” a Christian conservative and long-time lurker there.  It’s a long post that makes a number of good points, but he ultimately makes a number of rhetorical errors that give his fellow Christian conservatives an easy way out, and they did fix on those errors.  So it is that the people I see praising his argumentation with the fewest reservations are mostly not currently practicing Christians or self-identified conservatives.

Among those errors, the biggest was probably when he said, “Is Homosexuality a Sin? I. Do. Not. Care.”  Christians are supposed to care whether others sin. The proper question is the duty others have to sinners. And behold all the RedState regular commenters saying that they’re called to rebuke sin and lead sinners away from sin, out of love.  Many deny that enshrining these rebukes in legal exclusivity is tantamount to “hunting down sinful people,” and they claim that it isn’t them but same-sex marriage activists who are trying to “wield the power of the government to enforce my convictions on others.”

I’d sorely like to see how his fellow Christian conservatives would respond if they couldn’t focus on those errors.  In particular, I wished “mjdaniels” had better focused on something he only said in passing at the end of his post: that opponents of same-sex marriage were essentially calling for “casting the first stone at” this set of sinners.

It seems to me that when persuading Christian conservatives, one should be absolutely clear that the status quo is coercion – discriminatory taxes and inheritance rules, and denying the right to contract, all of which conservatives agree is state coercion when it’s applied to them – and that when Jesus was challenged to support such coercion (stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, according to Mosaic Law), he in turn challenged the teachers of law and Pharisees that the first stone should be cast by one who is without sin.  When no one would stone her, he said he would not condemn her that way either, and he simply told her to leave her life of sin.

If even Jesus doesn’t think it’s humans’ place to punish violations of one of the Ten Commandments dealing with marriage, then it’s an uphill climb for a Christian conservative to argue that it’s their duty to uphold the use of such force based on moral strictures that are much less clear.

I find it baffling that conservatives think the government is capable of making a compact sacred by calling it a marriage, but there I see it in the RedState comments.  Do they teach their children that the state’s refraining from coercion is an indication of societal approval of a behavior?  No; what is not prohibited is merely left to be governed by the other aspects of civil society (the family, the market, churches, social pressure, etc.) and, if Christians are correct, God’s ultimate judgment.

A note to RedState.com

I probably should make it clear that while I’m pointing to RedState.com in the title I’m addressing a particular blogger there.   That would be Aaron Gardner who has penned a post entitled “A note to GOProud and other libertarian Tea Partiers”.  The crux of his message is that the appeal by GOProud and other members of the Tea Party  petitioning the new Republican majority in the House not to get wrapped around the social conservative axle but focus on limited government and fiscal sanity isn’t  welcome or appropriate.

As he chooses to put it, these groups have “decided to tell the GOP to put SoCons in the back of the bus”.

Gardner then appoints himself the sole arbiter of what is or isn’t acceptable for the GOP after essentially scolding those who asked the SoCon agenda be secondary to that of the issues that got the GOP elected.

Or to put it another way, as with any successful movement those that had no  part in its success now want to dictate how it will be run.  And in this case, that would be the SoCons.

Gardner then issues this  rather interesting graphic warning.

Let me break this down as simply as I can below the fold.

If we abort this:

gop-pro-life-300x199

Then, this dies with it.:

teaparty4-300x238

Choose … wisely.

 

Huh. Let me see if I can return the favor graphically:

 

The GOP enjoys the majority it now has because of this …

teaparty4-300x238

Without a word about this …

gop-pro-life-300x199

Choice made.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!