An argument the Religious Right continues to use against high-court rulings in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts concerning granting same-sex couples equal civil recognition of their relationships is that these accommodations are court-imposed – a tyranny of an unaccountable and activist judiciary. They claim that the responsibility for granting State recognition should be the domain of the legislatures, the people, only, and the courts should have no part in the establishment of what will be recognized as true “marriage.”
I agree that the legislatures of the various states are the places for the creation of laws. The courts are charged with interpreting the constitutionality of those laws. The problem here is that when the courts decide cases contrary to the will of the Religious Right, their recourse is to denigrate the judiciary. That is a dangerous road to take – the attempt to place in the public’s consciousness suspicion and mistrust of the vary institution that is charged with protecting our rights. This tactic will come back to bite them, no doubt.
They use this argument as a primary justification for their campaign to enact through state referenda amendments to state constitutions that (will) define marriage only as state-recognized unions between men and women, and to deny same-sex couples any accommodation that resembles marriage.
This seems to be a very weak basis for their arguments – or rather a weak justification for opposing the courts. They pin their hopes on the feelings of “the people” and those who represent them. What happens to their position when the tide of public opinion changes? When public opinion changes to favor some sort of State recognition of same-sex relationships and state legislatures begin approving laws that reflect this change, what will they then do? What then will be their argument or justification for opposing State recognition of same-sex relationships?
Basing arguments on a foundation as fickle as public sentiment is a foundation built on sand. When the strong winds of public opinion shift and blow in another direction, their campaign will fail. They would be wise to stir-up public opinion based on some other sort of rational. So, my question is whether they understand this or whether they truly have such a strong sense of the “rightness” of their cause, or as Stephen Colbert might say, “truthiness,” that they believe public opinion will never change to such an extent?
Constitutional amendments have been passed and rescinded. The new amendments to state constitutions baring recognition of same-sex relationships will be another example of this; it just depends on who extensive is the public hysteria, stirred up by their propaganda, over this issue and how long it will last. Their position may be arguable, but the foundation upon which they base their argument is not strong – it is profoundly weak.

This video on YouTube will make the Religious Right go into apoplectic fits. (originally Via Father Jake Stops the World, and then onto Elizabeth Kaeton’s blog)
Things are certainly different in the Netherlands.
I’ve wondered whether the decline in church involvement in much of Europe is a process of shedding the cultural and religious baggage that has so weighed down European Christianity in order for a more Christ-centered form of the faith to develop. I don’t know, but perhaps.
Then, will we have to suffer through a similar thing here in the U.S.? So much of what passes for the faith of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ is culturally American rather than that of a way of being and living that is alien to this world and its systems. Do we need to die to this form of “Church,” in whatever tradition, before we can simply be in God’s way of being?
What might this video and this young man singing about his two fathers suggest? To some, travesty, and to others it may mean much needed progress.

Fr. Jake references a critique of a new book, and then offers comments on the relationship between they mystery of God, our limited ability to understand God in His fullness, and those who demand an absolutist system of belief and how secular atheists tend to stereotype all Christians according to the very conservative and absolutist sort. It is an interesting post. Read it, if you will.

While listening to NPR this morning, I heard a news piece on the changing strategy of this administration for “The War on Terror.”
What struck me, as I think about my own reactions to things and the common responses we make as a nation, is the idea of where we go first within ourselves and within our national psyche when we respond to events and threats. Do we go first: to force, to negotiation, to acquiescence, to isolation, to dialogue, to the old tried methods, to the trendy, to the violent, to the verbose, or to the hypocritical? What is the nexus of our reaction: pride, haughtiness, fear, confidence, humility, true concern for others, cowardice, selfishness, arrogance, or intentional ignorance? Our better selves, or our worst selves?
There were two approaches, two worldviews, two mindsets battling for attention right after 9-11 as we searched ourselves for the right response. One approach was that of empire, force, dominance, and arrogance. The other may be based on a sense of self-absurdity that requires humility. We could have approached this tragedy and the complex issues surrounding it with a response by which we are able to convince the majority of people who we see as the “problem” of our way, our perspective – peace, freedom, co-existence, development, mutual respect if not agreement. It can be said to be a battle of minds, ideas, or beliefs. It seems that the way of Rumsfeld eclipsed the way of Powell. Military vs. State.
We settled for a “War on Terror,” rather than a battle of ideas and ways of thinking for the hearts and minds of those “other” people. We settled for a war that requires no sacrifice on the home-front, just our sons and daughters in foreign lands and the countless killed in other own countries. Are we more secure or not? Are Iraqis better off – really? My hope is that we will in fact come through this in one piece and that Iraq will develop into a stable democracy. Yet, only after undeniable failure is this administration finally willing to consider that “staying the course” will only make things worse. A new way of thinking is needed – perhaps the way of thinking that was rejected in the beginning.
There are those who will fight to kill and with whom there is no mutual agreement possible – they will kill to achieve their goals. They are tyrants and dictators. These people are not the majority of Arab and Muslims, but the majority could come to sympathize with the terrorists. If we choose to respond and react like those who will kill and destroy to achieve their ends, we become like them – unworthy of the respect, cooperation, or allegiance of those found in the middle of the crisis and on the battlefield.
We have been losing the battle of ideas, of minds, of affections over the past years because we try to be tougher and more menacing then the terrorists. We have become like them, and we have lost the minds, the emotions, and the respect of Arabs, Muslims, and much of the world. I really don’t care whether we are liked or not, but I do care whether we are respect for our integrity, honesty, consistency, and willingness to seek solutions that enable everyone to be a piece – perhaps not agreement or acceptance, but at least at peace. Idealistic?, perhaps, but we really do need a new way of thinking about the situations we are in worldwide.