Yes, you read that right: at Red State, that bastion of solidly right-wing, conservative American political commentary, there’s a post arguing forcefully for marriage equality - from firmly conservative, firmly Christian principles. Sign of the times!

We know from opinion polls that as the American population as a whole is embracing gay marriage, Republicans, and those who describe themselves as Evangelical Christians, remain the most substantial block resisting change, but even there, younger people are an exception. Younger evangelicals, and younger Republicans, are beginning to embrace equal marriage (or alternatively, simply no longer obsessed with protecting existing marriage laws). So, mjdaniels at Red State is not alone - but he does make the case more clearly and more effectively than most.

Daniels is replying to an earlier post by Red State columnist Erick, who accused conservative supporters of marriage equality of compromisTing their beliefs for simple expediency, bowing to social pressure - an accusation that his reader firmly rejects - and reverses. After laying out his (formidable) credentials as a firmly conservative, committed Christian, he continues:

Then there’s this: I’m also a firm advocate for legalization of same-sex marriage.

At 32, I’m arguably one of those “younger evangelicals” Erick described in his article (though depending on your standard for judging such things, it can be argued that I am neither “young” nor “evangelical”).

To hear Erick describe it, people like me are “turning the American ideal of liberty into an idol we worship.” Ostensibly this is because Christians who support same-sex marriage are either (a) trying to thread the needle between “personal” and “political” beliefs, or (b) engaged in a futile attempt to mollify a world that hates, has always hated, and will always hate the Creator of the Universe, His Son, and those who follow Him.

Part of the motivation for Christian opposition, is the assumption that homosexuality is a sin, an assertion which we would expect Daniels to accept. Instead, he says (with Biblical support)

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

I. Do. Not. Care.

Luke 10 tells the story of a legal expert who queried Jesus about what was required to inherit eternal life. Christ turned the question back on its questioner, and this man whose entire life revolved around studying the law of God summed it up in two points: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

And Christ informed him that he had it exactly right.

That’s what is required to be a follower of Christ. I’m not called to hunt down sinful people, or question the faith of my friends and neighbors, or try to wield the power of the government to enforce my convictions on others.

Expanding on the importance of the commandment to love, he makes an even more remarkable statement for a committed US conservative Republican, one far more usually encountered among Christian progressives - that the Affordable Care Act is eminently Christ - like:

After all, Scripture speaks about homosexuality a bare handful of times. Conversely, caring for the poor is a key theme all throughout the Major and Minor Prophets, the Gospels and the Epistles. Israel is repeatedly condemned for abandoning the poor, sick and needy among them. The disciples and the early church are urged to care for those same poor and needy.

If, as the anti-SSM crowd would have it, the levers of State are to be wielded to enforce the commands of Scripture, then pardon me, but what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are we doing spending so much time, energy and effort fighting to overturn Obamacare? If the role of government is to enforce Biblical morality, isn’t Obamacare – providing the security of medical insurance coverage to a multitude of poor, sick people who couldn’t get it before, the most Christ-like thing the government has ever done??

He also draws on the familiar story of the Roman coin, and how the legal scholars tried to trap Jesus into making a misstep about paying taxes to Rome. Instead, the reply, as we all know, was, “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s”. From this, Daniels argues that issues around the legal definitions of marriage, should be left to the state - as the “things which are Caesar’s”, without obstruction by the churches.

But he does much more than suggest as some others have done, that conservatives should simply back off the matter. Instead, he provides two clear reasons for positive support:

• Many of the arguments against implementing SSM are, I believe, misguided, misleading or mistaken
• Marriage is a Good Thing, and a positive influence. I want that for as many people as possible.

 

Of the “bad arguments”, he lists these

1) The government has an overriding interest in procreation, and the most stable method for doing so is through families with two opposite-sex parents.

2) Getting government out of marriage altogether would be too unworkable. Since government HAS to be involved somehow, they ought to be involved by enforcing the “correct” definition of what marriage is??

3) The government is just acknowledging that “marriage” mean s what it has always meant

and responds:

1) If procreation is the overriding concern, then the government should also prohibit marriage for couples where one partner is infertile, prohibit contraception, vasectomies and hysterectomies, and encourage (not prohibit) polygamy.

2) In Israel (and, he could have added, many more countries in Europe), , civil and religious marriage are already firmly distinct in law. It’s really remarkable, he says, that conservatives who want government out of their lives, to be asking for state meddling in marriage.

3) The suggestion that the meaning of marriage cannot change, he rebuts simply by referring to the polygamous example of the Jewish patriarchs:

“Marriage has always been between one man and one woman” demonstrates a complete ignorance of both history and Scripture.

There’s nothing particularly new in any of these arguments, except for their source, a committed, conservative Christian. It’s not that long ago that support for same - sex marriage was a step too far even for Democrats and progressive Christians, but that is changing rapidly. Now, blue and purple state Democrats are falling over themselves to demonstrate support, and progressive Christians, even where they are unable to personally commit to support, are accepting that there is a religious case to be made - and deliberating over the implications.

As Republican politicians back off for reasons of political expediency, expect to see many more young, Christian conservatives making their views heard in explicit support - out of religious conviction, just as Daniels has done.

 

Related articles

• How Should Christians Respond to Gay Marriage? (queeringthechurch.com)
• Will The Social Cons Rebel? (dish.andrewsullivan.com)
• SWEETNESS: NOM Rally Against Marriage Equality Flops (releasedorothy.wordpress.com)
• “Christian Century” Editorial Backs Gay Marriage (queeringthechurch.com)
• When Will The GOP Evolve On Marriage? (dish.andrewsullivan.com)
• Yes, You Can Be Religious AND Support Marriage Equality (essence.com)