Marriage by a pastor is completely different [from marriage by a judge] and should be taken much more seriously then [sic] it is by people of God. Marriage is a covenant and you can't understand marriage if you don't truly know the meaning of covenant. Marriage by a pastor is a lifelong, unbreakable contract between 3 entities. A man, a woman, and God. [sic] So if the government is telling me I have to perform a marriage for people who don't understand this, then YES I am against that.Only one paragraph after averring a position of tolerance (at least one or two gays might make it into Heaven) we have one of the most intolerant declarations possible, and ultimately my biggest criticism of modern American Christianity. Reading between the lines we see that 1) only marriage before God is lifelong and can be taken seriously and 2) the only marriage God will bless is one between a man and a woman, as done by a pastor.
As to matter one, we know that even marriage declared before God is no more lifelong than baby teeth. If books like Eat, Pray Love can be any kind of indicator, any marriage can only last as long as interest. Boredom, it would seem, is cause enough to leave behind the person to whom you've pledged your life and go on epic journeys of narcissism. But that's another story.
As to the second matter, having been amongst the ranks of militant evangelists, I fully understand the idea that my concept of what God will and won't do is the only correct one. I imagine telling the author that the Unitarian church in my town is led by a lesbian who would gladly perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Unfortunately, I already know the conclusion of that line of reasoning and I am aware that I cannot change her ideas on the matter. That is up to her conscience.
In that regard I'll allow that the author at least thinks she is tolerant, though clearly she is not. But it wasn't tolerant evangelicals who lobbied so vocally against same sex marriage. It wasn't tolerant evangelicals who screamed about how awful marriage equality was for children. And it certainly wasn't tolerant evangelicals who convinced her that she would be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That simply cannot be the case in this country. So by the author's utter complacence and willingness to be proselytized against a fundamental right of two loving adults, she is completely and utterly intolerant. I have said before that apathy is the worst enemy of equality because when people are on the wrong side of progress, they're just plain wrong. Apathy is much harder to combat because there is no passion to stir. It seems now that I have to update that statement. Lip service, or "faux tolerance," embraces ignorance and entails discrimination. Faux tolerance is far worse than apathy.
No comments:
Post a Comment