I still don't get it: Why does Christianism want to die on that hill?

[elfs]

Since traffic was terrible this morning and my iPod's batteries were too dead to work effectively, I was stuck with the radio, and as is my unfortunate wont, I dialed into the morning's AM radio and stumbled upon right-wing talk show host Mike Gallagher commisserating with an interview subject about how "Government had become God, the arbiter of

Comments

[solarbird]

Neither threaten the idea of required patriarchy as much as same-gender marriage. Maybe that's it.

[kengr]

Well, It's *state* law. The Bakery isn't even in Multnomah county.

And as I noted in a post of my own the other day, they could stay in business, not violate their "principles", and comply with the law. They'd just have quit making wedding cakes for *anyone*.

But that'd cost them money.

In other news Portland's Archbishop is starting up a campaign to try to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal in Oregon.Which led to a bunch of Catholics not protesting exactly, but making a point of wearing something (I forget whether it was buttons or shirts) *supporting* gay marriage when they went to Ash Wednesday services. No speechifying, or disruptions, just a simple "notice" that folks are *not* going to bow to his views on the subject.

Given other things the Pope has said, I'd not be too surprised if one of these days he issues a statement telling folks to drop it. Even a simple, "quit fighting it" without the Church being willing to perform same sex marriages would defuse a lot of stuff.

[bemused_leftist]

Maybe getting sued over the gay cake, made them preemptively abandon those other hills?

[sirfox]

Since this *delightful* plan of attack to legalize bigotry went into action in several states simultaneously, I've been trying to figure something out

[casualprofessor]

"It's strange that they didn't try that avenue of expanding on something existing rather than a very obvious and clumsy attempt that they just made."

They wanted their bigotry legalized, and not have to worry about slippery slopes or as being perceived as discriminatory. They basically are trying to free themselves of a prejorative label as they practice their exclusionary ideas.

[sirfox]

i'm totally with you, but it's been painfully obvious that their methods to shed that label not only failed in that effort, but failed spectacularly.

rather than step right up and say "It should be a protected expression of my religious freedom that i can call somebody a homo and not serve them" to instead bury it in some quagmired grey area, and nibble their way up on it a bit at a time, quietly and gradually. It's exactly the strategy they've used against abortion and it's been frighteningly successful. That's what confuses me, they've got better strategies in their playbook and this one was ham-fisted to say the least.

[khromat]

Alas, the while the average x-tian may think divorce and out-of-wedlock are sins, they are "understandable" sins. They cannot understand same-sex love, it's alien to them, so that 'sin' goes into foreign territory. It's sad, but I've watched the smoke escape the ears of proclaimed x-tians when confronted with the concept that same-sex love was CREATED by their god.

"The only true blasphemy is the refusal to accept joy" -- church ladies, JEFFERY