Mike Wittmer

witch hunt

I am reluctant to link to these two stories, because they may push us into an angry martyr complex. So please don’t take this as merely more evidence that the gospel is unpopular–as if that’s a surprise–but as a heads-up on the double standard we are dealing with.

Terry Mattingly explains that Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy didn’t even say what the media says he said and Mollie demonstrates that Cathy would have fared much better if he had been Muslim (But since Muslims also defend traditional marriage, this might make an interesting dilemma for the media).

Posted

in

,

by

mikewittmer

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “witch hunt”

  1. Tertullian2012

    Mike,
    I’ve been trying to figure out why marriage is such a big issue to the gay community. What is so special about legal marriage that it is worth such vicious debate and divisiveness? Seriously – if marriage is nothing but a social construct established by a culture to denote a couple’s special commitment to one another, why is this man-made seal of approval such a big deal? If all marriage is is an application, fee, and a magic incantation in public, than isn’t this to-do really akin to complaining that some people have a college degree and others don’t (oh, wait, we’re having that debate, too). Granted, there are certain legal benefits to being married – joint ownership of assets, power of attorney, rights of survivorship, and such, but truly, apart from spouses not being compelled to testify against one another (which is really only an issue if you are a politician or other career criminal, and frankly, if you really want to keep someone’s secret no court will be able to compel you to speak anyway, so isn’t it actually a greater show of love and commitment to refuse to testify without constitutional protection?) and the right to file taxes jointly, I’m not sure what legal rights are gained by marriage that can’t be obtained by filing the appropriate paperwork with the state. Wills take care of power of attorney and survivorship, any two adults can cosign loans and mortgages, and the coveted health insurance coverage isn’t guaranteed by marriage (nor are non-married parties necessarily excluded from covering one another on insurance, it’s just ridiculously expensive). All marriage really is, from a legal standpoint, is a one-stop process for filing multiple forms with various government agencies. But, if these same sex couples truly love one another, what’s some extra paperwork and fees compared to enjoying the same social standing as the average married couple?

    My point is that marriage, to be worth all this trouble and complaining, must have some intrinsic value, something more than just a social construct. And if that is true, then changing marriage must somehow change that intrinsic value, making it, most likely, less than it was and therefore negating the purpose for fighting for the right to be married. In the end, I don’t really understand what same sex couples think they are fighting for. The right to pay taxes together? The right to marry is only worth fighting for if marriage as it has always been defined is worth something as it has always been defined. If we change that definition, we lose what makes marriage special and we kill the very thing we were fighting to win.

  2. neukomment

    Mike, Thank you for the heads up on the Terry Mattingly article. I posted it to Facebook and am hoping against hope it doesn’t ignite a firestorm of hysterical comments What is of more fundamental concern to me is the extremism in public discourse that precludes civil and rationale discussion. One of the ways revolution and tyranny have been historically fomented in a society is via an ever increasing extreme shrillness in public debate that leaves no middle ground.

  3. mikewittmer

    Tully: I think you hit it with this line: “My point is that marriage, to be worth all this trouble and complaining, must have some intrinsic value, something more than just a social construct. And if that is true, then changing marriage must somehow change that intrinsic value, making it, most likely, less than it was and therefore negating the purpose for fighting for the right to be married.”

    I would add that it’s probably not marriage itself that they want so much as what marriage stands for. They dislike being told that they don’t qualify, and they say it makes them feel inferior. I understand why they would say this given their perspective, but shouting discrimination or homophobia doesn’t make it so. In the end, no one can change nature.

  4. Jonathan Shelley

    Building on Mollie’s argument, I’m wondering if any major religious tradition defines marriage to include same-sex couples. I couldn’t think of any.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: