December 9, 2017

EXCEPT THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF DEMANDING "MARRIAGE":

The Case for the Baker in the Gay-Wedding Culture War (Andrew Sullivan, 12/09/17, New York)

The baker's religious convictions are not trivial or obviously in bad faith, which means to say he is not just suddenly citing them solely when it comes to catering to gays. His fundamentalism makes him refuse to make even Halloween cakes, for Pete's sake. More to the point, he has said he would provide any form of custom-designed cakes for gay couples -- a birthday cake, for example -- except for one designed for a specific celebration that he has religious objections to. And those religious convictions cannot be dismissed as arbitrary (even if you find them absurd). Opposition to same-sex marriage has been an uncontested pillar of every major world religion for aeons.

And so, if there are alternative solutions, like finding another baker, why force the point? Why take up arms to coerce someone when you can easily let him be -- and still celebrate your wedding? That is particularly the case when much of the argument for marriage equality was that it would not force anyone outside that marriage to approve or disapprove of it. One reason we won that debate is because many straight people simply said to themselves, "How does someone else's marriage affect me?" and decided on those grounds to support or acquiesce to such a deep social change. It seems grotesquely disingenuous now for the marriage-equality movement to bait and switch on that core "live and let live" argument. And it seems deeply insensitive and intolerant to force the clear losers in a culture war into not just defeat but personal humiliation.

This all could have been avoided by creating a unique civil union status instead, as Howard Dean tried to do. As with Obamacare, conservatives went down opposing the hill we should have been defending.

Posted by at December 9, 2017 11:02 AM

  

« THE CULTURE WARS ARE A ROUT: | Main | DESTINY: »