Blessed Are Those Who Hunger and Thirst For Injustice
Faith (who else?) writes:
Right, and Civil Rights protestors were criminals put in jail too, and Christian pastors in Communist countries were made criminals and put in jail, beaten and murdered as well, lots of criminals in this world made criminals by evil laws over the centuries and subjected to abuse. It finally came to America, now we can suffer like our brothers and sisters in the rest of history and the world.
The difference is that the Civil Rights protestors were fighting to end oppression, not prolong and institutionalize it. The "evil laws" in this case were the ones that prevent same-sex couples from having the same rights as straight ones.
The religious angle is just so much right-wing rationalization, and of course the atheist blogosphere is only too happy to take the bait. But The Big J never said jack about homosexuality. This has just been reactionary, all-American homophobia since day one, and I think it's high time the tide has turned.
Re: Blessed Are Those Who Hunger and Thirst For Injustice
Again you demonstrate the principle that naming is what it's all about. Call Christians oppressors, homophobics, haters or whatnot and you can jail us or whatever the law decrees. By this means you turn the Christian culture on its head and make us criminals.
Again you demonstrate your ability to get the exact opposite message your online foe is conveying. I'm saying that "naming" is irrelevant; if you're discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, you're committing a criminal act. The notion that this (or any other) behavior is intrinsically Christian is a meaningless rhetorical ploy that's designed to exonerate you from responsibility. That's what the existentialists used to call "bad faith," no offense to your online moniker.
We can all celebrate that marriage equality is now the law of the land in the USA. However, there is a potential problem in that it was a substantive due process decision instead of an intermediate scrutiny/equal protection judgment. This article describes the difference.
Essentially, the court had yet another chance to make it so any law that potentially discriminates against LGBTQ citizens would automatically be subject to higher standards of judicial scrutiny. And they didn't do that.