I strongly disapprove of Christian prelates buggering choirboys with support from their church leaders.
How does that imperil me in the workplace? Does Dreher know?

And you have to do so even if they find your expressions of disapproval so unpleasant that they actually file suit.

Fred Clark at Slacktivist has a great post about exactly this way of thinking and has a really good point about the barely-veiled hostility in the notion that you must tell all of your co-workers every day that they're sinful sinners who are going to hell.

JC was pretty clear. "judge not, yest ye be judged". "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Don't these people realize self professed "good Christians" said the same thing about the end of slavery. After all, slavery is in the Bible.

I agree in a narrow sense with Dreher. Publicly announcing your anti-gay views is pretty similar to publicly announcing your racist views.

Rod Dreher's great Granddaddy, circa 1930:

"This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as darkies receive constitutionally protected status equivalent to sex, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on darkies and slavery."

poor stupid bigot.

I don't know why one would want to be that kind of Christian... -- Hilzoy

That really is the question, is it not?

Maybe it's time for the conservative movement to identify their "jump the shark" moment.

Because what's the point of being morally superior to others of you can't point it out to them?

As for being a 'public Christian' I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was said 'but when you pray, go to your inner room and shut the door' if I could only remember who said that...well maybe google will help.

Because, you know, it's in the Bible. If it wasn't for that, they'd be hanging out at the Ramrod in a leather jockstrap--but it's in the Bible.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

For those of us that are practicing Christians, I think Dreher shows a remarkable ignorance of history.

For example:

It was pretty hard to be a "public Christian" when the Romans were killing us in large numbers.

More to the point, it was hard to be a "public Christian" when you were protestant and the dominant government was Catholic or visa versa.

What Dreher wants is to be entitled to voice and act on his hatred. He wants to take that well known praise song and change it to say:

"And they'll know we are Christians by our hate, by our hate. They will know we are Christians by our hate."

Rod's lawyer friend's comments are a little bit nuts, quite frankly.

I live in Canada (see my blog for more about why that is). We have had some form of civil marriage available to all starting in 2001, and eventually becoming completely nationwide in 2005.

I assure you there are many, many Christians here, openly so, deeply so -- including the evangelical Prime Minister! In fact, Canada's faithful are in some ways MORE Christ-like than our American neighbours in my view.

Yet, you would not find many who would roll back the idea of gay (civil) marriage.

Why?

Three reasons, again in my opinion:

1. Canadians are extremely fair-minded, and civil marriage is frankly a "rights" issue, not a moral issue. These couples were already together -- why shouldn't they have the same rights and legal status as civilly married heterosexuals?

2. Canadians are very "live and let live" -- you have to prove that something causes harm before you'll get a Canadian excited about stopping it. Gay marriage simply does not cause anyone any harm.

3. Finally, and the issue most pertinent to Christians in Canada -- love is a good thing, hate is a bad thing. Jesus was quite clear on this point, and I'm not sure why so many Americans seem to have an issue with his views on this topic.

Okay...so Dreher thinks it's that it's wrong for someone's livelihood to be put at risk because of a "political" belief. I can buy that---just so long as he equally agrees that it is just as reprehensible for someone else's livelihood to be put at risk because of a "political" belief.

Tell me---how many people lost their jobs During the Bush administration because they weren't "politically loyal"? How many men and women have been "excommunicated" from the Armed Forces because of their "political persuasion"?

Now, if you think I've gone off on some great digression, then think again---because I haven't: When you "corporatize" religion; when you use it to force the superiority of your philosophy upon another, at the expense of forcing their philosophy into a position of inferiority---religion becomes political, and nothing but political.

And by the way: When someone writes about a topic of conversation that's been in the news for several days, and denies any knowledge of the topic ((We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue)), I am reminded of the story of the Good Little German Nationalist Sycophant who lived downwind of the extermination camp's ovens; whose Nazi Flag fluttered in the acrid, smoke-tainted breeze every day; whose shiny little Swastika Pin was polished reverently every morning before he put it on, and every night when he took it off and set it on the night-stand next to his Autographed Copy of Dear Leader; whose land was Faithfully and Voluntarily Divided by the rail spur upon which the cattle-cars of Jews were endlessly towed, night and day, by noisy locomotives---and who, upon the arrival of the Americans, could say absolutely nothing but "nicht Nazi...."

Dreher has friends?

That guy must be tied in knots, living in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce (see Mark 10:9-12 et.al.).

For me the appropriate comparison is divorce. The Catholic Church, for example, does not believe in divorce. Even when you are civilly divorced, you remain married in the eyes of the Church. Pastors can denounce divorce every day of the week and twice on Sundays until they are blue in the face and they are not in legal jeopardy. The same goes for adultery. And abortion. There is no limit on their ability to oppose those things which they oppose but which civil society has deemed legal, why would there be for their views on gay marriage? Of course there wouldn't be.

The grotesque immoral certainty that underlies the Kristianists obsession with homosexuality is the same obscene tribal impulse that gave us Auschwitz,Dachau, Buchenwald, and all the ethnic cleansing that has happened since.

Psychologists have already demonstrated that adherents to this type of thinking have brains wired differently from the rest of us, and such people therefore play a very negative role in open pluralistic societies. An open society cannot tolerate intolerance and survive. That is perhaps the greatest challenge a democracy faces.

I was filled with emotion yesterday when I heard of the Iowa decision. For 19 years, I have lived with a man I love very deeply. I am not sure we would ever marry. His family is Baptist, mine Catholic. Although many in our families are supportive of our relationship, almost none of them "approve of" gay marriage. Until the actual benefits of such a marriage are realized for such things as Social Security and insurance benefits, we probably wouldn't go through the ceremony. Still, I thought the Iowa development showed America coming closer to a better understanding of equal justice under the law.

Then, it seems that out of every pothole in America came so-called Christians to tell us once again that they think our lives are immoral, that we do not deserve equal status under the law, and that they should be protected when they tell us this at our workplaces, in their churches and on the streets. And now I am angry again. Bummer.

When I went to parochial schools, they told me that the Christian message was, "This above all else: love your neighbor as yourself."

Thanks for your excellent explication on this topic. I am gratified that some people got the message Christ was teaching.

"1. Canadians are extremely fair-minded..."
Charles Martin on April 4, 2009 at 6:30 AM

I don't think so.

The Reverend Stephen Boissoin was recently ordered by Alberta Human Rights Tribunal to stop talking about homosexuality from the perspective (moral opposition to homosexual activism and same-sex marriage) of his evangelical Christian faith.

The Tribunal also ordered him to apologize for his published, spoken (and thought) thoughts; fined him $7,000, enjoined him from speaking or publishing any further personal thoughts or objections, and barred him from speaking or publishing any critisism of the process by which the Tribunal employed to silence him.

This is exactly what Dreher is talking about, and coming to a workplace, pulpit, public forum, or jurisdiction very near you very soon.

FWIW, I don't think it's a defense of Dreher but it is an insight, that the guy seems to be genuinely groping to understand what his concept of faith requires of him.

He converted to Catholicism, IIRC, and spent several years telling pretty much anybody he could find how JPII's example changed his life. I challenged him about this, back in the day -- and like many converts, his response was generally essentially: 'this is revealed truth, and if it hasn't been revealed to YOU, it's not that I can't defend it, you're not capable of understanding...' (In Christian doctrine, this is referred to as "invincible ignorance.")

But the actual practice of Catholicism in the US progressively freaked him out -- first, perhaps, the Situation, being as how he properly became a very public advocate of prosecution for priests and bishops who had committed and/or covered up the abuse of kids; but secondly, he has said publicly that he never felt comfortable going to Catholic churches and hearing homilies about taking the Gospels seriously in civic life, e.g., the responsibilities a Catholic has as a voter regarding issues beyond abortion and same-sex marriage, like poverty, immigration, just war doctrine, and the death penalty.

All of those can be parsed, since the RCC's doctrine isn't uniformly authoritative on each one. But it's probably significant (I think he talked about this once, I forget) that he didn't leave the Roman Catholic Church over the Situation; he started going to a different denomination and just felt peace, because the mass and sermons were just about worship: he left because he was tired of the political stuff.

So that he feels some sort of vague alarm, as a Christian, between his obligations to own up to his faith in public if same sex marriages become the law, and yet shopped around for a denomination that comforts him BECAUSE it didn't challenge what are evidently his own beliefs that he carries with him from one to another, probably explains a lot of his work. If nothing else, it suggests a deeply American ambiguity about Authority.

I don't know that it's actually fair to make the obvious (and multiple) comparison with racism: sure, the Bible advocates (Leviticus) and condones (New Testament) slavery, but there are relatively few conservatives who feel some obligation to state publicly that merely being of color is a moral failing on Biblical grounds. If somebody on the factory floor started talking about the "children of Ham" being fit only to carry water and hew wood....

What IS true is that many people who were raised to believe that homosexuality is immoral, feel like people who disagree are imposing the opposite belief on them: both by law (through making same sex marriages legal), and perhaps more importantly, through the kind of effectively moral sanction that the law provides.

The fact is, they're right. It IS a moral issue, to change the law so that two men or two women can be legally married in the same way as a wife and her husband.

We should stop mincing words about that, and talk to people of faith plainly, without the alienating condescension of 'who would want to be a [traditional] Christian...' That's not our decision; it's theirs, exactly the way Dreher's search for a faith that makes him comfortable with his political prejudices is his alone.

Maybe then we'd start having legislators who win elections be the ones making same sex marriage laws, instead of judges.

Aww, the poor Christianists who won't be able to spew their hate in the workplace any more. I feel so sorry for them. Why, they've only dominated Western civilization for a thousand years -- how can we persecute them like this?

Hey tao9 the beauty of the onternet is you can instantly and easily check the facts of any statement made by anyone. There's a lot more to the story with Boisoin than you let on. But of course misleading people with half-truths and outright lies is the conservative way isn't it?

This is exactly what Dreher is talking about, and coming to a workplace, pulpit, public forum, or jurisdiction very near you very soon.

I suppose that is why Fred Phelps is rotting behind bars. Because in America we don't let people say ugly, anti-gay things in public without silencing, fining and punishing them.

Oh, wait, he isn't? In fact, Phelps and his family recently took huge their "God Hates Fags" signs and protested outside of the White House recently. For pete's sake, the Phelps family protests military funerals. They don't get arrested or fined even when they ARE harassing people.

So, as far as free speech rights are concerned, if Fred Phelps can walk around freely and say beyond-the-pale reprehensible anti-gay comments then I think you can still tell people that you don't like gay people or approve of gay marriage.

The fact is that things are changing-- openly anti-gay views are falling out of social favor. The truth is that you can say whatever you want, just don't expect that it will make you popular or be accepted with a agreeable smile. That is the part that these people are upset about, that their prejudicial views are no longer shared by most people.

When theAmericanist remarks that the issue of gay marriage is a moral issue, he is probably correct. The problem is that morality is a relative term. It derives from the word "more," which refers to the standards of the time. The morality of slavery was defended on Biblical grounds by all the segregationists of the 1800s in the same way that bigotry against gays is defended today.

The role of the courts is not to be the moral arbiter of the times, however. Their objective is to adjudicate issues of the law, hopefully guided by an overriding concept of justice. Given that we are a civil and secular political state, and that we are bound to the principle of equal justice under the law, even Republican jurists (who are the ones who wrote all the decisions legalizing gay marriages across the nation, incidentally) are forced top the conclusion that this is a right that must be shared by all. As the bumper sticker state, "marriage is a right for everyone, not a privilege for hetereosexuals."

I'm not trying to pick a fight but it's no picnic being a public atheist either. Many "public Christians," and private ones for that matter, are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality (finally), but are still quite openly mistrustful of atheists.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/648-5.gif

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/648-3.gif

Let's see:

The Bible is fine with slavery, which is why the Bibble was used to defend it.

The Bible is fine with homophobia, which is why the Bibble was/is used to defend it.

The Bible is fine with misogyny, which is why the Bibble was/is used to defend it.

Maybe this explains why some people wonder whether there is something wrong with the Bibble?

Maybe this exxplains why some people find the self-declarded moral superiority of Christians a joke?

If this unnamed lawyer were to make a point of his disapproval as a "public Christian" at my business, he would find out that he is free to express his theology all he wants outside my gate and he would get there very quickly. If that "public Christianity" involved a crime including criminal trespass after he was instructed to leave, he would leave in handcuffs. Any employee who behaved as he seems to think he can behave now at his place of employment would be immediately terminated. I am quite certain that I am not unique, and none of this depends on our state Supreme Court. It is therefore surprising and disappointing to see that this lawyer believes there are no sanctions for his bigotry now.

well said, Hilzoy

"This morning, I had breakfast with some guys"

Sounds like a bunch of homos to me.

The Reverend Stephen Boissoin was recently ordered by Alberta Human Rights Tribunal to stop talking about homosexuality from the perspective (moral opposition to homosexual activism and same-sex marriage) of his evangelical Christian faith.

Yes, let's take a look at some of these perfectly innocent and Christian things that Rev. Boissoin said. Here's a few from the actual letter that caused his legal troubles:

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

Gee, he certainly sounds like a perfectly innocent pastor who just happened to say one or two things against homosexuality that people misconstrued.

You may also be surprised to hear that, though we Americans like to think of Canada as being part of our country, they do in fact have different laws and a different constitution, so the First Amendment does not apply to people in Canada and hate speech is banned. Don't like it? Move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and lobby to change their Constitution.

Hilzoy - brilliant. One of your best posts.

Oh, and tao9? This is the actual event that led to Boissoin being prosecuted:

CALGARY — Darren Lund was shocked when he first read a letter five years ago in an Alberta newspaper written by a local pastor who urged people to “take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness� of the “homosexual machine.�

Two weeks later, the former Red Deer high-school teacher and now university professor was devastated to hear the news: A 17-year-old local gay youth was followed home and asked, “You’re a faggot, right?� before allegedly being beaten by another young man.

Even in the US, incitement to violence is not protected under the First Amendment, and the board in Canada concluded that Boissoin's letter was an incitement to violence since actual violence being perpetrated against homosexuals shortly after his letter was published.

Used to be that Christians had guts. When did they become such whiners? And why would any self-respecting Christian want to encourage or enable whining?

Oh, and Boissoin's horrible, horrible punishment that will ruin his life forevermore? A $5,000 fine and an injunction to stop inciting violence against gay people.

Wow, that's just like being thrown in prison for life, isn't it?

Nice post, Hilzoy. You take down bad arguments with grace, as usual.

Oh, please. Not this one, too. I am bi AND agnostic AND an Asian female, so I can tell you, I've had it about up to here with the religious right.

Mnemosyne, thank you for posting that link because it's exactly how I feel. I find it infuriating that the predominant religion in this country (Christianity) still plays itself as the trod-upon minority.

Rod Dreher, I invite you to step into MY shoes for a year. I doubt you'd last two days. This is comparable to race issues because The Bible was used to justify slavery for moral reasons. People of color, especially blacks, were considered to be inferior (3/5 human, and that was just the men), and now we have a president whose parents couldn't have married in several states for 'moral' reasons.

I have stated this several times before. If Christians really want to tackle the issues of morality in marriage, they can start with divorce, cheating, etc. It is not like the heterosexuals have done such a bang-up job in this area.

However, Dreher's whine is even more irritating because he wants to impose his world-view on his coworkers without having to be negatively affected by it. We like to scream about rights in this country. It's my right to say whatever I want. Even if this were true, you do not have the right to be free from the fall-out of what you've said. Other people have rights, too--including the right to tell you that what you said is repugnant, reprehensible, or just plain idiotic.

Finally, I am even more upset about this because I don't care about the issue of marriage at all. I think marriage in general confers privileges that it shouldn't. I have no desire to marry anyone--man or woman. However, I am firmly pro-equality, and that is what is at stake here.

If you are Catholic, you do not believe it is moral for a co-worker to marry someone who is divorced while there former spouse is still alive. How is that fundamentally different than beliving that a co-worker cannot marry someone for any other religious reason in terms of being a "public Chistian"? Where is the real threat?

I hate to break it to Dreher, but sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace was ALREADY ILLEGAL under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
http://www.state.ia.us/government/crc/publications/brochures/english_brochure.html

Damn majority rule legislatures prohibiting people from being Public Christians

Mnemosyne:

"...and the board in Canada concluded that Boissoin's letter was an incitement to violence since actual violence being perpetrated against homosexuals shortly after his letter was published."

Boissoin never met the assailant. Lund asserted that he did in his complaint. Lund is an activist. Apart from your loose syntax and distortion of the facts, do you at all see a loose reading of legal causation that could possibly be, uh, problematic to some of your more "passionate" fellow activist progressives?

My sense is that most of you would love a little Tribunal action right here in the States. Dreher would probably get to be the first in the dock.

An editor's question: In the sentence "A 17-year-old local gay youth was followed home and asked, “You’re a faggot, right?� before allegedly being beaten by another young man.", why is "allegedly" placed where it is?

I mean, you'd think that it'd be more doubtful that he said something first, and what exactly he said, than that he beat somebody up.

And, speaking of editing...

Puh-leeze, folks, strive to break yourselves of the habit of constantly editing every situation so it reinforces your own self-righteousness.

Put it this way: just how comfortable ARE you with the idea that government can impose majority values on what people can say about their beliefs?

Fifty years ago, it was widely accepted law that it was illegal, because it was immoral, for even consenting adults to commit (is perform a morally neutral term?) homosexual acts. When gay couples began to come out, THEY were the ones having majority values imposed on them... so let's not be so quick to figure that it becomes okay when you don't happen to agree with the folks being imposed on.

That's what Dreher is talking about -- he's not the guy in Canada. He's talking about what is still a traditional view of most religious denominations, that homosexual activity is morally wrong. You and I may not agree with that view, but that doesn't mean that we have any right to insist that, for example, Mormons or Catholics lose their civil rights.

Unless that IS what you mean, in which case you should stop talking about the guy in Canada.

"...He's talking about what is still a traditional view of most religious denominations, that homosexual activity is morally wrong..." anonymous @ 5:34 PM.
And the response is: so? If an act is morally wrong that means that you shouldn't do it. There is no requirement for you to prevent someone else from doing that act. Your being a "public christian" might require you to voice your beliefs upon being questioned, but there is no requirement for any other response or action.
Unless, of course, your beliefs are held solely for their ability to prove your own superiority over those "others".

As a left-wing Canadian fully supportive of gay marriage, equal rights for all etc., I find Canada's attitude on freedom of speech to be very disturbing (full confession: I haven't lived in the country for 20 years) starting with the hate-speech laws enacted against Holocaust deniers.

They cut both ways- the current right-wing government is busy using those same laws to harass opponents of Israel who voice support for Hamas or Hezbollah.

"When they came for Boisson, I said nothing because I wasn't a loony homophobe..
When they came for Mark Steyn, I said nothing because I wasn't a loony Muslim-hater...."

LOL -- see, this is what I mean about editing a situation until it pleases your self-righteousness.

A billion years ago, I had to do deal with a flurry of protest over the Pentagon's decision to name a whole class of nuclear weapons after a term with a specifically Christian meaning (the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine: Los Angeles, of course, refers to angels). I even had to deal with folks who wanted to withhold from their taxes, or be allowed to contribute to a charity of their choice, that percentage which was being used for the defense budget, or perhaps just nuclear weapons, or various military activities they didn't like.

'Course, the answer was always an elaboration on: so what?

But I always knew those folks had a point -- they WERE being forced into paying for stuff which they legitimately found morally repugnant, and a very few brave souls simply went to jail because, in the end, that's what 'being forced' means.

Dreher is struggling with essentially the same kind of moral issue -- and I don't scoff at him, any more than I scoffed at the tax protestors. I'm not impressed when somebody basically sez, as Doug does, that a religious person in the public square has only those rights that somebody else ASKS them to exercise.

And I don't presume to judge their religion AS A RELIGION, simply because I personally don't accept it as revealed truth. But you guys do -- how many times does the original post, and the thread, revolve around "I don't know why one would want to be that kind of Christian..." defined as 'buggering choirboys' and "won't be able to spew their hate in the workplace any more..."

A mote in theirs, and a beam in yer own eye, indeed.

Put it this way: I know of no Christian-majority country on earth where gay people are routinely executed -- but this does happen in Muslim-majority countries.

So maybe the Christian-majority countries have figured something out, which many Muslim-majority countries have not -- and yet you guys spend more time obsessing about the musings of a guy like Dreher, who is clearly struggling with his Self, frankly, than you do with the way vast swaths of Muslim nations regard the US, BECAUSE we celebrate freedom.

Dreher isn't like that guy in Canada, and he isn't like the Taliban. When you figure that out, you might at least be looking in the right direction to see what most Christian-majority countries have figured out, which many Muslim-majority nations have not.

It's not about religion, as such: it's about civics. This is a CONFLICT, not a problem to be resolved or negotiated -- when a religious faith (like Mormonism or Catholicism) teaches that a certain behavior is morally wrong (like divorce, abortion or homosexual acts) and therefore the faithful MUST oppose legalization, and cannot vote for those who support it, must speak out against it or commit a sin of omission (precisely BECAUSE it is legal, and thus socially tolerated): that's not something to be wished away.

Somebody's right to the free exercise of their religion is running smack into the First Amendment's ban on establishing religion: that's why folks like Dreher worry. It's not so much about their freedom of speech (which is what the Canadian cases are about, where to draw the line against incitements to violence). It's about the religious implications of the very real question that, in some workplace situation, somebody will ask "why didn't you come to Jane and Mary's office party/wedding shower?", and they will say "cuz I think they're committing a sin'... AND WIND UP FINED BY THE LAW.

No, I shouldn't even use Doug's alarmingly self-serving scenario -- cuz, under the Iowa law (among others), if a Dreher was to speak up BEFORE the office organizes a part, especially if he happened to be a supervisor and say "gee, maybe in the workplace it isn't appropriate to give a wedding shower for a same sex couple, the way we did last month for some straight couple's anniversary', or some such thing, that is enough for a discrimination case.

You guys haven't learned how to think about freedom as anything but a zero sum game -- the more for the good guys, has to mean less for folks you consider to be the bad guys. You epitomize what you condemn.

Grow up.

See, you guys are SELECTIVE about when you believe in principle, and when you don't.

.
Christianity! That went out with lions eating people for entertainment.

So, yeah, gimme that old time religion.

If your State is full of "Christians," get ready to spend a lot of public money defending their version of DOMA, to no avail.These States already have gay marriage, or will this year. And so will most others by 2012. As for the rest, business-wise, isn't "pariah" a Christian thing?
.

Dreher's whole premise is even more flagrantly absurd than Hilzoy and most commenters seem to have noticed. We have pretty close to absolute, empirical proof that Dreher's whole thesis is a complete crock. It is very plainly not true that giving something constitutional protection makes all dissenters from such protection outlaws. Did it become "very hard to be a public Christian" as soon as abortion "receive[d] constitutionally protected status"? Did right-wing Christians find it impossible "to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on" abortion?

These are just pathetic martyrdom fantasies, nothing more.

"It's about the religious implications of the very real question that, in some workplace situation, somebody will ask "why didn't you come to Jane and Mary's office party/wedding shower?", and they will say "cuz I think they're committing a sin'... AND WIND UP FINED BY THE LAW."

Your example is totally ridiculous. Do you really believe that if you refuse to attend John and Mary's office party/wedding shower because Mary was divorced when she married John and you thought 'they were committing a sin' you could wind up fined by the law? Your example is no different.

Actually, it's a real example -- if the guy was a supervisor, and even discussed nixing an office party/wedding shower for a same sex couple, that IS actionable under a number of anti-discrimination statutes, so long as similar parties have been held for straight couples.

So many companies simply stop having ANY such activities, to stay safe.

See what I mean about you guys editing everything so it fits your self-righteousness reflex?

And in fact, divorce is a good example: even 50 years ago, although I don't have data, it seems like it would have been somewhat unusual for anybody to take a hard line against celebrating a divorcee's second marriage like that -- but, in fact, a century back, a Pope wrote a whole encyclical requiring Catholics to oppose legalized divorce, with dire consequences for those who voted for polititicians who wanted to allow it.

Which is precisely the model the current Pope is following with same sex marriages.

Look, folks, I'm just repeating two points, which you guys keep missing because you want to have your self-righteous cake, and eat it, too: Dreher is evidently dealing with a genuine spiritual struggle -- he converted to Catholicism, deeply admired JPII, criticitized the Roman church sharply for covering up for pedophile priests, then he became uncomfortable with the American church for going beyond abortion and same sex marriage in preaching to practice doctrine in politics, e.g., on poverty, immigration, the environment, and the death penalty. So now he's in a different denomination, and he's publicly fretting that he could be fined, if he publicly expressed his faith's doctrine on homosexuality.

About which, you guys are in denial. Dreher's not nuts. It's not impossible, though it's not certain, either. Note this: you're not trying to figure out HOW a supervisor, for example, could remain true to his or her faith in a case like this, and still carry out their legal responsibilities in the public sphere. Instead, you're scoffing -- why would anybody want to be a Christian "like that???" You happily tell each other (noting that many of you are not people of faith) that there are CERTAIN expressions of faith which are fine with you, so who does this guy think he is, to have a different version?

Which is my second point: you're NOT neutral on religion. You have very definite views about it, which you are happy and eager to see the state enforce.

Be honest, already.