"How Christianity gave us gay marriage": Commentary
February 19, 2014
G.D.O'Bradovich III
I read with great interest an article on Christianity and gay marriage. (Vide). I would like to image that many people in the media, Mr. Linker included, visit my website for my insightful writing. Unfortunately, I can not image this scenario, but I digress.
The entire text of the article is in the left column. My select commentary is in the right column.
The entire text of the article is in the left column. My select commentary is in the right column.
The suggestion sounds ludicrous: How could Christianity be responsible for the all-but-assured triumph of the movement for gay marriage? Aren't the most committed Christians the most passionate defenders of traditional marriage and hence the most ardent opponents of permitting gay couples to marry?
From the overwhelming support for traditional marriage among white evangelical Protestants in the United States to the Catholic Church's definition of homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" to the black (Catholic and Anglican) Christians of Uganda who have recently worked to pass one of the most draconian anti-gay laws in the world, the answer would seem to be yes. But things aren't quite so simple. Just flip through the opening pages of everyone's favorite work of secular prophesy — Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835–1840) — and you'll find a provocative alternative interpretation of Christianity's indispensable role in the creation of the revolutionary ideal of human equality. The stunningly rapid rise of support for gay marriage over the past two decades is just the latest in a very long line of victories for that consummately Christian ideal — and it's unlikely to be the last. Tocqueville begins the introduction to his two-volume study of American democracy by noting that "a great democratic revolution is taking place among us." The 700-page book is his attempt to make sense of this revolution, which was transforming life across the European continent during his lifetime, but which was already far more advanced in the United States by the time of his famous visit in 1831. For Tocqueville, the march of equality was upending age-old institutions and moral habits "in all the Christian world." It was a "providential fact," by which he meant that there was nothing anybody could do to stop it. The ultimate source of the democratic revolution — the motor behind its inexorable unfolding — is the figure of Jesus Christ, who taught the equal dignity of all persons, and declared in the Sermon on the Mount that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, and that the meek shall inherit the earth. These are among the most subversive teachings ever uttered — and according to Tocqueville, Western civilization has been working out their logic for the better part of two millennia, as political communities have applied Christ's egalitarian teachings in stricter and stricter terms. First, the rigidly hierarchical order of the Roman Empire assimilated and transformed Christ's message, creating a series of stratified Christian aristocracies that ruled Europe for centuries. But by the 11th century, the clergy, which "opened its ranks to all, to the poor and to the rich, to the commoner and to the lord," had gained political power. In this way, the principle of equality began to "penetrate through the church to the heart of government." Over the next 700 years, as Tocqueville tells it, "a double revolution" transpired: "The noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch." They already did touch in the United States, the world's first nation settled by egalitarian Christians (the Puritans) and explicitly dedicated in its founding documents to the principle of universal human equality. Where France required a violent revolution to overturn recalcitrant elements within its social order and advance the cause of equality, the United States merely needed to declare and secure its independence from a foreign power, before allowing the egalitarianism already implicit in its habits and institutions to flower and flourish. Tocqueville was fascinated by the question of what democracy in America would look like, because he thought it was inevitable that the rest of Western civilization would soon follow it in building societies dedicated to equality. But he was also filled with "a sort of religious terror...by the sight of this irresistible revolution that for so many centuries has marched over all obstacles, and that one sees still advancing today amid the ruins it has made." Roughly 80 years before the fictional lords and ladies of Downton Abbey begin to realize it, Tocqueville understood that the world of aristocratic privileges was slipping away and would soon be reduced to ruins. That is what inspired his religious terror. The same terror grips opponents of gay marriage today, as the Christian principle of equality overturns and transforms the Christian tradition's historic understanding of what a marital partnership is and can be. In this sense, at least, opposition to gay marriage parallels an earlier generation's opposition to interracial marriage. In both cases, the opponents of change are attempting to stand against the march of equality. In both cases, the opponents will fail. By all means, let's ensure that the religious rights of these opponents are protected. But let's also hope that they will eventually follow Tocqueville's example in recognizing that a major reason why equality always wins is that the new order is always more just than what preceded it. This is why Tocqueville counseled resignation and acceptance rather than a reactionary response — because, he concluded, trying to "stop democracy...[is] to struggle against God himself." None of this means anything as crude as "Christ wants gay marriage." But it does mean that we live in a culture in which reformers who successfully claim the mantle of equality inevitably triumph — because those who oppose equality find it impossible to gain public traction for their own side of the argument. Equality always wins. And equality became the lodestar of Western culture thanks to Christianity. |
The "revolutionary ideal of human equality" can be dated to the the new dogma of the immoral soul as defined by the Lateran Council in 1512. Equality is a "Modern concept, that is, a false one." Twice the word "ideal" is used and from the dictionary we learn that ideal means "exactly right for a particular purpose, situation, or person". Clearly, "ideal" can not be applied to to everyone. Plato was not fond of democracy for it " ... is a charming form of government... and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." "Age-old institutions" and age-old "moral habits" in the"Christian world" will be replaced by equality and revolution. I don't know where in the Gospels that Jesus taught the "equal dignity of all persons", although Saint James did teach this in his epistle. If Jesus did teach this idea, he did not apply it when talking with Pontius Pilate. If by subversive, we should look to the French and Russian Revolutions and the behavior of the rabble, then I agree. Clearly, the idea of equality could not have gained a foothold, if not for the dogma of the immortal soul. If the Noble have fallen, it is because they are being overwhelmed by the masses and their revolutionary democratic ideas. Once the Puritans left England and the influence of the Anglican Church, they dedicated themselves to human equality. I am certain they did not see their wives as equals anymore than our Founding Fathers compromised on the 3/5 representation for slaves. I look forward to reading why the Jacobin terror was necessary for the French Revolution. Unlike Tocqueville, I am not filled with "a sort of religious terror", but aware of the potential terror this false concept of equality will bring. History has documented that the liberalism of Wiemar Germany within a short time turned into Nazi Germany. The number of Germans who voted that said "I don't like that Hitler, but I think he will do something" will never be known. Tocqueville must have been a very observant gentleman, or possibly, a rabble rouser (1843). Apprentice Graham wrote about gay marriage. Unfortunately, he came to the conclusion that it would logically and legally lead to "a bold, new and innovative future of same sex, interracial, polygamous and pedophilic marriage is a certainty in our Modern society by applying Natural Law." "Equality always wins"-see Wiemar Germany and how the Nazi party used democratic voting to take power. "Tocqueville's counseled resignation and acceptance" could be interpreted as defeatism or nihilism. Since equality is man made and not Natural, I do not understand how it is inevitable that it will triumph. I understand "public traction" as referring to the masses. "Reformers" might be a less volatile word than "Revolutionaries". The Nazi Party said that Germany should be for the Germans, and the voters agreed. The Nazi Party message did have equality as a slogan, but their message resounded with the German people. When Nietzsche says that the Modernists want to turn the world into a Catholic insane asylum, I find his reference to be dated. I say that these unthinking people want to turn the world into a group home, and they have been successful thus far,and are not finished with their agenda. Since the age of Enlightenment, reason, not equality, has been the mantra of Western Civilization. Reason gives meaning to our goals. The mind gives purpose to our existence. Equality can be a goal, but it can not give meaning or purpose. |
Apprentice Anon's research into "Gay Pride".
Apprentice Sarah Louise's research on "An Attempt to Date the Traditions of Marriage"
Apprentice Sarah Louise's research on "An Attempt to Date the Traditions of Marriage"