The Christofascists Continue to See Themselves Above the Law

A column in the New York Times by Ross Douthat - a conservative writer who never seems to quite fully grasp that the civil laws should not be intertwined with religious belief or be able to let go of his own Catholic and Pentecostal brainwashing - lays out some of the scenarios that may play out once marriage equality eventually becomes the law of the land.  Though less shrill than the professional Christian class which depends upon the dissemination of anti-gay animus to keep the money coffers full (and themselves living a comfortable lifestyle), Douthat nonetheless cannot see that conservative Christians - the Christofascists, if you will are not the victims of the advancement of gay rights.  They have merely lost much of their power to victimize others without suffering consequences.  It is a very distorted mindset.  Here are excerpts:

IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states.

Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.

So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it. 

In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. 

But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.

Meanwhile, pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies would be closed if they declined to place children with same-sex couples. (This has happened in Massachusetts and Illinois.) Organizations and businesses that promoted the older definition of marriage would face constant procedural harassment, along the lines suggested by the mayors who battled with Chick-fil-A. And, eventually, religious schools and colleges would receive the same treatment as racist holdouts like Bob Jones University, losing access to public funds and seeing their tax-exempt status revoked. 

In the past, this constant-pressure scenario has seemed the less-likely one, since Americans are better at agreeing to disagree than the culture war would suggest. But it feels a little bit more likely after last week’s “debate” in Arizona, over a bill that was designed to clarify whether existing religious freedom protections can be invoked by defendants like the florist or the photographer.

Allegedly sensible centrists compared the bill’s supporters to segregationist politicians, liberals invoked the Bob Jones precedent to dismiss religious-liberty concerns, and Republican politicians behaved as though the law had been written by David Duke.

What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore.

Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.

I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

At least Douthat doesn't claim Christians are being persecuted the way far too many of the Christofascists are currently claiming.   And he does admit that the" godly folk" may have brought this state of affairs on themselves through their past sins.  Yet, he remains too sympathetic to those who have mistreated others for centuries.  Oh, and as for the adoption agencies that Douthat cites, they closed voluntarily rather than deal with gays and lesbians.  The state of Massachusetts did not close them.  Ditto in Illinois and also in Washington, DC.  They preferred to close rather than treat all citizens equally.  That is hardly what I would call as persecution or state pressure.