I will refrain from commenting on most of the misguided op-ed Jim Wallis wrote in the Boston Globe yesterday. But I feel compelled to dispel one (deliberate) misstatement of his.
Speaking of a crowd he addressed at Boston's Park Street Church, Wallis wrote, "They suspect that Jesus would likely care more about the 30,000 children who die globally each day due to unnecessary poverty and preventable disease than he might worry about gay marriage amendments in Ohio." (How he discerned the thoughts of hundreds of silent audience members is a mystery.) This is yet another of Wallis' incendiary assertions predicated upon a slander.
The presuppositional slander is that those who disagree with Wallis (conservatives) care more about "gay marriage" than they do about children dying of diseases and poverty. I can only speak for me and my family, but I resent Wallis' slander. I believe very much in conjugal marriage and defend it at every turn. Meanwhile, my wife and I are heavily involved with a non-profit religious organization that performs development work and provides disease-prevention services in the developing world. We have given thousands of dollars to it. We have each provided dozens of hours of pro bono consulting services to it. (My wife's services are much more valuable than my own.) And we support numerous other organizations that do very good work for children and adults in other parts of the world and here in the United States.
To suggest that defending conjugal marriage and saving dying children is an either-or proposition is offensive. This is merely the latest of Wallis' detestable remarks. It is consistent with his modus operendi. But to use children? This man has no scruples.
An aside: Those of us who defend conjugal marriage do not oppose gay marriage. Indeed, we support homosexuals who get married. We oppose the creation of a same-sex marriage institution, or any civil union institution that discriminates against non-homosexual, same-sex couples. Add this to the growing list of Wallis' misstatements.
5 comments:
Love the post, but I'm a little lost on that last paragraph. It sounds like you're saying you would be for government support of homosexual marriage if that law included the allowance for any two people to be "married", irregardless of there sexual relationship.
I'm interested because I have not heard this line of logic before. Can you fill me in?
Mr. Wallis is a charter member of the Bible-is-a-living-document club, of which the largest subset is the Constitution-is-a-living-document group. Boston is a mecca for this modernism cult. When you are represented by politicians like Kennedy, Kerry and Frank, local newspapers are best used for pet training.
Politeia,
I support homosexuals who marry on the same terms as everyone else -- lifelong monogamy with one person who is not a minor, not a close relative, and is a member of the opposite sex. I don't buy the liberal canard that homosexuals only will or want to marry members of the same sex. Many homosexuals have lived fulfilling lives of conjugal monogamy.
As for civil unions or domestic partnerships, I am not in principle opposed to them as long as they are open to all same-sex pairs, including those who are not sexually intimate. To make civil unions open only to intimate, monogamous couples is to discriminate against non-homosexuals, which infringes equal protection.
Does that answer your question?
Atticus,
You are surely right. In Wallis' hands, the Bible means whatever he wants it to mean.
Got it, thanks.
Post a Comment