Morality x 4

Four articles in the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle illustrate different points worth making on the difficult subject of morality in relation to political decision-making.

The first is an Insight piece which lays out the evidence behind a point of view that's well known in certain places (like San Francisco) but which may come as a surprise elsewhere. I first heard it from a gay man who was a Biblical scholar: it disputes the interpretation that many accept that the Bible specifically forbids homosexuality, or calls it immoral; and further, it points out many other injunctions in the same book of the Bible that fundamentalists often cite, that are clearly not considered moral, such as slavery.

This provides an opportunity for those who believe homosexuality is ipso facto immoral to examine the text, so here's a chance for this evidence to get beyond San Francisco.

That being said, the accompanying picture---of two big, pretty ugly men kissing---is the kind of in-your-face assertion that may sell papers in San Francisco but is precisely what alienates people who might be willing to concede the point that in today's world, in Red states as well as Blue, homosexuals are thoroughly integrated into society, and are in most respects just like everybody else. They might then be willing to concede that the Biblical evidence on the morality of homosexuality is at least unclear. But what they understandably react against is being forced to see behavior that is essentially private, and they'd rather not see; so they regard those pictures, with some justification, as having their noses rubbed in it.

And let's not pretend the Chronicle's motives in running this picture are entirely noble and idealistic. Like other media, they do it to mollify some readers and provoke others. It may well be that the Democrats lost this election when the first pictures of same-sex couples kissing after their marriage ceremonies in San Francisco were endlessly repeated on network and cable news, not because of news value but for sensationalism sake.

In some ways the support for gay rights as a Civil Rights issue is akin to the decisions of Kennedy and others to support Civil Rights and the Voting Rights act in the 60s, knowing full well that Democrats would lose the South for generations. But in other ways, it was just bad timing. However, let's both sides face the reality. It's the pictures that did it. The rest we might actually be able to reason about.

The Bible tells me so / Religion in the Heartland is more complex than those of us in the blue states sometimes think