Christian love strikes again in California

21 12 2008

Is there any appellation more Orwellian—nay, oxymoronic—than “loving Christian?” A coalition of loving Christians, clearly of the view that Proposition 8 did not constitute a decisive enough victory over a despised outgroup, now wants the marriages that were performed during the California marriage statute’s brief dalliance with (the manifestly unChristian virtues of) humanity and acceptance to be annulled:

Referendum proponents known as the “Protect Marriage” coalition on Friday took their campaign one step further, petitioning the Supreme Court to annul the gay marriages officiated so far in California.

“Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity,” the group said in its legal brief. “There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'”

Show me the individual who describes himself as a “loving Christian,” and who in the same breath advocates such naked mean-spiritedness as evinced by the self-styled marriage defenders in California, and I’ll show you a liar, a fraud, a phony, a bullshit-artist, a spinmeister, a prevaricator, a con-artist, a deluder, a dissimulator, a false witness. He is “loving” in the same regard as a “loving father” who lovingly beats his kids, or a “loving husband” who lovingly beats his wife.



7 responses

21 12 2008


This news makes me so sad. It’s true what you say; I can’t see any love in this Christian act. I wonder how long it will be before these so-called religious people will have to account for their actions.


21 12 2008
Dave Bath

I wonder if any halfway-decent Christians (there are the odd one or two) should sue the hypocrites who label themselves Christians under false advertising or similar laws… get an injunction or whatever.

21 12 2008

Looks like you were just itching to vent some spleen, AV. You are taking a large leap regarding something a few christians may be involved in to a spray at christians in general.

I am more concerned with the fact that a majority vote against gay marriage could have happened in California than with the actions of a few fringe-dwellers.

No doubt the Californian courts will throw this case out pretty quickly. In the meantime beat your chest (or whatever else gives you a thrill) and spray away!

21 12 2008

Yes do whatever you want AV because you need permission from us anyway 😉 don’t you.

22 12 2008

You are taking a large leap regarding something a few christians may be involved in to a spray at christians in general.

While suspecting that AV was being entirely ironic, I’d like a bit of a clarifier. I can see where the irony would stem from, but it’s not resonating with me. Not sure the generalism, even if rhetorical, was needed.

Similar to when Neil was being “poetic” once through a generalism about people who criticise God, leading to a critical discussion between him and AV (I hope AV can recall – I can’t remember the URL or date.)

Incidentally, there is of course that loaded question of Rabbi Marc Gellman’s, “why are atheists angry?” (Nov, 2006 back at “Five Public Opinions: The Blogger Years”), which he admitted to be making a genuine generalism about atheists (i.e. he recognised that the general assumption was problematic rather than just rhetorical, then proceeded all the same). A certain generalism that I remember someone denying in spite of the evidence.

22 12 2008

I’m not sure I see what needs clarifying. I have for a long time used the term “loving Christian” ironically in relation to stories such as this, and will continue to do so for as long as there are Christians whose demeanour towards others reduces the concept of “Christian love” to so much white noise.

Those who have been reading this blog for long enough hardly need reminding that my criticisms of the actions of certain Christians–however they happen to be couched—are not directed at all Christians. I acknowledge that there are Christians—SB among them—who reserve the right to follow their own consciences rather than the doctrines of their church, should the two come into conflict. I acknowledge that there are Christians who would be equally outraged by the actions of the Protect Marriage coalition, and who might even describe their actions as “unChristian,” though I am not about to venture into No True Scotsman territory by deliberating what is ultimately a dispute between Christians. If there is a convention in the blogosphere that, when reading a blog post, one should ignore or discard everything that has been published on the blog hitherto, I am unaware of it.

23 12 2008

Well, that settles it. Now you just need to link to that comment each time someone makes the strawman. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: