July 1^st

Cal Thomas assures us that as a result of the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage “secularists will try to drive religious people, and especially Christians, out of the public square.” Then he claims, “Given their political clout and antipathy to Christian doctrines, some gay activists are likely to go after the tax exempt status of Christian colleges that prevent the cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them.” This is nonsense, of course, but more and better nonsense is yet to come!

But first, where exactly is this “antipathy to Christian doctrine?” I suppose Thomas means that somewhere in the New Testament he has found a quote from Jesus condemning gays. He hasn’t, of course, because Jesus sys nothing, not a word, about gays. Most of the so called condemnation of gays comes not from the New Testament, not from Christians, but from Leviticus in the Old Testament; as most everyone knows Leviticus prohibits many things; eating pork, eating  shellfish, drinking alcohol in a holy place (that sacramental wine has got to go!) etc. And then Jesus, when asked what the greatest commandment was, said that it was to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Thomas believes, “As with legal challenges to the owners of bakeries …in the news for refusing to bake a cake for same sex weddings, activists who demand total conformity to their agenda will seek to put out of business and silence anyone who believes differently.” I suppose if you own a restaurant you can refuse service to a gay couple who wishes to have you host a reception. You could claim that hosting it would violate your religious beliefs.  Suppose you use the same argument to avoid hosting the reception for a black couple’s wedding, or a “mixed race” couple’s wedding; why is one OK and not the other? In both cases you are attempting to cover bigotry with a religious blanket; that hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work now. Bigotry eventually manages to sticks its head out.

Thomas harps on these “unelected judges.” They aren’t, in practice, unelected at all. If you elect a president then you also elect the political views of the Justices that President appoints. (But not always; Thomas bemoans the fact that many Justices appointed by Republican Presidents have become much more liberal once on the bench, Blackmun, Berger, Souter, O’Connor, Kennedy and Stevens to name a few.) He says that the five “unelected judges” have imposed on 300 million Americans what many believe to be an “abomination.” True. But even more do not believe it is an “abomination” and are in favor of the ruling. Cal Thomas is part of the past and I believe from reading his columns that he is beginning to recognize that  himself. No matter, he has nothing whatever to gain by changing.