Rick Rolls (Stephanopoulos)

by on

Pastor Rick Warren wasn't able to appear on This Week this week. Like many people, I want him to engage in the debate over same-sex marriage, and hoped George Stephanopoulos would have asked him some pointed questions about his views on the subject.
But I was also prepared to be disappointed - not in Warren, but in Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos, like Larry King and others, has shown he is more interested in the conventional gotcha school of journalism than in actually asking - and getting answers to - real questions. And like spectators at a monster truck rally, too many people love to revel in the demolition. That's why so many are mesmerized by the flap over Warren comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. That is certainly what I would have expected Stephanopoulos to press Warren on.

But that's not a real question. For the record, here are the kinds of questions I think journalists - and lesbians and gay men - should be asking Warren - questions he should be answering:

(1) Do you acknowledge that other religions, some of them Christian, accept gay marriage, and find support for that conclusion in the Bible?

(2) I understand that you believe the Bible says marriage is only between one man and one woman; but the discussion we are having is not a Biblical or theological one; it is a civic one. Do you have non-theological reasons for imposing a secular rule that prohibits same-sex couples from having the same legal rights (irrespective of their religious beliefs, if any) granted by the state when heterosexual couples take those legal rights for granted?

(3) The equal protection clauses of both state and federal constitutions are in place to protect minorities from being subject to different rules than the majority applies to itself. Is it so important to treat homosexual couples differently that they should be exempted from legal equal protection?

(4) If same-sex couples are entitled to some equality for their relationships, would you support laws granting them similar rights, but not calling those relationships marriage? Why or why not?

(5) Would you accept openly same-sex couples into your congregation? Would this depend on whether they were married or not? Explain your reasoning.

Journalists (and, to be fair, their audiences) who focus on distractions like Warren's comments on incest and pedophilia (which he did make, and which he has since backed away from), or his statement that he had not campaigned in favor of Prop. 8 (after having made a video expressly telling people, at least three times, that they should vote for it) too easily allow religious leaders to avoid answering these questions. Religious leaders obviously want to have a discussion about religious belief because they will win that argument every time - no journalist can talk a pastor out of the belief that the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, if that is what the pastor believes.

Here, Warren and others have chosen to engage in the secular discussion outside of their church, and that is a good thing to my mind. But the secular discussion includes churches and religions that fully support same-sex marriage (and have signed on to legal briefs in courts from California to Vermont), churches and religions that oppose same-sex marriage, and churches and religions that remain neutral in the debate. What we want to know from Warren is which of these positions - in the secular debate - he thinks his church should take - and if he has any reasons for that which a non-adherent to his religious views could accept.

2 Comments for “Rick Rolls (Stephanopoulos)”

  1. posted by jamesnimmo on

    Religion is the single greatest impediment to the recognition of the inherent citizenship of America’s gay and lesbian citizens.

    The argument of dueling bible verses between our supporters and detractors should be between them alone. Both sides need to get out of our lives and let the civil legislative and judicial process take its own course as it has done in Iowa and Vermont.

    The travesty of the recent California election with the passage of Prop-Hate should never happen again anywhere else.

  2. posted by TS on

    jamesnimmo, rhetoric like yours is why this article, and this site, exists.

    “Religion is the single greatest impediment to the recognition of the inherent citizenship of America’s gay and lesbian citizens.”

    I’m not a believer. I think religion is an arbitrary game. But this statement is false, and it’s crafted like a prophecy. Partisans need to realize that there is no “gotcha” moment. If you debated god, He would not vanish in a puff of logic. If you had a debate with a good lawyer, she wouldn’t throw up her hands and tell the judge “I withdraw my motion because the other guy is right.” If you do manage to stump someone or give your opponent pause, it’s because they weren’t adequately prepared, not because you had a brilliant, unchallengable insight.

    This doesn’t preclude the possibility of right and wrong. I fight for equal treatment for LGBTs because I believe homosexuality is morally neutral and civil discrimination is thus inappropriate. But this is still a fraught, anything but simple kind of issue. No prophetic-sounding pronouncement is going to bring this war to an end.

Comments are closed.