Manhattan’s Meaning

by on

It seems to me that the import of the "Manhattan Declaration" is political, because there is nothing new in it substantively. The Declaration is a statement of principles written by Robert George, Timothy George, and Charles Colson and issued over the names of about 150 Christian social conservatives, including Tony Perkins (prez of the Family Research Council), James Dobson (prez of Focus on the Family), and Maggie Gallagher (prez of the National Organization for Marriage). I interpret the release of this document, at this moment, as a warning shot directed at the conservative movement and, less directly, the Republican Party. The gist, in my own translation:
1) "Opposition to abortion and gay marriage will be the two issues for the social right. Forget about diversifying the portfolio or changing the emphasis. Not gonna happen on our watch." 2) "Never mind polls showing gradually increasing acceptance of gay marriage. Never mind the country's now-majority support for some form of publicly recognized same-sex partnership, even among younger evangelicals. Homosexuality is 'sexual immorality,' now and forever, and public sanction of same-sex sexual unions is unacceptable. Period." 3) "Don't even think about going squishy on either of these issues, because, if you do, we will split the movement. You have been warned. It's opposition to gay marriage to the bitter end...or civil war."
I see the Declaration as part of the Republican/conservative drive toward a smaller, purer party/movement. I suspect it will help deliver the "smaller" part, anyway.

4 Comments for “Manhattan’s Meaning”

  1. posted by Neil D on

    As I’ve said in other comments, I believe the fundamental barrier to our civil rights is religion. Find a way to separate our cause from the religious aspect and we’ll be sucessful. Expecting religous people to move our way is a lost cause for at least a generation.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    I see this as more directed at trying to create and energizing a conservative base and trying to win the moderates over to that base, especially on the separation of church and state issue. It is trying to build an ideology and social worldview that can stand in opposition to the pro-life and pro-gay marriage movements. Otherwise they won’t be able to carry out their civil disobedience threat. I read a willingness to fight, but also a confidence that they will get something from it. It hearkens back to the days when Christian religious leaders were more prominent.

    Yes, this is a time when the conservative wing of the Republican party is exerting itself, but I see this document as standing outside of that. The authors want to use that momentum, but they’re not driving it. Of course I don’t even know the authors.

  3. posted by Amicus on

    So many non-sequiturs and so much childish theology, it’s hard to know where to start.

    1. Life

    Yes, gays support life as much as non-gays. Sometimes, even more, since conservative religious “types” (some Catholics included) are now silent on Uganda’s “Gays Get Sharia” law.

    But there is more.

    I am unaware of any gay couple who has had an abortion. Therefore, in a strange way, marriage for gays is quite pro-life. Sorry, to press the advantage that way, but this Declaration seems hardly in good faith, proclaimed as an ‘ecumenism’ that it is NOT.

    Last, the authors really need to look at the _Hebrew_ scriptures that they quote, especially at the word used for “woman”. Of course, it would be sloppy not to mention that this origin mythology has its own problems, leaving whether it can be taken quite as literally as they suggest. Of course, many who know the Hebrew scriptures better than Robert P. George, Timmy or Colson, are copacetic with blessing gay unions, in religious ceremony, not just civil ceremony…

    2. Marriage

    Again with the Hebrew scriptures. These passages are hardly support the later, exceptionally strong claim, “marriage is an objective fact”. There is absolutely NO scriptural support given for the claim that other relationships can be judged to be “intrinsically … immoral”.

    The amount of information left out about scriptural marriage is legion and tantamount of lying, because the authors must know how much they have not said.

    But there is more. Whipped up into a frenzy, there is a cherry on top:

    “the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.”

    There is absolutely NO scriptural support for this conclusion. The cherry is that there is absolutely NO empirical support for this conclusion. In fact, the prima facie case seems as much “objective reality” as Robert P. George’s “objective reality”, namely, marriage supports marriage. Gay marriage is good for all marriage.

    3. Religious Liberty

    This is ridiculous and what ultimately makes this is a ‘hard case’, a waste of time, and purely a political, not an endeavor to live in Christ whatsoever.

    The law, should it include civil provisions for gay couples, will continue to provide Robert, Timmy, and Chuck all the religious liberty they need to live the gospel, even under their improvised Orthodoxy.

  4. posted by Amicus on

    “leaving whether it can be taken” s/b

    “leaving questions whether it can be taken”

    “this is a ‘hard case'” s/b

    “this a ‘hard case'”

    “purely a political” s/b

    “purely political”

    Apologies. I will try to type more s-l-o-w-l-y.

Comments are closed.