The other day, as I was reading one of the daily news emails that arrive in my inbox, I came across a story that I thought surely must have been ripped from the pages of The Onion. Two New York hotel owners had a meeting with Ted Cruz. That’s not the shocking part. This pair of hoteliers happens to be gay. They have been active in the gay community for years. They have supported gay causes with both words and dollars. They have been vocal supporters of gay marriage. They host special gay-themed events in their hotel. They are true believers in the cause with nearly impeccable credentials. At least, they were until they committed an unpardonable sin: They had a meeting with Ted Cruz.
You see, Ted Cruz is not only a particularly conservative Republican, he’s not only a conservative Christian, but he vocally opposes gay marriage. Cue the dramatic musical sting. Perhaps they could have had a reason to meet with him if he were just a Republican. After all, a growing number of Republicans support gay marriage. Maybe they had a valid explanation for sitting down with him if he were just a Christian. After all, Christians with profiles have come out as strong supporters of gay marriage. But Cruz is staunchly opposed to gay marriage and believes the issue should be left entirely up to the states where gay marriage is largely legal only at the imposition of the federal courts. This was a Golden Gate Bridge too far. Strike three. They’re out.
Other — more ideologically pure — gay rights supporters heard about this and quickly organized a boycott of their hotel, coaxed an AIDS charity with a planned fundraiser in their hotel to cancel the event, and even suggested that shutting the thing down completely could be necessary — all because the pair sat down for a meal with Cruz. The two men eventually posted an effusive apology on their Facebook page. The response, though, was rather more tepid than they were surely hoping for. Many critics simply wrote: “Apology NOT accepted.” Several were more colorful with their rejections.
This whole episode prompts two questions in my mind. The first is this: What’s wrong with us? These two men sat down to break bread with an individual who happens to fall on the opposite ideological side of this particular issue and they are being boycotted for it by folks who think like they do about it. In the realm of international politics this kind of thing is usually called diplomacy and most folks consider it a positive. Now, to be fair, those who fall on the conservative side of the line here have often not done much better in terms of their willingness to engage with the supportive crowd, but nearly all of the most recent examples of this kind of ideological extremism seem to fall on the left. (For example, the Student Government Association of Johns Hopkins University recently voted to ban Chick-fil-A from its campus because of their corporate position on gay marriage in spite of the fact that Chick-fil-A has no plans to put a restaurant there.) When simply having a friendly meal with folks on the other side of the issue becomes a damnable offense it is safe to say things have gotten a little out of hand.
My second question, though, is this: How do we get along on this issue when there’s no middle ground? I’ve written before about my thoughts on the real question when it comes to homosexuality. The first question we must answer when thinking about gay rights is this: is homosexual behavior a sin or not? Everything else about the issue flows from there. Now, again, folks who answer that affirmatively need to do better on this issue than we often have. We have often dropped the ball when it comes to showing love to gay friends and family (and strangers for that matter). We have often communicated our position poorly relying on platitudes and not taking fully enough into consideration the real, personal impact our arguments have. It is undoubtedly a challenge arguing something is morally wrong when the person to whom you are making that argument considers the thing in question a fundamental part of their identity.
But, there are just as many problems on the other side of the issue. The still-unfolding debacle with the New York hoteliers is a great example. Again, all they did was to sit down and have a meal with someone who opposes same-sex marriage. And they have been essentially blacklisted for it. What this and other equally egregious examples suggest is that the growing consensus among at least some on the gay rights side of the issue is that opposition to gay marriage is not simply unfortunate, but a morally illegitimate position to hold. In other words, their actions suggest a belief that opposition to gay rights is not simply wrong but evil.
One of the evidences of the lingering presence of God’s image in all people is that when given a chance, we tend to not merely oppose, but to put a stop to things we consider evil. We’re more tolerant of things we consider merely wrong. For example, one of the reasons many Germans did not more aggressively oppose Hitler was that in at least the early days of the Nazi Party, they believed that he was not evil (many actually believed he was right). In the years since most of the world has come to recognize that Nazism was and is an evil ideology and should be stamped out in its entirety. For example, today, 70 years since the war ended, when nonagenarians who took part in Nazi abuses are found, they are still tried and convicted for it. If a business owner was revealed to be meeting with Nazi sympathizers we would likely make him repudiate such behavior and go on some sort of an apology tour and probably make a large donation to some sort of pro-Jewish charity before forgiveness would be extended. There is no getting along with Nazis. There is no middle ground with Nazism. There is only eliminating their worldview from not just the culture, but the world.
Need this be any clearer? The New York hoteliers are but a single example of many. The vocal gay rights crowd today is increasingly treating the ideological opposite position as if it is as morally illegitimate as Nazism. The middle ground has been erased. Those who oppose in some kind of public way must be made to comply or else pay the price and even meeting with members of the other side is anathema. This kind of dogmatism is usually thought to only be found in the church. How do we get along when there’s no middle ground? I’ll explore this more in part two.