Evangelism and Trump

[garbon]

You should check out a writer named David French.  Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical.  Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump.  Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer.  And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.

Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/

That doesn't dispute Beebs point.

You can be a thoughtful evangelical conservative and be grossly wrong about any number of things.

I don't doubt that David French is a thoughtful evangelical conservative.

I don't see how his existence is somehow a refutation of anything I said though....I mean, we knew that there existed such things, so pointing one out doesn't really argue to anything, as far as I can tell.

He expanded by saying deeply committed to equality but I guess now reading he meant racial to apply to equality as well.

[Barrister]

You should check out a writer named David French.  Deeply conservative, deeply evangelical.  Also deeply committed to racial justice and equality, and absolutely #NeverTrump.  Volunteered to serve in Iraq, former National Review writer.  And just basically proof that there is such a thing as a thoughtful evangelical conservative.

Ah like this thoughtful piece where he outlines how Christians are under attack and has evolved to thinking gay marriage should not be legal. That kind of equality?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage-david-french/

I did say he was "deeply conservative".

I find him very thoughtful, but I doubt very much that no matter how many of his article you might read that he'd convince you to become an evangelical Christian garbon.

It's an interesting article though, and you have to consider when it was written - April 2015.  Which was very shortly before Trump came down that fucking golden escalator to run for President.  The thesis of the article (French says it better) is that he thought gay marriage was a common-sense accommodation towards the left, but that instead of the left being satisfied with that accommodation the left continues to push against any expression of Christian morality.

It's the kind of argument often produced by Trumpists.  And they're not necessarily wrong at times.  But French often says to the MAGA-types 'look I might agree with your goals - but Trump?  This guy?  Seriously?'


I also very much doubt David French would write that exact same article in 2022.  Here's the only thing I could find (in 60 seconds of googling) that French has written on gay marriage since: a piece saying the Dobbs decision on abortion is not a threat to gay marriage (French is a lawyer by training).  https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/627535eb95033600218457a5/roe-v-wade-obergefell-gay-marriage/

[garbon]

It is odd because in most of the US, gay marriage wasn't a concession to the left but something enforced by the Supreme Court. It is disingenuous to suggest that states would vote in legislation bringing in similar equality.

[Jacob]

Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."

[Barrister]

It is odd because in most of the US, gay marriage wasn't a concession to the left but something enforced by the Supreme Court. It is disingenuous to suggest that states would vote in legislation bringing in similar equality.

This is part of a longer debate, but as we have seen - what the USSC gives, the USSC can take away.

I don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage.  In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

Same sex marriage was also passed in Canada by Parliament.  It was perhaps pushed by lower court rulings, but there was no SCC decision that made gay marriage legal across Canada - it was a law.

The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were also passed by congress.

[Barrister]

Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."

I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.

[Jacob]

Fair.

[garbon]

Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."

And I'm pretty sure the states that granted those were Dem states. According to wiki it looks like most republican states still have overriden laws banning same sex marriage and unions. So we all know what that means if the Supreme Court changed its point of view...

[garbon]

I don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage.  In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

And American support for abortions stands at 61%.

[Barrister]

I don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage.  In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

And American support for abortions stands at 61%.

Exactly.

I think it's going to be messy, but I'd be surprised if in 10 years all 50 states didn't have some level of legalized abortions.  You might disagree with where they draw the line, but the GOP is just barely discovering how unpopular the maximalist pro-life position is in the wider population.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."

I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.

What gives you that degree of confidence?

[Jacob]

What gives you that degree of confidence?

David French is actually BB's pseudonym. The give-away is the last name "French" which is a reference to BB's well known Francophilia.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it is crazy to suggest that US legislatures could support gay marriage.  In fact gay marriage is supported by 70% of Americans.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

And American support for abortions stands at 61%.

Exactly.

I think it's going to be messy, but I'd be surprised if in 10 years all 50 states didn't have some level of legalized abortions.  You might disagree with where they draw the line, but the GOP is just barely discovering how unpopular the maximalist pro-life position is in the wider population.

What is the maximalist pro-life position, and who holds it?

[Barrister]

Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."

I mean - I'm not going to defend an article I didn't write, I don't agree with, and that I'm 99% sure the author would not write the same way today.

What gives you that degree of confidence?

Familiarity with the man's work?  As a fairly regular reader of The Dispatch (founded by him, Jonah Goldberg and a couple of others)?

And I did fudge it by saying "the same way".  Maybe he'd still write that he still opposes same-sex marriage.  But I'm quite confident he wouldn't do so because of how poorly Christians are being treated.  Because that kind of "whataboutism" argument has really been badly exposed as being intellectually hollow during the Trump years.

[Josquius]

Yeah, gay marriage wasn't a concession. The concession was "registered partnerships, separate but equal - so religious folks can feel 'marriage' is still their own special thing unsullied by the gay."

TBH this was my favoured solution for a long time.
Ideal world gay marriage of course, but in terms of practicality did it really matter what you called it? If the word marriage was what was causing all the trouble then just do the same thing but by a different name and let gay people have all the rights they want already.
Thankfully this is one issue where I have been pleasantly surprised by humanity as attitudes on this came on a lot quicker than I thought they would.