Far from doing what most politicians do - and steering away from the subject of homosexuality as far as possible - Dean weighed in. He explained his support for gay equality as a function of his religious convictions: "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people." He didn't offer a careful, non-controversial mealy-mouthed defense of civil unions. He took a stand in defense of a small minority group - and he refused to cede the grounds of faith to the religious right. Maybe, as some predict, this candor will sink him. But that doesn't make it any the less admirable. As someone whose commitment to gay equality is also deeply motivated by my reading of the Gospels, I felt a little less lonely yesterday.First some caveats. One, I'm not religious in the least, but I have respect for those who are. Two, I'm fully in line with the gay marriage agenda. But, honestly, I'm embarrassed when I hear Sully agreeing with such moronic pop theology. The bible condemns (wrongly, I think) homosexuality. Now there are plenty of sophisticated ways to unpack that -- sociologically, anthropologically, etc. My belief is that a small tribe of Hebrews, fresh out of slavery and needing to reconquer Palestine, was concerned about repopulation, hence the heavy moral opprobrium cast upon homosexuality, masturbation (spilling one's seed), and visiting prostitutes (who were not Hebrews -- and Jewish status is passed maternally, not paternally). Howard Dean, and now Sullivan, reduce a fascinating human phenomenon to a Hallmark-card theology. Yuck. The world is far more interesting than that.
More: Moxie's on the issue, too:
By that same theorySpot on, Mox.
?If God didn?t want to steal from the rich to give to the poor he wouldn?t have created Democrats.?
This kind of thinking is why I am an atheist.
Still more: Brooke weighs in:
This is why Dean's efforts to present himself as a "religious candidate" will eventually fail: his understanding of Christianity is simply awful.