Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week, we take on one of the most debated topics on the site: gay marriage, religious freedom, and what the issues mean for the future of the Republican Party. We do it with two guests from opposite sides of the issue: Rod Dreher is an author (read his new book How Dante Can Save Your Life: The Life-Changing Wisdom of History’s Greatest Poem) columnist, and one of the brightest thinkers in social conservative media. On the other side, Ricochet member Jonathan Gilbert, a gay conservative writer from Los Angeles. What follows is a passionate, intelligent, and (most importantly) respectful discussion on gay marriage, religious freedom, and how the two might coexist. In other words, it’s a shining example of what we mean when we say Ricochet is the home of civil conversation. We hope you’ll tune in.
Music from this week’s episode:
Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off by Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Oh, hell EJHill.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
Get premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door! Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly to the consumer. Get $50 off your first purchase! Go to Casper.com/Ricochet and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
That was the first podcast where I have actually been angry at the hosts. I suspect Peter wanted to say more, and perhaps James, too, but were too polite. I have gone from being a normal guy with traditional beliefs for my entire life to “loathsome” in just 2-3 years. I have real reason to believe that in the next 5 years my protestant denomination (Methodist) might change it stripes leaving me without a church and that my future employment, and thus my children’s means of having food and shelter, will be in jeopardy. It’s all happening pretty fast.
Guys like Rob are going to have to realize what their libertarian views actually mean. We’re all going to be those pizza shop folks soon – hated and marginalized.
I have to agree with the consensus here: Apparently calling almost half the country, “loathsome” qualifies as civil now?
States can’t declare bankruptcy.
I’m not sure why it is you are all angry about this. I rather like it. The thought of silly people saying silly things about anyone with opinions I happen to share does nothing to get me angry.
Cato, ok in Connecticut we have $76 billion in unfunded state and local pensions and benefits. This state will never be able to pay these people how can that be resolved? Do the localities have to declare? That is ok for cities and towns but what about state employees?
Can we have a podcast on this subject cause this concerns me greatly since I live in CT. You too Cato your in Illinois.
Yea, CT and IL are at the top of the basket case list. I don’t know how it gets resolved for sure but there are a few things I can tell you:
1) The bankruptcy code does not permit a state to file. It could in theory be amended to permit it, but I’m not sure that amendment would be constitutional, even assuming it was politically feasible.
2) Yes, municipalities can file if the state permits them to. I’ve said before, I think Chicago will at some point. Our governor has now suggested that the Chicago Public Schools should do so. That doesn’t really help with state obligations though, unless they can somehow be shifted to the municipalities, and that would raise real questions about whether the state could really get off the hook. (Those questions would more than likely be messy agreement by agreement contract questions.)
3) Regrettably, the most likely outcome is a federal bailout. The federal government is up to its eyeballs too, but it has one thing nobody else does — a printing press.
What if I don’t go to a loved one’s wedding because I don’t like who they are getting married too? Am I loathsome then?
Now, I would go to a Gay Wedding. I don’t really care. But to call people “loathsome” for a stance that Obama himself held in 2008, is nuts.
I notice, no blue posts here. I thought name calling was against CoC. The owners have no stance on this at all?
Pretty sorry showing, guys.Calling people loathsome is not respectful. I don’t know how you can claim that.
Also, my wife likes the Harry’s Shave Razor I got her
Inspired by Rod I read first canto of Dante’s Inferno. Beautiful and powerful. Why does nothing even remotely like this get produced anymore? Has modern man lost the capacity to produce things of such power and eloquence. I read Inferno in college. Think I may read the entire Divine Comedy now. Thanks Rod!
By the way, I started using Harry’s about a month ago. Love it. (Notice the smooth face in my avatar.)
The unasked question in the podcast was “should small businesses be fined, their owners threatened with jail, or both if they refuse to serve a Same Sex Marriage event?”
Like these loathsome folks have just been:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/24/state-says-bakers-should-pay-135000-for-refusing-to-bake-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/
Of course they should. What good does it do to pay jack-booted thugs if you aren’t going to use them? We are subservient to the whims of government and if we sometimes pretend otherwise they have the clear duty to put us in jail if we don’t do as they tell us.
Outright slavery is next, you know.
Regarding Rob’s woman friend who wants unisex bathrooms because she’s “tired of the fast-moving line” for the men’s room: Has anybody ever explained the concept of the urinal to her? Letting women into the men’s room won’t speed up anything up.
Great quesiton. What about other reasons to turn down providing a service to a gay wedding?
1) changing a calendar date around and having to say no to the gay couple? Have to be careful how that is worded. Very careful. Why couldn’t they just sue you or have the state go after you because they think that really you lied about your full calendar. You will get deposed and have to disclose your records on this. This is a chance for extremely immature people to use the full force of the jack-booted thugs to help make up for all the slights that they have had to endure for being gay.
2) You don’t like the gay customer who comes into your shop, he uses foul language and makes it evident that he hates “breeders.” You say no to him and bingo you owe your lawyer a bunch of money and will have to pay a disgusting human being money just to settle out of court or money required from the courts.
Witch hunts are here and it’s going to get worse — make no mistake.
I think she wants to eliminate urinals–and the tinkle troughs you find in some (many) sports venues–and replace them with women’s stalls. My feeling is that this is just one more inconvenience God has imposed on women because Eve offered Adam the apple in Eden.
Some fascinating background on this oft-misattributed quote.
VERY interesting, Charlotte. Thanks.
I thought Jonathan was way off base with the comment that Christian’s being oppressed is rare. Those lawsuits are going to multiply and more Christian business owners are going to get bankrupted. The oppressed are now the oppressors. Does anyone who went to high school really think that when the tables are turned, the gays aren’t going to press the advantage? There aren’t nearly enough people in the LGBT community telling their brethren “then find another baker/florist/photographer.” There are plenty of activists who want be the next to carry the banner into battle and will seek out Christians to persecute as the victories become easier. The supposed “empathy” of the gays will be overridden by the opportunity to take revenge.
Wow. Friends had told me to stay far, far away from SSM threads and now I understand why. I’ve been watching this conversation for a few days hoping for more of a balanced give-and-take on the issues presented on the podcast, but since it’s not happening I feel compelled to comment even though I know it will probably not be well received.
I’ve been friends with Jonathan Gilbert since the early days of Ricochet and was excited to hear he had been encouraged to speak on the main podcast. I understand he didn’t volunteer to go on, but was approached by site administrators and encouraged to participate because he is well spoken and passionate about this topic yet is also politically conservative.
On his Facebook news feed a few days ago Jonathan mentioned having done the interview. Said he thought it went well and encouraged people to head over to check out the civilized conversation on Ricochet, where we may differ in our opinions on a topic while treating each other respectfully. Hope no potential members followed his link.
This is the Main Feed, guys. Jonathan is one of us, a fascinating, right-leaning member of the Ricochet community deserving of respect even when we disagree on specific issues. He’s not just some disembodied symbol of an issue that infuriates many on both sides of the argument.
Apparently using a short vowel instead of the long a in the name Kasich indicated to some that Jonathan is ignorant and deserving of mockery. Couldn’t be further from the truth. His use of the word “loathsome” (ever chosen the wrong word in a conversation before?) also seems to have brought out the pitchforks and torches. That’s unfortunate. I’ve had fascinating non-SSM discussions with Jonathan about the nuances of politics at the national level and know he’s not just a one-issue person as he appears on the admittedly too-brief, one topic interview.
I’m reluctant to engage when tempers are so high, but felt the need to stand up and defend a fine person. Jonathan Gilbert is smart, he’s witty, and he’s brave enough come out as both conservative AND gay. He’s also a true gentleman and over the years I’ve seen him respond to even awkwardly phrased questions with grace and humor. If the tone of this thread was less hostile he probably would have joined in (have no idea if he’s checked it out yet and am too mortified to ask, btw.)
The conversation does seem to be getting somewhat calmer but I hope that the vitriolic, almost groupthink tone of the early comments isn’t indicative of the treatment Jonathan will receive elsewhere on the site. He can mix it up with the best of them on this issue but should be able to join the conversation without being personally attacked and mocked. Yikes, guys, let’s keep it civil!
Thanks TOD. Agreed. I don’t know Jonathon but I PM’d him after listening to the podcast and reading the “2 minute hate” it generated here. He doesn’t appear to have opened it, so I’m not sure he’s checking the site. I too thought he represented our side well. “Loathsome” is probably an ill-chosen word, but I understand his point. Some on the anti-SSM side seem to object not only to equality for gays, but even to gays being offended by the deprivation of it.
Yes, this is what happens with the blunt instrument that government and its laws bring. I like your notion that
This is why it is important that people like Gilbert not fan the flames if they don’t want an ugly reaction. So many decent gay people will pay the price for the words and actions of the elites in their movement.
Diane and Cato: I have NO reason to believe that loathsome was ill-chosen. What other possible word could he have used? Should he have lied, dissembled? No, he was instead pugnacious and self-righteous in his tone and loathsome fit right in to his conversation. It wasn’t a mistake — it is how he feels. Please don’t soft-peddle this — let’s deal with it. What does it mean to you, Cato, if you have to accept that he meant it?
Dreher was kicked in the teeth with this interview.
I think “loathsome” is an unduly harsh word — but yes — it expresses something real. It expresses a moral revulsion that I, presumably Jonathon, and much of the public feels toward those who prejudge homosexuals as a class, and single us out for opprobrium, contempt, and discrimination based on a disapproval of our innate sexual orientations and romantic affinities.
That is why this fight isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. At its base, we dispute the moral worthiness of each other’s worldview.
I have defended, in the name of pluralism and social harmony, conservative christians’ rights to live their lives, run their businesses and use their property in accordance with their worldview, but that does not mean I approve of that worldview where gays are concerned. The words I’ve chosen to use to try to describe it are words like “cruel” “unkind” and occasionally “reprehensible.” But those are all just ways of saying “loathsome” while trying to be slightly more polite about it.
By the way, I don’t think Dreher was kicked in the teeth at all. I think the irreconcilability of the opposing views made each side inevitably sound a little harsh to the other — but all in all, I think both did a wonderful job of being civil and maintaining their decorum under the circumstances.
Let me tell you the question I would have liked to see asked.
Dreher seemed to acknowledge — as any honest person must — that the historical treatment of gay people by, notably, conservative christians, has been cruel and unjust.
Jumping off from that, I would’ve liked to see whether he thought that might explain the distrust that gays have for the evangelicals today, and in particular whether he could imagine that distrust dissipating in an environment where those same people still hew to the view that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals should be denied access to social and legal institutions based on their homosexuality?
Of course he would acknowledge that it might explain the distrust. That is not what is in dispute here. We are all talking about watching sides in a dispute in which the government has taken sides and is willing to use the full force of the state powers to enforce a moral dispute. And in direct violation of the Constitution.
Please don’t put this down to the simplistic notion that we can all get along AND we can all agree. We cannot all agree but we can all get along. Stop using the government’s powers of law and violence against people for thought crimes. Do use the government’s powers to support gay people who are hurt by others.
You said it above: access to “social and legal institutions” — the social aspect should be left alone. You will miss some soirees.
So you are granting my right to the legal institution of marriage? Because if the answer is no, I’m not sure I should concern myself so much with how the law treats you. What’s good for the goose . . .
It is NOT rights, Cato. It’s oppression that’s at issue here.
Once granted a right to marry — this should not give you the right to sue someone or have them arrested for not liking you, the fact that you are gay or the fact that they have any misgivings about you as a person. They have the right to not like you and the right to say so. It’s the improper use of the government to settle social disputes.
Let’s be clear here: Thomas Sowell and others have said that the right of a shop owner to not serve ANYONE (and for any reason) is greater than any person’s rights to buy from him or hire him.
These are the basic rights.
The civil rights laws as they are being enforced are a swing from Jim Crow’s government enforced laws against blacks to government enforced laws against shop owners of any color, race or religious affiliation. This is unconstitutional. Do you see why?
We agree on all that — everything you said here — but you didn’t answer my simple question. Do you grant that I should have the right to marry?
Oh, so now it’s this, is it? You simply must know this. Am I in the club of decent people or not?
I am sympathetic with conservative religious people in this issue. They are being oppressed by these laws. Let’s stay on topic. I’ll answer later.