Maggie Gallagher is someone whose writings have often seemed insightful. I suppose this ought to. She certainly seems to express a worthwhile concern:And you can say this:Maggie Gallagher, "Who’s Really Showing Courage in Indiana?" (National Review, april 2, 2015)But then again.... Look... if you can say this:"I don’t see any reason why I as a Roman Catholic could not bake a cake or pizza for a gay wedding, in the unlikely event anyone wanted me to do so. (Gay couples: If you are turned down by a local business and want an alternative to crushing a local family’s livelihood, call me!)
Will we find a way to stand and fight this new wave of hatred and intolerance, while recognizing and communicating that we know gay people have the same right that we’re demanding for ourselves — the right to live as one chooses?Then explain to me again, just why do we object to the way gay people choose to live their life? I think our opponents might then be right that we are making a mountain out of a molehill. She is right about the lack of political firepower, but why should anyone muster that at all if the whole thing is as tepid an affair as she seems to suggest? "The right to live as one chooses" sounds a lot like the note sounded by Vatican II in its Decree on Religious Liberty. It certainly sounds good, even noble. But lest no one else mentions it, isn't it true that history's most notorious sinners also chose to live as they wanted, according to their lights? Would Maggie make them a nosegay or send them a cake? Is the problem that liberals are, well, over-reacting, or that Christians need to, well, take a tip from Francis and lighten up? Who's Okay, and who's not? Just wondering, even as I wonder at the fact NR chose not to review Robert Royal's Making Gay Okay.