Interesting video from 2012 – Missouri pastor's surprising take on gay rights

[Anthony K. S.]

A short while ago, I was browsing through YouTube and came across a very interesting video. Admittedly, it's a bit dated now, but I really wanted to share it here, for those who might not have ever seen it.


YouTube – Rev. Phil Snider Speech at Springfield City Council Meeting on Sexual Orientation

Huffington Post – "Phil Snider, Missouri Pastor, Gives Anti-Gay Rights Speech With Surprise Twist Ending"


Back in August of 2012, there was an ordinance proposed in the City Council of Springfield, MO, that would have added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of categories protected by the city's anti-discrimination laws.

Rev. Phil Snider, the pastor of the Brentwood Christian Church, addressed a meeting of the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance. For about a minute and a half, he went on and on about how promoting gay rights goes against the will of God, denies the rights of Christians, etc. :

"Any accurate reading of the Bible should make it clear that gay rights goes against the plain truth of the Word of God …"

"Man, in overstepping the boundary lines God has drawn, by making special rights for gays and lesbians, has taken another step in the direction of inviting the judgment of God upon our land …"

"This step of gay rights is but another stepping stone toward the immorality and lawlessness that will be characteristic of the last days …"

"This ordinance represents a denial of all that we believe in and no one should force it on us …"

"It’s not that we don’t care about homosexuals, but that our rights will be taken away, and un-Christian views will be forced on us and our children, for we’d be forced to go against our personal morals …"

"Outside government agents are endeavoring to disturb God’s established order. It is not in line with the Bible. Do not let people lead you astray …"

"The liberals leading this movement do not believe the Bible any longer, but every good, substantial, Bible-believing, intelligent Orthodox Christian can read the Word of God and know that what is happening is not of God …"

"When you run into conflict with God’s established order, you have trouble. You do not produce harmony. You produce destruction …"

At first glance, it seems like there's nothing new here. Just yet another conservative Christian minister spinning out all of the usual anti-gay rhetoric. But, then, at about the 1:45 mark, comes the shocker :

"The reason is that we have gotten away from the Bible of our forefathers. You see, the right of segregation is ... I'm sorry. Hold on ... [Frowns and re-reads his notes] ... 'The right of segregation is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example' ...

... I'm sorry. I brought the wrong notes with me this evening. I borrowed my argument from the wrong century. It turns out what I've been reading to you this whole time are direct quotes from white preachers from the 1950's and 1960's, all in support of racial segregation.

All I have done is simply take out the phrase 'racial integration' and substituted the phrase 'gay rights.' I guess the arguments I've been hearing around Springfield lately sounded so similar to these, that I got them confused. I hope you will not make the same mistake. I hope you will stand on the right side of history. Thank you."

... Wow. Drop the mic, Reverend.

A YouTube video of Rev. Snider's speech went viral, rapidly gaining over two million views, and Rev. Snider received a huge outpouring of support.

However, some people noted that Rev. Snider's message would likely go right over the heads of the people who most needed to hear it. Unfortunately, this was quickly proven correct.

Perhaps the best illustration I can give of this is a comment that was posted on an article in Glenn Beck's The Blaze. (The article itself was actually quite reasonable. It was just this comment posted on it that caught my attention.)

As for marriage, it is between one man and one woman – and should not be re-defined. I have no objection, though, to a legal contract between gays, through which they would have the same tax benefits and other legal rights as married couples.

I will vehemently object, though, to any definition of marriage that includes two people of the same sex, in the same way that I would object to a definition that would define three or four people together as a "marriage."

Marriage has been defined as "one man and one woman" for thousands of years; redefining words to adapt to an "evolving morality" is wrong.

To the gay community: is this not a fair compromise? I feel that if gays continue to insist on changing the definition of marriage, they will end up as they are now – with no legal rights at all. Only politicians trolling for votes will fully accept "gay marriage," but they will lose more votes than they gain in doing so.

The great irony here was that this was virtually the exact same argument that would have been made by those who supported racial segregation :


"I will firmly oppose any attempt to 'mix' whites and blacks in the same spaces. Separation of the races has always been the tradition of our society, and to change it now to accommodate some 'evolving morality' would be wrong.

However, I fully support mandating that black schools, hospitals, transportation, and so forth, provide the exact same quality of service that is available in facilities for whites.

To the black community, I ask : Is this not a fair compromise? If blacks continue to insist on ending segregation, then I fear that they will end up with no legal rights at all."


Rev. Snider was drawing a parallel between the racial segregationists of the 1950's and 1960's and modern day anti-gay rights advocates.

And in a stunning display of totally missing the point, this person responded by offering up "civil unions" as a "fair compromise" to marriage equality. Somehow managing to remain completely oblivious to the fact that this is the very same worthless "separate but equal" ideology that was used to rationalize segregation.

This person also claimed, as they always do, that their beliefs are supported by the majority of society. Which I am skeptical of, because I am personally seeing more and more that society, as a whole, is moving toward equality for the LGBT community.

One thing that history has shown us : With the passage of time, society grows, learns, and matures, and comes to reject the injustices of its past. American society used to believe in racial segregation. We know better now.

Today, there are people who fervently believe that gay rights directly violates the teachings of God. But there were also people in the 1950’s and 1960’s who believed that about racial integration, with just as much passion. Perhaps people should take a moment every now and then to check themselves, to see whether or not they are really on the right side of history.

Even if it takes another few decades, who can say what our society will come to embrace? We may hope to see a day when America will view the opposition to gay marriage as just another shameful relic of our past, no different from how we now view racial segregation.

[Kheldarson]

And in a stunning display of totally missing the point, this person responded by offering up "civil unions" as a "fair compromise" to marriage equality. Somehow managing to remain completely oblivious to the fact that this is the very same worthless "separate but equal" ideology that was used to rationalize segregation.
.

I would actually say that the fairer compromise would be to split the idea of marriage into "civil" and "religious". Because while I'm in full support of the government recognizing gay marriages as they do my hetero marriage, I do not support the idea of the government telling my church what they should or should not recognize as a marriage. If we want to call all legally recognized civil marriages unions and religiously recognized marriages marriages, fine. If we want to say civil marriage and religious marriage, fine. We want to call one Sanzibar and the other Timbuktu, fine. But we're at a point where we need to apply a separation, where the civil side doesn't care if the union is religiously recognized or not at all.

[Rapscallion]

I would actually say that the fairer compromise would be to split the idea of marriage into "civil" and "religious".

I don't accept this.

Marriage is a civil affair as it is. At least in the UK, anyone wishing to perform a marriage (whether a priest or registrar) has to be trained in such to a state agreed level. We don't have different standards of marriage based on different denominations of a faith.

Marriage should be available to all where consent is possible and given, and if a religious group don't want to perform a marriage because of the genders of the couples involved, that's their issue. They shouldn't have any say over anyone else.

It would be akin to me saying that I'm on a diet so you can't have dessert, and that's unacceptable.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Marriage is a civil affair as it is.

Except, in the US, it's not viewed that way. There are states where it's a requirement that you be married by a religious leader; you can't just go to a JoP. So we have an issue of language: when I say I'm married, I mean by both state and church, yet they're technically two distinct sets of requirements and ceremonies.

So we need to clarify the language. Because, honestly, I agree that folks who want to have their unions legally recognized should be able to do so. And it seems to be, at least in the US, that a major barrier is the idea that it's going to be forced into religious definitions. So we change the language we use to reflect the difference of intent in the two ceremonies.

[KabeRinnaul]

We don't have different standards of marriage based on different denominations of a faith.

She's not saying that. She's more or less suggesting we adopt the German system, as I recall from her stories about her family (mother's side is German, and her parents were married there).

Basically, there are two totally separate types of union (and no, I don't mean in the "separate but equal" sense, I mean in the "apples and oranges" sense).

The one is the religious ceremony where a man in a robe talks a lot and sprinkles you with water/puts oil on you/adjust to fit religion of choice, but mostly comes down to "After today, God says it's okay for you to have sex". This provides no legal standing whatsoever. It's a religious ceremony, and carries all the legal power of a baptism.

The other is a legal arrangement where a representative of the state records that two people now have a number of protections and special considerations when it comes to inheritance, power of attorney, taxes, etc. There's no religion in this one, and the government shouldn't give a damn what combination of penises and/or vaginas are involved in the matter.

That's the idea. To remove the question of religion from marriage entirely by separating the legal status from the ritual.

[NecCat]

Except, in the US, it's not viewed that way. There are states where it's a requirement that you be married by a religious leader; you can't just go to a JoP.

That's a little frightening, and it seems to be against the whole separation of church and government deal you all are supposed to be living by. Unless those states also don't have special tax rules for married people, special rules of health care coverage, separate inheritance or gift tax rules and courts that determine what happens to the assets of divorcing married couples, then you have government legislating specially for people who are of a specific religion (ie any religion allowed to perform marriages in those states). Or are citizens of those states allowed to go get married in other states, and have a non religious government sanctioned marriage acceptable in the state? Even that seems discriminatory, but at least with a work around.

[Kheldarson]

That's a little frightening, and it seems to be against the whole separation of church and government deal you all are supposed to be living by. Unless those states also don't have special tax rules for married people, special rules of health care coverage, separate inheritance or gift tax rules and courts that determine what happens to the assets of divorcing married couples, then you have government legislating specially for people who are of a specific religion (ie any religion allowed to perform marriages in those states). Or are citizens of those states allowed to go get married in other states, and have a non religious government sanctioned marriage acceptable in the state? Even that seems discriminatory, but at least with a work around.

As long as you have somebody registered as a pastor, even a mail-order, they don't care; it's just that the JoP doesn't sign in those areas. But they still recognize marriages from other states. It's part of why I think we need to have a language separation for what we're talking about between the legal contract and the religious ceremonies.

[Andara Bledin]

Except, in the US, it's not viewed that way. There are states where it's a requirement that you be married by a religious leader; you can't just go to a JoP.

Well, sure, there are some states that still have that requirement.

And I, with my paper I got off the internet some decade ago from some 'get ordained today' website am totally legit for most of those cases.

Not that anyone is actually going to check on who the hell officiated the vast majority of weddings, anyway.

As long as you have somebody registered as a pastor, even a mail-order, they don't care; it's just that the JoP doesn't sign in those areas. But they still recognize marriages from other states. It's part of why I think we need to have a language separation for what we're talking about between the legal contract and the religious ceremonies.

We already have language separation.

The civil construct is marriage, as is reflected in hundreds of thousands of laws across the US alone.

Whatever various religions want to call it is up to them. Everybody just needs to recognize that, along with terms like "holiday," the word "marriage" has been fully co-opted by secular concerns and at this point, there is not a single chance in hell of going back.

[Rapscallion]

I think I need to ask for some clarification.

If you want to marry people in the US, whether in a religious or secular fashion, what do you have to do? Pass some sort of test for a licence? Apply to an authority that can grant it? How does that work?

Over here, since this is the perspective I'm coming from, the clergy have to be licenced by the state to marry people.

Anyone able to clarify this for me please?

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

I think I need to ask for some clarification.

If you want to marry people in the US, whether in a religious or secular fashion, what do you have to do? Pass some sort of test for a licence? Apply to an authority that can grant it? How does that work?

Over here, since this is the perspective I'm coming from, the clergy have to be licenced by the state to marry people.

Anyone able to clarify this for me please?

Rapscallion

You have to have a marriage license and then what steps the pastor/priest/rabbi has to do to be legitimate officiant is up to the state you're marrying in, and the county sometimes too. Some require registration, some just say you have to be recognized by some central authority, some require bonds. Which is why I advocate for more separation of procedure as this continues: right now, there's a lot of variability and co-mingling of the two sides of marriage which leads to a perception nightmare.

[Gravekeeper]

Whatever various religions want to call it is up to them. Everybody just needs to recognize that, along with terms like "holiday," the word "marriage" has been fully co-opted by secular concerns and at this point, there is not a single chance in hell of going back.

Frankly, the government construct of marriage is closer to what marriage originally was ( a legal contract ensuring property rights and inheritance ) than the current religious definition ( which is very much a modern invention despite all this nostalgic waxing bullshit they trot out ).

I'm not even going to touch this golden calf of Traditional Marriage(tm) they trot out. Traditional Marriage(tm) from a biblical perspective involved you owning your wife as an asset ( and indeed, several wives if you were so inclined. And some slaves! Just in case. )

I am, however, a ad horrified that some states require a religious sign off to grant a marriage license. However, changing the language is not a morally acceptable solution to this. This requirement should be decoupled from marriage to begin with as, you know, indicated by that whole Constitution thing.

Just changing the language creates separate but equal whether you intend it that way or not. Thats how it will be viewed and how it will be treated. LGBT will still be considered legally lesser than their straight counterparts.

[NecCat]

I am, however, a ad horrified that some states require a religious sign off to grant a marriage license. However, changing the language is not a morally acceptable solution to this. This requirement should be decoupled from marriage to begin with as, you know, indicated by that whole Constitution thing.

Just changing the language creates separate but equal whether you intend it that way or not. Thats how it will be viewed and how it will be treated. LGBT will still be considered legally lesser than their straight counterparts.

I agree about being horrified requiring a religious sign off to grant a legal state of being. Even with the explanations from those posters who are state side about internet pastors and so forth it seems incredibly discriminatory. I'm just not sure the result is automatically going to be viewing an LGBT marriage as lesser.

In places where there is legal gay marriage there are some churches, including versions of Christian churches, that are happy to perform such marriage ceremonies. Some LGBT marriages will be religiously sanctioned and I think that the result will be that those marriages will be considered just as desirable as the religiously sanctioned homosexual marriage, while the legal only non-religious marriages of any configuration will be viewed as the inferior.

Still winding up with an 'separate but equal' mindset though. I could be wrong but it seems that any place that requires a religion to grant a state of being will view a religious backing as necessary to take that state of being seriously.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not even going to touch this golden calf of Traditional Marriage(tm) they trot out. Traditional Marriage(tm) from a biblical perspective involved you owning your wife as an asset ( and indeed, several wives if you were so inclined. And some slaves! Just in case. )

Hey, now, don't forget that for a while, "traditional marriage" also included members of the clergy marrying each other so that when they passed, all of their worldly good would get passed on to the Chruch. >_>

But, hey, while they're trying to claim that 'marriage' is some magical state that can only be conferred by people attached to some version of a Christian churck, they're not about to admit that they actually sanctioned gay marriage for a while.

[Jester]

Not sure how many of you noticed this, but the Episcopalian Church announced last week that they would begin officiating same sex marriages throughout their congregation. I noticed that story particularly, because my friends (different sexes) just got married in the local Episcopalian church last weekend.

Myself, I am completely opposed to gay marriage. I have no intention or desire to marry a man. But hey, if other people wanna do it, that's their business.

[HYHYBT]

Not "throughout their congregation," no. Both any bishop and any priest can block it within their respective jurisdictions. If your priest is against it, well, going to the next parish over isn't so bad. If it's the bishop, well, some dioceses are huge.