Jim Wallis Supports Same Sex Marriage - Why I am Not Surprised

Headline at Christian Post "Jim Wallis Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage".

First of all, no surprise here.  Anyone who has read the Sojourners site at all could see how the social justice bent of the overall ethos there and the progressive theological influences would make this a logical step.  Add the overwhelming support for same sex unions from those who comment there and the criticism Wallis faced from the left for not doing this sooner...let's just say I'm not in the least surprised.

What interests me is the reasoning and the approach Wallis takes.  He begins by talking about the overall decline in marriage in the culture at large.

"We are losing marriage in this society. I'm worried about that – among low income people, but all people. How do we commit liberals and conservatives to re-covenanting marriage, reestablishing, renewing marriage?"

Now that sounds like something conservatives and liberals could agree on, right?  (More)

Wrong.  

First one has to define marriage.  Else what we would be agreeing to "renew" would be different things that simply have the same label.  What is marriage?

Ultimately, does sex have some sort of connection to procreation and the raising of children?  Does the family - biological dad, biological mom, biological children in a stable unit as the goal - have a vital and necessary part of the definition of "marriage" or is marriage nothing more than a legal agreement between two or more people who claim to love each other?

Wallis continues:  "I think we should include same-sex couples in that renewal of marriage, [but] I want to talk marriage first," Wallis said. "Marriage needs some strengthening. Let's start with marriage, and then I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that's where I think the country is going."

There it is.  When Wallis talks about strengthening marriage and adds the phrase "include same sex couples in that renewal" it is clear that the connection between marriage and procreation is severed in his definition.

So as leftist always do, Wallis co-opts a term to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, to make it seem like he is offering some sort of agreeable middle ground, when in reality the only way to work with him on this issue would be to abdicate the very position conservatives are fighting for.

Under the surface, what Wallis is saying is "If you first agree to change the definition of marriage, then we can work together in unity and brotherhood to strengthen the liberal version of marriage".

I doubt if Wallis is an Alinsky disciple, but he may have picked up something from his friends on the left that when one desires a radical change it is always beneficial to frame one's positions in the language of morality.   Conservatives need to see through the words and look for the real meaning.   Wallis is no friend of the institution of marriage.