Baptists who stand for marriage but can't be bothered to marry are upset that couples barred from marriage might get benefits the unmarried Baptists would merit if they were actually married.

The Southern Baptists- despite their reputation  for dogmatism and inflexibility- are a remarkably adaptive lot. Back in the 1960s I can recall the railing against hippies and long hair. But by the mid 1970s you saw SoBap men swanning into church with pincurl perms and- for those who could manage it- long sideburns.

Premarital sex and unmarried couples were bad, too, until SoBaps started doing it, and thus came secondary virginity. In the '90s the butt pirate fears subsided and it was OK for SoBap men to wear earrings or a stud- in either ear.

Little surprise then that one of the party- uh, church's grandees has announced granting insurance benefits to federal employees who are gay offends to the degraded sensibilities of unmarried sinners of the SoBap faith (credit Box Turtle Bulletin):

Southern Baptists oppose health insurance for gays

Timothy Kincaid

November 30th, 2009

In an article in the Baptist Pressabout legislation to provide equal benefits to gay federal employees, prominent Southern Baptist Richard Land declares his opposition and that of his fellow Baptists.

The bill, H.R. 2517, would bestow on homosexual partners of federal employees such benefits as health insurance, retirement and disability benefits, group life insurance, and family and medical leave.
…
Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land criticized the proposal both before and after the committee’s vote.

“Most Southern Baptists believe that the only relationship that should be defined by its sexual nature and should have special benefits accrued to it is heterosexual marriage,” said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Nov. 25.

Land makes much of his pretense that such a bill would “discriminate” against heterosexuals who are allowed to marry but decide that they don’t wish to do so. Such appeals to irrationality reveal Land’s insincerity and smugness.

Land seems quite happy that straight employees receive greater compensation packages than gay employees. After all, these employment benefits are “special benefits” that are reserved as a reward for being heterosexual, you see.

And naturally, Land expresses absolutely no concern whatsoever about how same-sex spouses or domestic partners are to get health insurance or care during a medical emergency. Frankly, it seems that Land couldn’t care less if they suffer without any medical care at all.

As a religious ethicist (a fascinating misnomer), I’m certain that Richard Land has read the last parable of Matthew 25. I wonder what sort of mental gymnastics he has to play in order to see this as anything other than a direct condemnation of him by Christ.