They might receive better treatment. Ross Douthat brings up a good contrast between the Amish and social conservatives:
. . . let’s pause for a moment to consider the substance of the well-known case she cites, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Amish families had the right to withdraw their children from education after the 8th grade. (And withdraw completely: They weren’t just petitioning for regulations allowing them to homeschool, though I believe that Wisconsin in that era had policies making homeschooling difficult as well.)
Given the usual public-policy justification for compulsory education, it is very easy to see an argument that the beliefs of Amish parents do, in fact, impose a steep cost on “other people” — with the “other people” in question being, of course, their own children, who are denied the years of education that state law and public policy deem essential to their flourishing. Indeed, from the perspective of a society that often seeks to protect children from unfit parents, and that frets endlessly about high school drop-outs and the high school graduation rate, the burden imposed on Amish teenagers by their parents’ beliefs could be seen as far exceeding the burdens involved in today’s religious liberty debates. A gay couple seeking a wedding photographer is likely to be able to find one even in the event that their preferred choice has a religious objection, and an employee who wants contraceptive coverage can usually purchase it directly with their wages for a non-exorbitant price. But an Amish teenager’s only recourse, if she wants the kind of education that the state usually deems necessary, would require an extreme, wrenching break with the family of her birth, the quest for emancipated-minor status, and the like.
But for evangelicals and Roman Catholics who comprise those opposed to gay marriage to gain a hearing comparable to the one Amish have received, they’d have to present themselves as a minority rather than the moral majority. And the dynamics of evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism — where size matters — clearly point in a direction opposite to that of people who are exiles, sojourners, or refugees. Especially when you enter the world of numbers created by democratic electoral politics, you can’t take any comfort from being a minority group. Of course, American Protestants with British backgrounds have never thought of themselves as a minority. But what happened to Roman Catholics?
Old Life 
An eclectic bunch, to be sure.
LikeLike
I don’t think “identity politics” (as one participant in the democratic process) is what the New Testament has in mind when it comments the way of exile.
ome “Reformed” folks willwill defend almost anything old (slavery, the confederacy), just so long as it is anti-”liberal”. Unwilling as individuals to return to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a common faith in salvation conditioned on what God does in the sinner, the more consistent federal visionists plan an end of exile by means of ordained sacramental violence.
The next time the new Constantinians promise to do it better. They will get watered right away (unlike Constantine did). They will not wait to use the power God’s way.
But it remains difficult to do a “take-over” in the name of conservatism. As inductive theologians, they remind us that even what Constantine did in the past was a result of God’s providence. And thus they dream of a liberal-free future in this age in which cross-bearing will no longer be necessary.
LikeLike
But for evangelicals and Roman Catholics who comprise those opposed to gay marriage to gain a hearing comparable to the one Amish have received, they’d have to present themselves as a minority rather than the moral majority.
I’d like to know when ssm was ever a majority viewpoint in history. Yeah, we know homosexuality showed up even in OT Israel – in the temple precincts no less – but sanctioned and given the status of marriage?
Calling all historians.
Wait, ssm itself is a minority viewpoint of a minority of recorded history.
It must be all good then.
LikeLike
Bob S., a difference between ssm and acceptance of ssm, no?
LikeLike
huh?
LikeLike
An interesting anecdote about the Amish, but given the current legal trajectory, in what future state do the Amish get a favorable ruling such as Wisconsin v Yoder? The Amish are tolerated because they are a Christian minority within a historically Christian-ish majority. As the Christian-ish majority continues to evaporate, I’m betting any cultural set-asides for the sojourning Amish will disappear as well. And they may literal pilgrims once again.
LikeLike