Religion and a douchebag

Slacktivist catches a charming story: A pastor discovers the person he’s agreed to hold a funeral for is gay, and married. He announces at the last minute that the funeral is off because “I have to stand up for my principles.”
Yes, very principled. I’m sure that if the deceased had been an adulterer, drunk, wage thief or abuser, the reaction would have been exactly the same. Not. As Slacktivist has pointed out many times in past blog posts, Christian anti-gay prejudice has been wildly exalted in the 21st century. It’s not simply “gay sex is wrong” but opposing gay marriage is (according to some religious conservatives) one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity. And opposition includes things like refusing to let them be mourned at your church, at least in this case. Because that would obviously prove the preacher secretly supported gay sex.
•Slacktivist also scrutinizes a Time article complaining that making consent an important moral standard for “is this sexual act okay?” is a bad thing. Because what about stuff like fidelity? What about the damage raw sexual lust can do when let out of the bottle?
As Fred Clark (the slacktivist blogger) notes, this is trick answer: Author Damon Linker is condemning the importance of consent by writing as if that replaces all other standards: consent is bad because everyone who says “consent is important” must be rejecting fidelity, honesty, etc. Which is bullshit. And Linker also seems to think that before the sexual revolution, everyone stayed chaste until marriage. And that’s also bullshit.