Here are some salient graphs about the general crisis in our culture:
[T]he tradition of liberalism cannot allow for a single notion of good to possess 'the public square.' Liberal society must remain neutral in respect to the good. What one can express in public are not notions of good but preferences. Of course, some way must be found to order preferences both in respect to individual life and to social policy. No rational way can be found to achieve this goal, however, because there is no common notion of good to which appeal can be made when it comes to sorting out conflicting claims. Thus, the way in which one establishes preference in the public arena, if it cannot be done by force, is by bargaining. Everything, both in respect to private and public life becomes a 'trade off.' Social life becomes a sort of free trade zone for preferences. All one needs to be able to play the game is the ability to bargain.
There are two things in particular to be noted about this form of social economy. The first is that theories of justice abound. They must for the following reason. To have one's preferences excluded is to have one's rights denied. Then the question arises of how one person's right to his or her preference is to be balanced against a contrary right claimed by someone else. At this point, some theory of justice must be invoked, but in a liberal social economy of preferences, no one theory can establish itself. Theories of justice simply multiply exponentially and interminably. Given this social reality, one can see easily why supporters of Gay rights hold ordination and the blessing of Gay unions to be matters of justice. One can see also why supporters of Gene Robinson hold that his election was above all 'a justice issue.' [Emphasis mine.]
Exactly. The issue underlying all this is not gay rights — it's about championing the idea of personal preferences over an idea of the common good over and over again in a kind masturbatory way. This is exactly what Allan Bloom spoke of as the "closing of the American mind" in the book by the same name. The shutting down of the mind to any idea of good or morality as anything other than a personal preference. Indeed, any idea of a good other than championing personal preference is bigoted — or at least narrow minded.
In the Christian context, this is heresy. Christianity is about surrendering one's life to God and living in obedience to God's natural law — not imposing one's preferences on God and expecting his blessing in the name of justice.
Turner puts it this way:
[T]he 'socio-logic' that stands behind ECUSA's recent action ... raises the question of whether we inhabit a moral universe with an order we are called upon to understand and to which we are required to conform, or whether the moral universe we inhabit is properly the creation of preference pursuing individuals, selves, and persons who create a social world suited to their self-defined goals through an elaborate process of moral bargaining.
Christianity is the former; apostasy is the latter. This is why the secularists are so opposed to Christians. Because we point out the horrible idea that maybe your preferences are not the end point of morality, but maybe your morality needs to conform to known moral laws revealed by God. And who wants that? Why, if that were true, we might have to change! Better to dismiss anyone who suggests this idea as narrow and rigid.