Actually, the self-righteousness of the existing religious class (in contrast to their inner sinful behaviors) was a theme that Jesus Christ returned to again and again. That's why there are so many mentions of scribes/pharisees, and it is the underlying message of, for instance, the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Furthermore, the absolute fallen and sinful nature of mankind is THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE. The entire Old Testament is a representation of man's inability to save himself through his own perceptions of righteousness.
Romans 3:23 is a pivotal verse for evangelicals:
That verse, in a single sentence, sums up the very reason that Christ needed to come to earth and die on the cross. It is paramount to evangelicalism.
By disregarding their own sinfulness before God, and focusing only on the sinfulness of gays/lesbians, these believers bring themselves into condemnation by God.
Another key aspect of Christian thought is that only Christ is the judge. Someone could easily be a believer in Christ, and feel that they were made by Christ to be gay. Why does this club feel that only a fundamentalist interpretation of doctrine is allowable? If they want university sponsorship, that means that they have to be open to all people who state that they are Christians. Their choice to be so narrow in their interpretation.
All well and good, but its not the states job or the colleges job to dictate how these people perform thier religion.
This is the problem I think most are having with this.
The facts its religious to me is irrelevant.
Should any group [x] that has rules in regards to its membership that require an adherance to a group held belief or behavior in order to have voting rights be able to recieve group funding from a university.
This could be a religious group forcing members to agree to hold to a specific belief about homosexuality or hell, about working on sundays.
This could be a political group forcing members to agree to hold specific public views regarding a political view point.
This could be a racial group forcing members to agree to participate in a certain number of rallies regarding their particular race.
This could be an honors group forcing members to agree to maintain a 3.5 GPA with no more than 1 class missed a semester.
This could be a citizenship group making people agree to meeting a certian behavioral expectations.
Whether you agree with the NEED or the legitimacy of the requirement or not, to me, is irrelevant, what is relevant is the general notion of a group requiring a certain agreement of a belief or behavior to maintain membership.
Much like people were criticizing Tex earlier for supporting this when he'd be against it for an islamic group, how many people here are simply focusing on "CHRISTIANS!" or focusing on "BAD TO GAY PEOPLE" and would react differently if it was the same situation but with different groups that didn't instill those feelings in you?