I have always wondered why Christian social conservatives have trouble with gay marriage. Most Christian social conservatives have no problem with domestic partnerships. So it can’t be legal rights.
So I’m guessing here that since they are always going on about the sacredness of marriage it must be something else. Holy matrimony. And what are the words of the ceremony? “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” “What God has joined together.” So the unions are considered unholy by God’s laws. OK. That makes sense. At least in their eyes. But look at the contradiction. It is no longer God who decides. It is not even the Church. After all there are many things holy in one church or religion that are unholy in others and yet those things do not seem to matter in a pluralistic America. For instance communion wafers if blessed by the Catholic Church are holy in that church and in other churches they are just crackers. There is no outcry about that. So I’m trying to see what it is. It can’t be the sanctification by the Church or a church.
What seems to be the problem is the not the authority of the Church. The problem is the authority of the State to confer the status of marriage. So churches are no longer the arbiter between God and man. The state is the arbiter. So let me ask my Christian social conservative friends. Isn’t making the state the arbiter between God and man a Christian heresy?
Which leads me to believe that it all went wrong with the Emperor Constantine who joined Christianity with the power of the State. It has been 1,700 years and despite that passage of time Christians still have not recovered. Jefferson with his “wall of separation” is derided by most Christian social conservatives. And yet in a way not recognized he was attempting to return Christians to their roots. And their roots were definitely not in the power of the state. In fact the state was originally considered the source of much wickedness. But now the State is considered the source of holiness. Well people can believe what they want to believe. I consider it passing strange though. Secular authorities confer holiness. That would make the State a religion. Well the worship of temporal power has always had quite a following. The The Egyptians had their god king or pharaoh. The later Romans were big on that sort of thing. The Middle Ages in Europe had it in a somewhat attenuated form. The Divine Right of Kings. So there is considerable historical precedent. Why not America? Why not the Church of America which confers holiness on a given marriage? Even stranger is that America has just elected The One. Well his divinity is tethered by a rather fragile thread. He will be Holy and Righteous only so long as he does what his followers want him to do. A complete inversion of what Modern religions believe. You are supposed to get holy by following religion not by religion following you. Some one is in for a rude awakening. Either That One or his followers.
The State is my shepherd. I shall not want. The cry of Socialists from the days of Karl Marx. “A Republic if you can keep it.” Of course the State as a religion was the downfall of the Roman Republic. So it looks like we can’t keep it. After a 1,700 year fight get get back to republican government it took only another 200 years or so to lose it. And why is that? Because the State as a religion is always tugging at humans. They like it. They have liked it for as long as there have been States. Well most of them like it. Me? Not so much. The Emperor is naked. He is also stark raving mad. But don’t tell him that. It upsets the Emperor and enrages his followers.
So now maybe some of you can get a glimmer of why I have an antipathy to the State as arbiter of economics or culture. Those are both faces of the State as religion. Worship the one true god or face punishment. And with the state having the guns the punishment need not wait until the hereafter. Of course it is no longer a matter of the State just punishing the wicked which is probably a lawful job. Now a days the State can punish the merely sinful. That will keep folks on the straight and narrow. Or else cause a rebellion. Depending.
It is rather obvious that humans are more than passing strange. Interesting to watch though. Very interesting.
Naturally, not being well versed in Christian doctrine I’m sure my social conservative friends will show me the error of my ways. Have at it guys.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Sanctification
by
Tags:
Comments
37 responses to “Sanctification”
I’m just the opposite: I have no problem with gay marriage ceremonies, but I don’t like civil unions to the extent they are sanctioned by the State.
What people promise to each other, whether in front of witnesses or in private, is none of my business. What the State recognizes as a legal union is my business.
I don’t see how anyone’s civil rights are being denied: everyone is free to marry or not.
And here I find the conservative argument persuasive: it’s always been this way.
I know that puts me in the un-PC knuckle-dragging crowd at this site, but there it is.
Perhaps define Chrisitan Social Conservative since it is a fact that the very peope who voted President-elect Obama into office also voted AGAINST gay marriage while 54 % Catholics voted for the candidate whose positions on abortion are more extreme than NARAL.
Based on this evidence, this principle premise in your question is confusing.
I am for conserving words and their meaning; I like words, they help society communicate and when words become meanlingless society cannot function.
My question, what means ‘same-sex union between opposite-sex’? The problem with this debate over ‘same-sex union between opposite-sex’ is not of the religious factor but of the reasoned factor; the very premise of ‘same-sex union between opposite-sex’ is an irrational premise. The fact is homosexuals can marry, quite often even bear children, plus divorce, remarry just like everyone else has done since the dawn of marriage. This is not a civil rights issue, no rights have been violated.
For me, Marriage is the union of yin-yang or rather sperm-egg(male-female), it is a system which affords the ability to unite night and day into one. What purpose serves uniting yang-yang, it alreadys exists as one.
The other problem with the argument is that since the dawn of Marriage, this system of has been the framework used by all religious entities, from the Dalai-Lama, to the Pope, to the Pastor, to the Rabbi, to the Iman and is not specifically a ‘Christian Social COnservative” instrument.
If the question is about legal representation and access to benefits then perhaps Civil Union is the answer to ‘same-sex union between opposite-sex’?
In order for Laws to have value, they must be founded in meaning otherwise Justice is not served.
For example, Law alter the definition of ‘fetus’ to irrational nonsense. “Fetus” now changes meaninging according to time gender and need;
-If She chooses to define ‘fetus’ as life then she affords pre-natal government care.
-If She choose to define ‘fetus’ as a clump cells then She affords govenmment funds to abort.
-If He complies to Her request to kick Her in the stomach to rid Her of the ‘fetus’ then He is sent to prison for murder while She remains free to choose.
-If She cannot choose what is ‘fetus’, She can then wait until the last minute to choose even to the point at which the ‘futus’ become a baby which then is left to die in a hospital linen closet.
A humane and loving culture should never reach the point where it needs a Born Alive Protection Act to protect Life; when such Laws are needed the culture has far greater problems than religion.
Roe vs Wade is the most discriminatory Law of the Land; under this Law rights do not appy equally and have led to barbaric acts.
Again I say that in order for Laws to have value, they must be founded in meaning otherwise Justice is not served.
Irrationally-motivated Laws will only serve inequality.
For example, if we are to accept the irrational premose ‘same-sex union between opposites’ then the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ become discriminatory and will require alteration in order to make the Law reasonable. Does ‘Person A’ and ‘Person B’ have any meaning?
Loren,
This post was not designed to promote any particular point of view. It was to give a basis for discussion.
Both Eric and I are not particularly in favor of gay marriage. Nor are we against it.
BTW “always been that way” is not true. In America the marriage license was about preventing mixed race marriages. Just as gun control historically was designed to keep blacks from protecting themselves. And drug prohibition was about finding a way to selectively punish non-white races. A function is still serves rather well.
If the State got out of the Marriage business I think the whole situation would be defused.
Having a secular state take over the functions of the Church is a bad idea. A registry is fine. A license is wrong.
syn,
For you it is about sperm and egg. Now what about people of a different opinion? And if marriage is a biological union then how do you justify marrying couples who are known infertile? To take an obvious example. How can you justify marrying a couple where the woman has had her tubes tied or the man has had a vasectomy. How do you justify marrying two 80 year olds?
Marriage is a social arrangement as much as it is about making and caring for children.
In a secular state social arrangement ought to be left up to the individuals.
==
The case of Calif is odd in a social conservative way. Blacks helped to defeat same sex marriage. And yet blacks have the highest abortion rate in America.
Also note that both anti-abortion measures on the ballot failed this year. One of them in the solid Republican State of South Dakota.
Also note that medical marijuana was approved in that solidly conservative state of Mississippi and decrim of pot passed in Michigan.
==
Well any way as I said elsewhere. I’m bringing these topics up now so I can help us all figure out what unites Republicans and what divides us.
So far the only unifying factor I see is free market economics.
I’m all for leaving the culture wars to individuals and focusing on getting government out of economics. I believe that is the way forward.
==
It is rather obvious that the Social Conservative view in the culture wars is failing. If the Republicans want to go where the votes are it should no longer be seen as the culture war party.
We should strictly brand ourselves as the free market economics party. And even in that area we are failing by not living up to our principles.
Short version:
1. The Republican Party is losing on its culture war issues.
2. It does not come close to living up to its free market ideals.
==
I’m hoping Palin can get better educated on economics. I like her stance on the culture wars: lead by example.
I ♥ Sarah’cudda
*
syn,
I agree about the Born Alive Act. Once the baby is out of the womb for what ever reason it is a person.
Note that that conforms to Jewish Law as well as the general tenor of the secular culture.
BTW Jewish case law on abortion pretty much conforms to the points you raise. I would agree that the government ought to pay for abortions only in cases where the health of the mother is an issue liberally defined. i.e. ultimately only the woman can decide. No doubt a rather unhappy state of affairs for many.
So how did we get into this mess in the first place? Government meddling in economics and culture. Not to mention the practice of medicine. The cure is not more law to fix bad law. It is less law.
And here comes some rank speculation: perhaps Jesus had nothing to say about abortion because he was satisfied with Jewish case law on the matter. With Hippocrates preceding him by 500 years and living in a Greek dominated culture the question can’t have been unknown to him.
===
Our culture would be considerably improved IMO if all citizens had a grounding in Jewish case law. Jews have been working on their body of law for over 3,000 years. The longest continuous record in human history. They might have figured out a few things in that time.
At the very least as a nominally Christian culture it would probably give a better insight into the thinking of Jesus. The churches need to go back to their roots. In fact there was a time when you couldn’t be a Protestant scholar without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. It is a failure of the church to maintain standards.
One of the thing Christians fail to take into account is that the Torah is not all of the law. Just as our Constitution is not all of the law. The precepts of the Torah are modified by common law. Just as our legislature passes implementing laws based on the Constitution.
==
Let me give and example – the Torah says same sex copulation is to be punished by death. Jewish common law might say (and this is an example, I don’t know what it actually says) that there would need to be twenty witnesses to the act and all those witnesses over the age of majority. And that they must have been within 5 feet to be sure that their eyes did not deceive them. So it works out that in practice the act is condemned but you can’t practically punish people for it.
Let me add that my grounding in Jewish case law is meager. But I did get the principle.
I did study extensively under a famous Jewish law scholar the most well know part of Jewish case law. What to do depending on whose ox is gored. which deals with property rights, tort law, and keeping your fences mended.
Hi!
I’m the long time lurker who sent you that rather lengthy email a few days ago, Simon. The problems that I have with gay marriage are not related to my concern for people’s souls but are much more intertwined with the here and now on this planet. I only claim to speak for myself so here are my two main objections.
1. Women’s rights, marital equality and relative social harmony
I fear that gay marriage would lead to other people claiming that their rights are being violated by being denied multiple partners. It is only a matter of time before Muslims get in on the act in order to bring more people over here. Women are generally treated badly in polygamous societies, no matter their race or culture. They are not seen as social equals and have much less power in their families and marriages. This would also have the effect of not allowing poor/young men the same opportunity to marry as older/rich men. Gender imbalances lead to social chaos as can be seen in the Middle East and in the fringe Mormon communities that still allow polygamy.
2. Litigation
Even if the state got out of marriage, our churches, businesses and charities would still be threatened by gay activists and their lawyers. The recent E-Harmony case is just one more example in an ever-growing list that includes Catholic adoption agencies, and Protestant church property. It is one thing to desire the same ability to designate power of attorney to a life partner and to have that person visit you in the hospital. I don’t know of any social conservative who opposes those things. However, that is not what the gay activists want. They want to change our religious doctrine and force us to do their bidding. In other words, they are cultural imperialists. Allowing the state to recognize gay marriage would encourage these lawsuits.
A solution that might work:
Take sex out of the equation all together. Allow a legal binding of any two people who otherwise could not get married (ie. elderly mother/single daughter or two best friends). Make it difficult to enter and exit from (so that people don’t abuse the system in order to get green cards etc.). This way it makes every reasonable person happy. Marriage is protected and other people have the same legal abilities. However, this only works if gay activists are truly concerned with the legalities and not if they want to impose their will on the hated social conservatives-a doubt that is rapidly growing by the day.
Hi!
I’m the long time lurker who sent you that rather lengthy email a few days ago, Simon. The problems that I have with gay marriage are not related to my concern for people’s souls but are much more intertwined with the here and now on this planet. I only claim to speak for myself so here are my two main objections.
1. Women’s rights, marital equality and relative social harmony
I fear that gay marriage would lead to other people claiming that their rights are being violated by being denied multiple partners. It is only a matter of time before Muslims get in on the act in order to bring more people over here. Women are generally treated badly in polygamous societies, no matter their race or culture. They are not seen as social equals and have much less power in their families and marriages. This would also have the effect of not allowing poor/young men the same opportunity to marry as older/rich men. Gender imbalances lead to social chaos as can be seen in the Middle East and in the fringe Mormon communities that still allow polygamy.
2. Litigation
Even if the state got out of marriage, our churches, businesses and charities would still be threatened by gay activists and their lawyers. The recent E-Harmony case is just one more example in an ever-growing list that includes Catholic adoption agencies, and Protestant church property. It is one thing to desire the same ability to designate power of attorney to a life partner and to have that person visit you in the hospital. I don’t know of any social conservative who opposes those things. However, that is not what the gay activists want. They want to change our religious doctrine and force us to do their bidding. In other words, they are cultural imperialists. Allowing the state to recognize gay marriage would encourage these lawsuits.
A solution that might work:
Take sex out of the equation all together. Allow a legal binding of any two people who otherwise could not get married (ie. elderly mother/single daughter or two best friends). Make it difficult to enter and exit from (so that people don’t abuse the system in order to get green cards etc.). This way it makes every reasonable person happy. Marriage is protected and other people have the same legal abilities. However, this only works if gay activists are truly concerned with the legalities and not if they want to impose their will on the hated social conservatives-a doubt that is rapidly growing by the day.
Debating the theoretical merits of redefining marriage is fine.
Europeans have redefined marriage and we should now debate the results of their experiment.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp
Marriage provides the best arrangement for raising children. The effects of broken families on children are well documented.
Redefining marriage communicates to society that a mother and father are not nessesary for raising children.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzAzM2Y2ZTY3MzhmYjhjY2NkYTQ0YzAyNmY5NGFiYTk=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2FjZjBkMTM2YTk4ZDhlZjJhNWIzNzE5YThhNGZkMDc=
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602220826.asp
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNlNWYxNmZjMjVjNjEzYjdhODAwYmFiYTUwMWQyMTM=
It seems to me a big part of the dilemma is the historical and cultural weight of the word “marriage” itself.
Suppose a state decided to change the name of the institution it’s sanctioning from “marriage” to “civil unions”, and let same-sex couples participate, but otherwise do nothing to substantially alter the institution. The traditional institution of marriage would become the sole province of organized religion. Nothing wrong with that idea, right? Well, almost nothing. Under this regime, anyone could get “civilly united” (would that be the proper phrase?), but only straight church-going couples could get married.
This might seem like a silly quibble over semantics, until you consider the historical and cultural weight of the name “marriage”. It has been around pretty much as long as the institution itself has. Even the secular, state-sanctioned version of the institution has gone by the same name, “marriage”, for two centuries or so now. We can’t just cast aside all that cultural weight merely by deciding to call the secular version something else. In fact, as long as traditional religious marriage continues to exist under that name, any other name for the secular version is pretty much doomed to have built-in second-class connotations, and therefore unacceptable to people who want to be married and not merely “civilly united”; the historical weight of the word “marriage” is just too great for any other name to overcome.
Brent,
The advent of the cohabitation culture in America preceded by quite a number of years any thought of gay marriage.
Two things that have weakened marriage in America are:
Easy divorce coupled with the unequal power of women vs men in divorce proceedings.
BTW Demographics is the most powerful force in this mix. Pulling a significant number of men out of the marriage age cohort has done more to foster the decline of marriage than all of the other social factors combined.
To put it bluntly: Whites marry. Blacks do not. Here is why:
Demographics
So Brent,
If you are serious about strengthening marriage there are two things that are critical:
Living on welfare must be uncomfortable and limited. (this is where the Euros go wrong – the State is now the husband)
End the fookin drug war.
Jolyn’s second point above rings true. I move in conservative Christian circles, and nearly all the discussion I hear about homosexual issues sounds defensive rather than offensive.
By that I mean that the Christian conservatives I know have little interest in attacking gay people, but they fear the power of the state to mainstream homosexuality to such a degree that the USA becomes like Canada, where people have lost their right even to say what they think is right or wrong.
Where I come from, it’s not a desire to use the power of the state to harm gay people. It’s a desire to keep gay activists from using the power of the state to enforce a politically correct attitude on a more issue.
Fumbling fingers. That’s “a politically correct attitude on a MORAL issue.’
nota,
I think you make a good point. Obviously fear is driving both sides. And each is moving in directions that make the other side more fearful.
I think the thing to do is to strengthen free speech protections PC has got to go. Lately the US has been moving in that direction.
I will vigorously fight any move in the direction that Canada has taken.
Gays attack and are trying to change marriage, a Christian sacrament, to a pro gay institution in order to force religions to say gay sex is normal and approved.
Why else is the alternative civil union law in Mass, and Conn not acceptable? Continually gays have litigated to approve gay marriage. Due to the first amendment they attack the state secular civil ceremony and marriage license.
Why are gays trying to attack e harmony, there are other dating sites for gays only. But they must force a private group to include a particular group.
Christians are scared of the intense desire of gays to force them to approve of gay sex, in their schools and in thier homes, newspapers dating sites and churches.
This force indoctrination is the problem. They force the issue through a tyrany of the courts.
The BSA was under legal attack to force admittance of gay men as leaders. This was a profound worry to parents who were concern about gay pedophiles which do target boys as coaches and BSA leaders. No parent wanted their sons on overnights trips with an openly gay male.
There is no restriction to the boys as that is inappropiate to question a child about his sexuality. The concern was of the power of an authotity figure.
This went all the way to the Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of association means the right to exclude as well to include.
From that point on gays have vicously attacked the BSA in articles, comments and posts. I lost a friendship of over 30 years with a gay male, because my son and I was involved in the Boy Scouts. This friend would go on backpacking trips with us when we were younger and we had no problem with his being gay. But when my son joined the boy souts he refused to talk to us.
I regret that his sexuality took over and dictacted his friendships. He refused to talk to six of us that have been together since teen years. But the rest of us are not gay. He was not an activist either. Very quiet about his preferences.
The religous and other folk have a real and rasonal fear about the impact of hate laws forcing them to approve and accept viewpoints that they do not agree. Most of us who can be considered social conservatives do not want to be forced to an approval. We don’t want to force or attack gays to do anything. We just want our institutions left alone.
It is good to know Marriage is owned by Christians. I’m going to tell my wife ASAP and start trolling on line for dates. Boy is she going to be pissed to find out we aren’t married. And all my kids are bastards. Bummer for them.
==
I do agree that the BSA has a legit point although I think their fear is unfounded.
It would be better to have open gays working with scouts than in the closet NAMBLA types IMO.
But we have to honor the right to free association more. All that got screwed up by the American segregationists. We are still paying for those sins.
Also note that the requirement for a marriage license in America was caused by folks afraid of race mixing. BTW those are the same folks who brought us gun control in order to keep blacks disarmed. More sins to pay for.
The deal is – once the government got involved in marriage they have to extend that right without respect to sexual orientation. So the effort to prevent race mixing inexorably leads to gay marriage. It may not be soon but it is inevitable.
Southern racists in particular and racists in general have so screwed America.
===
BTW the sense of ownership of institutions is something you ought to give up. Once the government is involved you don’t own it. Bush was devilish clever to get the churches involved with government and the stupid churches fell for it. In time the government will own them. “Wall of separation” is safer for all concerned.
==
So my point is – attempts to get government to control culture have backfired big time.
I’m hoping social conservatives come to their senses soon. Because their trajectory for the last 200 years is an ugly one with bad consequences for liberty lovers.
M. Simon–
The deal is – once the government got involved in marriage they have to extend that right without respect to sexual orientation.
In a word, no. That logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that the government must extend that right without respect to consanguinity, living but undivorced other spouses, the age of the prospective spouse, or even whether it’s a member of the human species.
The argument in favor of gay marriage boils down to “I am being discrimated against because I can’t marry the person I love.”
Well, heterosexual sibling-lovers, wannabe-polygamists, pedophiles, and animal fanciers can’t do it, either. Are they being discriminated against?
The problem is that our overly-complex code of laws automatically confers scores (perhaps hundreds) of special privileges on married couples.
Gay couples can secure most of those same privileges for themselves, but only by hiring and lawyer to draw lots and lots of legal documents — wills, powers of attorney, and so on.
What fairness demands is that those privileges come as easily, as automaticaly, to domestic partnerships as they do to married couples. Sign the license, and you’ve got them all. Like an S Corporation, but with more bennies.
Fairness does not demand that the state declare gay partnerships to be marriages.
The problem is that our overly-complex code of laws automatically confers scores (perhaps hundreds) of special privileges on married couples.
So why not deal with the real problem? Fix the legal code.
Get government out of the marriage business.
In America the marriage license was a method used to prevent race mixing. Now payback time has come. Naturally it is a bitch.
America could use a “Leave Us alone” party. The Republicans can be that party or die.
Many gays are just following an unfortunate American tradition: meddling in other people’s lives by the force of law. It hurts when the tables are turned don’t it?
The only cure is: Liberty. Cultural and Economic. There is nothing to fear. Cultures that work will survive. Cultures that don’t work will disappear. Have faith. Jews do rather well in cultures they don’t dominate as long as they are not actively persecuted. Take it to heart.
Social conservative Christians say they can’t survive unless they dominate. Well OK then. They won’t survive.
Shortly after the fall of the second temple a number of Jewish rabbis got together to figure out how to preserve a nation that no longer had a State. They did rather well. And the discussion was written down. Perhaps our Christian social conservative friends might like to study those ancient texts to figure out how to preserve their culture in a places they no longer dominate. Europe and America would be a couple of good places to start.
Protestant ministers are no longer required to be well versed in Hebrew and Greek in order to understand the ancient texts in their original. It also gave them wider access to other cultures. That is no longer a requirement. Perhaps a little more rigor is in order.
The Jews get it. You can’t be a rabbi without a thorough understanding of Hebrew. It is a very good idea.
Fairness does not demand that the state declare gay partnerships to be marriages.
So where were social conservatives when gays were being oppressed?
Now the shoe is on the other foot and they have the upper hand and they are ignoring your concerns. Social conservatives failed to make allies when they had a chance. Now those you turned your back on are turning their back on you. Repent. Change your ways.
If the Republicans are to be viable as a national party they must live by: “Leave Us Alone”. And they must defend the right of others to be left alone – publicly – if they want to be taken seriously.
Now that the war is in the hands of the Democrats many of us warhawks have no use for the Republicans.
So the deal is: you can have a small Christian Party or a much bigger “Leave Us Alone” party. What do you want?
Let me add that it was my sincere hope that at minimum Bush would have two terms in order to firmly set the course of America with respect to the Islamo Fascists for a decade or two.
He has done well. And for that I am eternally grateful.
Christian faith regards marriage one of the sacraments, not that marriage is only for Christians. Different faiths have different doctrines.
I agree that get the state our of marriage licenses. The reason for state marriages is to allow quick marriages that may not be available in churches. Also it allows non-church members a viable avenue to get married.
That is why the gays are pushing on the state marriage to get it allowed for gays.
Still legal agreements can do the same as legal obligations that come with marriage and gays do not need the state to regulate their joining.
Local scout troops do get many requests from non-parents for leadership and do a background check. In our old troop we found a few that may have been hoping for a chance for pedophile fun. They never got a chance to be leaders.
To protect leaders from unjust accusations there is the two rule. Must have two adults to protect against accusations so there is always a witness.
Sometimes these prevent outings when two adults are not available.
Gays are not pedophiles, but pedophiles like to hide their inclination to get close to targets.
Hetero pedophiles do not target the BSA only homo pedophiles do.
But the ability to form private associations is often under court challenge like E harmony or the BSA suffered. Those challenges came from gay groups so it rational to fear being forced to allow inclusion for private groups from government mandate.
Catholic Church fears the abortion amendment under Obama will force them out of the maternity hospitals that are part of the Catholic Church, These will force them to provide abortions when that is against their faith.
This is the type of item that is forced under government and court mandates that people fear.
Fairness be damned! The experiment has been done and the results are clear.
Europe has shown that redefining marriage to include LGBT’s results in the further weakening of marriage.
We already have a serious marriage problem in America. It is insane to contemplate mainstreaming yet another assault on the traditional family. It is also insane to remove the state sanction of the building block (marriage) for our society. Because we govern ourselves, our laws communicate what we deem important. If we remove the state from marriage it communicates that we no longer value marriage.
The alternates to the traditional family are all downsides. They result in emotional, physical and economic damage.
I cannot accept the notion that we should mainstream LGBT because it appeals to our sense of fairness or some legal definition when the obvious result would be a serious detrement to our society.
Brent,
Are you sure it wasn’t welfare where the State takes the place of the husband?
Oh I get it. If homos can marry then welfare payments for unwed mothers will increase. That makes sense. I never saw the connection before.
Thanks!
Actually one of the things destroying marriage in the Black community and their morals too is putting so many black guys in prison for non-violent offenses.
Demographics
You want to give marriage a boost? Stop locking away so many black guys.
But I know, better to ruin black families than to let drug stores sell drugs. Gotta uphold the moral foundations of the nation. Criminals should sell drugs.
Surely the welfare state is damaging to marriage as are a whole host of other factors some of which you’ve mentioned. My point is, don’t take another action (redefining marriage) that further damages marriage.
I read the article you posted and I haven’t addressed it because it’s a separate specific issue. It doesn’t address the decline of marriage in the West as a whole.
I think Stanley Kurtz makes a very good case(in the links I posted), based on data, against redefining marriage.
Brent,
Divorce killed marriage. Along with punitive sanctions against the male partner.
So let me make a list:
1. Revised divorce laws
2. The welfare state
3. The drug war
Gays getting married are the least of your problems.
Or to put it differently you are fighting a rear guard action against a distraction. That distraction prevents you from doing any thing about the major attacks. Gays will get their marriage while you do nothing about 1 through 3 listed above.
Or to put it another way. It is May 1940 – all your best forces are concentrated in Holland and Belgium while the main attack is coming through the Ardennes. Ultimate result: collapse.
BTW I have read the Kurtz article and I do not find it persuasive.
Our current divorce laws have *damaged* marriage, not killed it. It isn’t dead yet.
Redefining marriage is not a distraction. It is the final nail in the coffin. It undermines the key idea that marriage is an institution for raising children.
I’m not so sure marriage will be redefined. Americans have passed bans on it in 30 states. Including, to my surprise, California.
I hope you will consider reading Stanley’s entire body of work on the subject. I believe its more than 15 articles. They get better as he works through it. He is very thorough. He builds a secular case for preserving the definition of marriage.
And if gays get to marry it won’t be dead either.
But seriously you will reach your goal more quickly if you work to pull the other 199 nails and forget the distraction of the most recent one.
You are wasting your time with definitions while the function is getting away from you.
Or how about this: you don’t want government defining marriage? Then get the government totally out of the marriage business.
It was Social Conservatives who put the government in the marriage business with their anti-miscegenation laws. I guess your forebears failed to see far enough ahead to a time when they no longer controlled government.
Well the joke is on their descendants eh?
You have more to gain from adopting the libertarian attitude of limited government than libertarians do from your ideas of government cultural control.
The deal is: you can’t predict the future but one thing is for sure. Every power you give the government will eventually be used against you in unexpected ways.
Think about that when you go about your quest to put government in charge of women’s wombs.
So Brent,
Say you have a lesbian married couple. One of them gets a sperm donor to get her pregnant. Are you telling me that the government ought to take the child away? Dangerous ground that.
Or say you have a lesbian couple unmarried and one has a child (I have known a few such cases) lovely families. What is to be done?
Or you have a divorced father, mother’s where abouts unknown or deceased. The father has custody of the children. The father decides to take up with a guy in a situation approximating marriage. Take the children away?
Or suppose a half man/half woman takes up with a man and has a child? What you gonna do?
M. Simon–
So why not deal with the real problem? Fix the legal code.
Exactly.
Get government out of the marriage business.
Yes. Let the churches define “marriage” and the government define a legally-binding “partnership.” The latter is necessary for things like inheritances, child custody, hospital visitation rights, joint ownership of property, medical power of attorney, and so on. Right now, a marriage license creates that legal partnership automatically. There’s no reason that people involved in sexual relationships frowned upon by the churches shouldn’t be able to that same sort of legal partnership.
Social conservative Christians say they can’t survive unless they dominate. Well OK then. They won’t survive.
Though I am a Roman Catholic of the non-church-going type, I’m not a social conservative Christian, so I can’t pretend to speak for them or to know all that they are saying. However, what I have heard from them is that America won’t survive as a free nation if we discard basic Judeo-Christian values and permit the government to dictate what each of us must and must not tolerate.
The devout Christians of my acquaintance have no worries that Christianity will blink out of existence if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. They’re worried, instead, that the government will punish them for refusing to commit what they consider a sin.
So where were social conservatives when gays were being oppressed?
Well, that’s a silly question. They were oppressing them, of course, when not outright killing them. (Check the Torah to see its recommendations for how to deal with gays.)
If the Republicans are to be viable as a national party they must live by: “Leave Us Alone”. And they must defend the right of others to be left alone – publicly – if they want to be taken seriously.
“Leave Us Alone” cuts both ways. It means that churches don’t have to sanction gay marriage, or that Catholic hospitals have to perform abortions. This is what freedom is all about — the individual’s right to say no, I’m not gonna do that, and you can’t make me.
KODjr,
See my latest bit “The Government IS the Devil” posted here and at Power and Control.
I think you will like it.
M. Simon–
See my latest bit “The Government IS the Devil” posted here and at Power and Control.
Read it and liked it. Wished it had been longer and more detailed, but that’s just kibitzing.
On Leave us alone and its advantages for Churches …
Even Hosius, a man instrumental in the council of Nicea, where Christ wed state, went on to regret it. In his only surviving letter, he told a new emperor to keep away from Church things and used the usual “Render unto C?sar the things that are C?sar?s, and unto God the things that are God?s”. Then he added “Neither therefore is it permitted unto us to exercise an earthly rule, nor have you, Sire, any authority to burn incense”.
Churches do your thing but don’t (like the mormons and catholics) try to force others – otherwise, you will be forced in your turn.
BTW, that emperor harried Hosius all the way to his death bed.
Hosius to Constantius the Emperor