Posted on 06/23/2004 6:23:17 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Things just don’t add up. The polls tell us that a significant majority of American voters oppose same-sex “marriage.” Yet congressmen and senators tell us that their phones aren’t exactly ringing off the hook over this issue. In fact, they’re hardly getting any calls on the subject at all—not even from Christians. What’s going on?
One explanation might be that, for many secularists who oppose same-sex “marriage,” it’s just not that big a deal. The general public often shies away from controversial social issues, especially during election years, and no one wants to seem judgmental, after all, in today’s “tolerant” environment.
But what about Christians? What’s our excuse for staying silent?
I think some don’t really believe this is such a critical battle. To them I can only say—wake up and pay attention. This issue has the potential to redefine and, ultimately, to destroy the institution of marriage in this country—and with marriage goes the family. You can’t ignore this.
But there are other Christians who recognize the importance of the battle over same-sex “marriage” but are still not speaking up. For many of them, I think the problem is a lack of faith.
Now, that may sound harsh, but I can’t think of a better way to put it. A lot of Christians—even some of our most prominent leaders—seem to have succumbed to a “What’s the use?” attitude. They believe that the cultural climate has turned so much against us that we’ll never be able to stop the advance of same-sex “marriage.” And they have heard that we don’t have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment in this session of Congress—so they don’t even want to urge the House and Senate to vote. Some Christian commentators have sounded a defeatist note.
I understand the need to be realistic about the odds we are facing—yes, it’s a tough fight. But it’s quite another thing to believe that because we don’t have the votes today, there’s no reason to fight.
I worked in the U.S. Senate between 1956 and 1960. We fought hard for civil rights bills—against entrenched segregation. Every year the bills were blocked by filibusters. But we kept fighting year after year. So did leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. By 1964 the voting rights act was passed.
And what about Ronald Reagan, whom we honored just weeks ago—the man who led us to victory in the Cold War? He dared to demand that the Berlin Wall be torn down when almost no one else thought it possible. It took years, but it happened.
Remember, too, Wilberforce and his campaigns against slavery. He had only a handful of votes when he started, but he trusted in God. He battled year after year in the Parliament, and twenty years later, an overwhelming majority voted to end that horrible villainy.
The Senate has, I’m happy to say, scheduled debate to begin the week of July 12. Maybe there aren’t the votes there this year to pass a constitutional amendment, but that’s no excuse not to start the fight. We need a great national debate so we can make our case. And maybe we’ll lose this year—maybe next year we’ll lose again. But we’ll come back year after year—until we win. Like the cause of abolition, our cause is just. And if we trust in God, I believe that during the coming public debates, the public will see this as a great defining issue. And when they do, the pressure will be on recalcitrant congressmen to come our way.
I say let the debate begin. Let us engage the battle.
One cannot help those in the ditch, hurting if they're satisfied only to call out to them from the road.
Uh-huh.
The media promotion of gay marriage is relentless, it's everywhere, even in supposedly-conservative weeklies like US News and World Report. Confronted with this reality, the Christian majority caves in.
I'm not sure about this, but I imagine that it is illegal for a priest to perform a marriage without a marriage license.
However, I share your view on the the irrelevance of the state's position on religious issues.
Still, unlike baptism and communion, marriage has significant secular consequences, particularly in the areas of taxes, welfare benefits, and child custody.
So-called "gay marriage" will almost certainly require a complete overhaul of tax and welfare policies that would eliminate marriage incentives to normal families. For example, social security is already a wreck; "gay marriage" will create a new class of entitlements for gay couples.
Historically, the state's purpose in licensing marriage was to convey a permit to reproduce children in exchange for a lifetime commitment between the bride and groom. Reproduction was chief among the privileges granted by marriage: that's why close relatives could not receive a license, and why children born out of wedlock were called illegitimate. Lifetime commitment was its chief responsibility.
As a matter of law and fact, marriage is optional for having children and half of marriages end in divorce. Times have changed. Over the years, the purpose of the marriage license has become more about economics and less about children.
But marriage will retain some vestige of meaning. How long will it be until a legally wed gay couple sues their health insurer to pay for the services of a surrogate mother? The state, after all, has in effect authorized a marriage and marriage licences the right to reproduce. Would it be fair for an insurer to discriminate against a homosexual couple?
I wouldn't be surprised if the argument were eventually extended to a right to clone.
One thing is certain: this is a Pandora's box and no good thing will fly out of it.
Yours may be the best argument yet against gay marriage.
"That's why I can't get too upset about the same-sex marriages, as marriage isn't any of the state's business anyway, IMO."
It's irrelevant whether you think it's the State's business or not. That doesn't change reality.
Tell that to Ronald Reagan. You may not change the culture with arguments alone, but surely reason does have a role to play.
I've noticed a contingent of Christian conservatives on FR with views similar to yours. I would ask you the following questions. Can you ever completely divorce morality from law? Doesn't law have the ability to instruct as well as coerce?
Of course it is. Because you are talking about a priest carrying out a secular function. Catholic priests don't need to "perform a marriage" in any secular sense. From a sacramental standpoint, they simply preside over the sacrament of Holy Matrimony in which the two spouses are the ones who actually "perform a marriage."
Still, unlike baptism and communion, marriage has significant secular consequences, particularly in the areas of taxes, welfare benefits, and child custody.
All of which are nothing more than functions created by the state that serve no purpose in a Christian context. And yes, I include "child custody" among them, too -- which is why the most important decision Christians make when baptizing their child is selecting godparents for the child who are capable of raising that child in the event the parents die while the child is still young.
Reproduction was chief among the privileges granted by marriage: that's why close relatives could not receive a license, and why children born out of wedlock were called illegitimate.
This was also why the very concept of "marriage" is conspicuously absent from the U.S. Constitution, and was absent from the laws of most states at the time this country was founded. The notion that reproduction was a "privilege" overseen by a government would certainly have made the members of any free society vomit.
How long will it be until a legally wed gay couple sues their health insurer to pay for the services of a surrogate mother?
That is a perfectly legitimate argument, but it doesn't really apply to this case because the same question could be asked about any medical procedure. The whole system of medical insurance is flawed for the simple reason that all of these "what-if" cases will eventually have to be spelled out clearly in the insurance company's policies.
"Why bother? Only about 1% of the population is homosexual, less than 10% will get married. Very few homosexual marriages will stay together. So it is likely we will never see a homosexual married couple, except on TV."
Television has a disproportionate influence on teaching people and what it teaches should be every bit as important as what a school teaches. It's not how many 'gay marriages' there would be. Even if there were none, the issue would be unchanged. It's government sanction (and the implied societal sanction) of yet another policy (a new right in this case) with the result of further weakening the link between marriage the birthing/raising of children.
"I agree marriage originally was a religiose practice, the state has no business regulating it. "
Marriage is a cultural practice. It may have been confirmed by religion (as are many things), but that doesn't change the foundation of it. Unless you are completely ignorant of the rest of the world, you know that this is pretty much how it works all over the world. Despite there being many religions, there is only one major template for marriage: one man marrying one woman. If it was purely religious, there would be many variations. The only significant variation is polygamy, which isn't very common. There are problem other exceptions, but nothing on any significant scale.
"So long as men and women continue to enter into real marriages, I don't see how the institution is destroyed. "
The point is that men and women will be *less likely* to continue to enter into real marriages. Real marriage will become more and more rare. Your reasoning is something like 'as long as the car runs, I see no reason to put gas in it'.
I've heard, "No one has shown me/proven to me," too many times. It shows total misunderstanding of their role. In a democracy we are the ultimate power, and as such we have ultimate responsibility. As individuals we are ultimately responsible for what we do and think. We aren't responsible for what we've been told, but what we do, and what we understand (or not.) Please take responsibility for your intellectual life.
Ideas are not playthings...before someone says something foolish like, "No one has explained to me how this will hurt my marriage," save all of us the embarassment and ask yourselves just what marriage is, and what role it serves. Ask yourself, also, whether it's just about you...that's something many people can't fathom. It might open a world you obviously have no knowledge of.
"The equation of sodomy with marriage destroys what's left of the idea of the natural law with respect to human sexuality."
Same-sex 'marriage' is not equating sodomy to marriage. They are still talking about a relationship. You damage your credibility when you say this. Sodomy is merely the physical act. Homosexuals may eagerly engage in sodomy without claiming to be married.
"No. No law about someone else's marriage can hurt mine. Only my behavior or my wife's behavior can do that. "
Nothing done now will harm any marriage existing today. The effect will be seen in the following generations after children have been raised to believe same-sex marriage is good and acceptable and that marriage in general is intended merely for they own personal gratification, to be abandoned at a whim.
"I don't see anything there addressing the claim that same-sex "marriage" will destroy the institution of marriage."
Same-sex marriage will not 'destroy' the institution of marriage. It will change it. Much like no-fault divorce has changed it. Must like welfare and providing financial incentives against getting married has changed it. Marriage will become (has become) more and more meaningless. It's not something that happens overnight.
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." Matthew 5:13
Genesis 1:26,28 give us the general cultural mandate for God's people. We are God's vice-regents who are to exercise godly dominion over all creation.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20
Christ's Great Commission is not a bare suggestion to send out some missionaries and hope for a few baptisms - discipling nations means bringing whole people groups under the Lordship of King Jesus. That would seem to imply cultural transformation.
Our nation's laws will be in chaos so long as human despots are allowed to create 'law' by judicial fiat. Our laws must be tied to Biblical Law.
Chalcedon Institute http://www.chalcedon.edu/
American Vision http://www.americanvision.org/
National Reform Association http://www.NatReformAssn.org/
"If you can find a single quote from the New Testament in which Jesus Christ suggested that Christians had an obligation to protect their society from falling apart as a result of a wholesale rejection of the Gospel."
Perhaps you can point to someplace in the Gospel where Jesus said we were required to aid in society's falling apart. If this were a dictatorship, you might have a point. However, we have a vote in this country and if we refuse to use this vote in the way one would consider most Christian, then we must bear partial responsibility for the consequences.
"These laws also serve to destroy the notion of the natural law with respect to marriage, and reduce marriage to a purely utilitarian, contractual arrangement. "
I tend to think the idea of Natural Law is becoming obsolete. More and more it's simply what the courts say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.