Playing Politics With Same-Sex Marriage And Undermining A Free Society
October 25, 2008 Posted by David N
S. T. Karnick has written a piece for Salvo Magazine that is worth reading. It may be the most reasonable appeal to the Same-Sex Marriage camp I've ever read.
allow homosexuals to “marry.” They may already do so, in any church or
other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There
are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so…
nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to
stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. Further, any couple of
any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their
union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them.
Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and
inanimate objects, can and do “marry” in this way. What the law in most
states currently does not do, however, is force third
parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize
these “marriages” and treat them as if they were exactly the same as
traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This,
of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting
the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these
relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of
same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s
power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages
whether they want to or not.
No doubt many will not find this article persuasive. But consider why. I have a feeling that it is because Same-Sex Marriage advocates think that Same-Sex Marriage is morally acceptable (even virtuous), and that it is morally obligatory for everyone to recognize it. But this is not the argument that the “No on 8″ crowd is making. Their argument is based on the premise that gay couples are somehow being barred from marrying (which is untrue) and that the moral issue at stake is one of freedom of choice, tolerance, and liberty. But as this article adeptly points out, it is the radical Same-Sex agenda that is now threatening true freedom of choice and tolerance.
Read the rest of the Salvo article here.
Related posts:
- Scott Clark On Natural Law And Gay Marriage
- Judge Declares Marriage Definition Unconstitutional
- Gay Marriage And The Bible
- The Implications of Free Will
- A Two-Way Street: Free Will, Suffering & The Glory Of God
- What Would Obama Do?
Posted in Culture, David's Posts, Ethics, Main Page, Politics
content rss
October 25th, 2008 at 5:14 am
What the law is trying to do is ensure that individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on recognize these PEOPLE and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional people. Marriages didn't take a bigoted law to court, and marriages aren't fighting for equal rights. If the legally granted title of Married wasn't necessary for certain rights like being able to visit your lover in the hospital where they lay dying or receiving compensation when the spouse you've been dependent on for the majority of your life dies, then Karnick might have some shaky and coldly amoral philosophical ground to stand on. As is, his argument misses the point entirely.
I do feel I should point out the sheer insulting stupidity of his claim that the truly liberal and tolerant position is letting states take people's rights away. A hundred years ago he could have said “In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat negroes as human beings, or not,” and called it the most liberal and tolerant position by the same sick reasoning.
And if individuals, organizations, and institutions didn't have any power over any other person's life, hell, he'd be right. But of course we know that that's not the way the world works.
October 25th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I find that last sentance of yours interesting. In this case, from a Christian perspective, the government doesn't really have any power. The government can tell us that homosexuals are legally married all they want. The truth is that marriage is an institution created by God. When Christians are married they are making a promise before God. The institution of marriage isn't something the government has any real power over. Does anyone honestly think that God recognizes any homosexual marriages? Or that he will recognize them simply because the government says they are legal? The Bible, if you read it and take every part of it as God inspired, clearly stands against homosexuality. Even if homosexual marriages are recognized by the government they will still be considered false by true, Bible believing Christians.
Legalizing gay marriage might make the homosexuals feel good but in the end everyone who knows what a true marriage is will be laughing. Or maybe the better response should be pity.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Buburubu, thanks for the comment.
To say that this is about treating people the same is not quite accurate. This is about behaviors that people engage in, and whether or not third parties who disagree with said behaviors ought to be forced to recognize the behaviors and even give benefits for people who choose to engage in them. So right away, the comparison to black civil rights is simply false (as people don't choose to engage in being black).
Second, I agree that no basic human rights should be taken away from gay couples. As far as I am aware, civil unions allow all of the things you mentioned, such as visiting in the hospital and bequeathing property. And if they don't, they should. Moreover, many church groups in America will perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, and they should have the freedom to do so.
So again, this isn't about giving everyone equal rights. This is about forcing third parties (specifically religious institutions) to accept a lifestyle that their fundamental religious convictions won't allow them to. And since (despite all the rhetoric being thrown around) these religious institutions (or at least most of them) are not seeking to deprive anyone of human rights, there is really no ground for the pro same-sex marriage group to stand on.
Now, if this group would like to argue that it should be morally obligatory for all people to accept the gay lifestyle on its own ground, without reference to the civil issues that aren't (and shouldn't) be taken away from gay couples anyway, I'd love to hear those arguments and discuss them. But as long as all this human rights rhetoric is being shouted, I'm afraid it will be too loud to have a real conversation.
(on a personal note, you're free to think that religious people who don't accept the gay lifestyle are bigots. I'm especially sensitive to this charge, because I agree that bigotry is wrong. But I must point out, with some hesitation and sadness, that personal bigotry is not, and probably should not be, against the law).
October 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
ASP, thanks for the comment.
I think I agree with you in spirit, but we would all do well to treat this issue with less flippancy. Certainly no one should be laughing about this situation (although you did say pity would be a better response).
As Christians, we should be concerned both about helping our fellow citizens in this world to flourish as human beings, and also helping them find Christ. We may rightly understand that the homosexual lifestyle does not help anyone to flourish in this life, and so we should oppose it, but we have to keep the second concern in mind. I fear that fighting homosexuality in the wrong way will hurt many people and ultimately keep them from Christ. Above all we need to treat homosexuals with love.
October 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
If you did your research, you 'd know that people don't choose to engage in being gay, either. They do make a basic choice between living their entire lives alone and pretending to be something they're not or trying to accept themselves and have some happiness in their lives, of course, but I really don't see how you can fault the ones that choose the latter.
Civil Unions in most states do not allow the things I mentioned. Those that do are successfully challenged in court much more frequently than a marriage license.
And I don't know why you think that laws protecting homosexual married couples' rights are specifically aimed at religious institutions that most of them don't want any part of in the first place. Church and State are, supposedly, separate, and religious institutions can pretend to be better than whoever they want to. What the law does is require government agencies and corporations that would otherwise be able to violate these peoples' rights on a whim to treat them like they would everybody else. Killing people based on their religion, slavery, and a host of other things the Bible teaches are illegal according to our government, but it doesn't prevent the Bible's adherents from teaching such beliefs to each other. People can accept whatever they want. The laws are there to prevent them from hurting each other.
Personal bigotry is protected under the constitution, so said religious institutions will be safe. Institutionalized bigotry is not, nor should it be.
I'll pose to you the same question I posed to Mr. or Ms. Karnick:
“Being of the truly liberal and tolerant position, would you agree that it is the right of individuals, organizations, and institutions to choose whether or not to recognize a legally recognized opposite-sex marriage? Say if a male employee of a given company was married to a woman whom his boss thought was completely wrong for him, would it be alright for the company to decide not to grant her the same health benefits that it grants other spouses they feel are better suited?
Or would you say that it really isn't the organization or institution's place to pass judgment on its members or employees lives and be able to deny them rights accordingly, and that perhaps some law should be in place preventing such discrimination?
I trust you can see the parallels. Honestly, I'm very curious.”
October 25th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
You don't speak for God.
But, if that's what you believe in your own head, that's fine. You can consider the whole world false if you want to. The problem is when you impose your beliefs on the rest of us living out here in the real world and try to outlaw people acting differently than you do.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Buburubu,
First, let me say that I'm not trying to tell people what to do. I don't get worked up over the homosexual marriage debate like some Christians do. The reason for that is simple; no matter how the vote goes gay marriages will never be true marriages. If I was voting in California I would still vote against it simply because I won't vote for something that is morally wrong. The sad part of the this situation is the lifestyle homosexuals are living. That is the failure for the church and the marriage issue is merely a part of it. The church should be working to treat the cause not the symptom.
In your second post you indicated that gay people don't have a choice. That is wrong. Everybody chooses to sin. The problem is we are all born with a sinful natures. Homsexuality is one manifestation of that sinful nature. Wether a person indulges that nature and pretends that it is ok is a different matter. This isn't a problem limited to homosexuals. Everyone has multiple sins that they struggle with. The persons response to that sin is what makes the difference.
The tone of your posts indicates that you've listened to too many crazy people yelling on street corners. The tone of my post indicates that I've heard too many “pastors” saying that homosexuality is ok.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Keep in mind that in California, homosexuals already have, under the civil union laws, all the rights that married heterosexual couples do. The fact that it isn't enough for them, that the must usurp the title of that ancient institution proves that this isn't about “rights” but rather about them scoring a victory in a war of cultures and worldviews. Several years ago, Californians voted to define marriage as the Bible does, between a man and a woman, it was the homosexual agenda that sought to overturn that decision, not for the purpose of “rights”, again they already had the full rights-and-privileges of married couples but because they want to dominate the culture and deny the rights of others for free practice of religion.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Buburubu,
“If you did your research, you 'd know that people don't choose to engage in being gay, either.”
I'm curious to know what research I should have done. Perhaps you can point me to the conclusive scientific studies you're referring to.
“Civil Unions in most states do not allow the things I mentioned.”
But they do in some. And I think they should. So we are in agreement here.
“And I don't know why you think that laws protecting homosexual married couples' rights are specifically aimed at religious institutions that most of them don't want any part of in the first place.”
Again, this isn't about protecting rights. Any right you can name, other than calling it “marriage”, is already granted by civil unions or should be. If the only question was one of legal rights for same-sex couples, we'd be fine. But to re-define marriage as an institution will threaten religious organizations in a number of ways, including legal. There's also the issue of education. One father in Mass. was already put in jail for refusing to allow a public school to teach his child that gay marriage was no different than normal marriage. And in several countries pastors have been sent to jail for preaching sermons that homosexuality is a sin. All of these issues at least yield the conclusion that we need to consider the situation more and come up with the best possible legislation for all sides.
As to the fictional situation in your question, I assume that would be a legal issue. If a couple is legally married, of course they are entitled to all the financial benefits that go with that. But the same goes for a gay couple in a civil union. They should receive all the benefits that go with being in a civil union. None of this bears on the issue of whether or not marriage (which is an ancient and mostly religious institution that was only held in such high esteem and considered to be the foundation of society because it fosters the creation and nurturing of the next generation) ought to be redefined.
This discussion that we're having right now is exactly what we need more of, by the way.
Thanks for the comment.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I don't know why you guys keep saying that. Civil Unions only provide protection at the state level, and provides no federal protections whatsoever, like Social Security survivor benefits or immigration sponsorship. You can't move if you have a civil union or it will be automatically discounted unless you move to Vermont. Similarly, you can't END a civil union if you've moved unless you move back to one of the only two states that recognize them first.
Separate but equal usually isn't, and this one is no exception. And of COURSE people want to keep the old definitions of things until people change them. That's true of pretty much everything, ever.
Also, if free practice of religion is institutionalizing a second class of citizen, then yes, I very much would like to deny you your right to free practice of religion. Fortunately, it's not.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Gay people have a choice whether or not to pursue their own happiness, sure, but not whether or not to be gay.
Now, I'm not all that into theology, and I admit that I don't know the Christian mythologies all that well, but isn't sex itself a sin? Like, the original sin? Whether you're doing it to a man or a woman? We don't outlaw that, even though with advances in medical science actual physical copulation is no longer necessary for reproduction.
Isn't, then, voting to keep the traditional definition of marriage ALSO voting for something that's morally wrong? It seems like you're (and by “you” I mean most Christians on your side in the debate, mind, not trying to single you out) simply picking and choosing which sins you consider worth “struggling with” just based on what you would find distasteful with or without your religion. I notice that there are no anti-pork propositions on the ballot or anything trying to outlaw wearing different fabrics together.
At the very least, you must see why it looks that way.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I'd go with anything by the APA in the last twenty years, but maybe you could specifically look up the results of Bieber's study and his attempts to “cure” homosexuality (of over two hundred homosexuals that desired not to be homosexual any longer, he claimed a 26% success rate, though when approached by Kinsey to produce a cured subject for interview, Bieber couldn't produce even one) or take a look at the results of the faith-based therapy organizations that were based on the idea that it was a choice such as Exodus International, Crossover Ministries, Courage, etcetera. Or you could talk to any gay man or lesbian who hasn't been growing up under the crush of a religious institution telling him to be ashamed of who he is and ask him when he first chose to be gay.
When did you choose to be straight? I don't recall ever having to make the decision.
Also, please, quit saying that any right I can name is already granted by civil unions. We both know it isn't. Should be, sure, but it's not. And private organizations as well as state governments will never respect a Civil Union the way they would a marriage, although some might stubbornly refuse to respect a marriage, too.
I hadn't heard of the father in Mass., and I think I'd need more details to weigh in on that in any sort of an informed manner. Typically though, when a parent is dead set on raising their child to be as ignorant as they were growing up, they pull them out of public school and home-school them, not go to the school and tell them to quit giving the children as much knowledge.
“In several countries” cannibalism is a regular practice. I'm not overly concerned with isolated events around the world. Not saying it's not true, just that the scope of my political knowledge is the modern United States, and I'll likely just dead-end a conversation about other governments.
In general, though, I think that I agree with you on the civil unions. If they weren't such a joke and were actually equivalent to marriage and as portable as marriage, I wouldn't consider this nearly as important an issue. I would still come down on the same side, though. Whether individual people want to shout from the rafters that their favorite types of people are better than all the other people is, and will be, their right. It should not be the government's right or a corporation or organization's right that receives financial protection from a government of the people. There has been no decision that every person, or any person, is legally required to respect the homosexual lifestyle, or blacks, or women, or whoever. Your position is safe. There HAS been a decision that the state as an entity, which receives tax money and obedience from these people, is. From the way you phrase the situation, I'm not sure that you get that there's a difference.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Buburubu,
No, neither the Bible nor Christianity teaches that sex is a sin. There were Platonist tendencies in the early Christian church which lead some to think that all matter is evil and only spirit is good, so many commentators had a very low view of sex. But even then, they understood that sex was necessary for procreation, so they could never deem it an actual sin.
In Genesis, God creates a man and a woman and institutes that marriage covenant. He also specifically tells them to “be fruitful and multiply.” So traditional marriage is at the very heart of creation and the natural order, according to Christianity. That's just one reason why it's also so important and, from a Christian perspective, worthy of protection.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I'll check some of those things out, but I'm not sure what it would prove. My point is that even if a “gay gene” were found, why would that automatically make it natural and acceptable? What we found a certain gene that people are born with that causes them to steal more often than others? Or suppose we located a gene that causes some people to be sexually attracted to people or animals? Would automatically make any of those things natural and proper?
In any case, there's really no such thing as “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals.” There is no good philosophical or scientific reason to accept such categories. Humans are simply “sexual.” We may choose to manifest our sexual desires in a number of different ways, but there is no reason to make “being attracted to the same sex” an issue of personal identity, such that my arguing against the act of same-sex unions is somehow arguing against the very personhood or value of the individual.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Buburubu,
I would also reccomend you look at the next post on this blog. It links to an article written by Scott Clark. He specifically addresses the issue of what marraige as a social institution means for the State and for society in general, and from a natural law perspective he makes the case for why the traditional view (recognized by Christians and Pagans alike for at least the last 2,500 years) ought to be protected. Feel free to leave more comments with your thoughts and feedback, since I think his points are worthy of discussion/debate.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 am
Well, it would make it natural, certainly. I'd say it'd still be acceptable even if it were a choice, so no real question there. Notable difference between stealing and being gay is that being stolen from could legitimately hurt you. People being gay in your general vicinity doesn't affect you or members of your religion at all, though you like to pretend you're somehow under attack by it.
But I'm not sure you know what the word “natural” means, given how you frame your question. “Suppose something is perfectly natural. Does that automatically make it perfectly natural?” Well, yes, I'd say that something naturally occurring does make it, er, natural.
Not quite sure where you're going with the second paragraph, but how is it not an issue of personal identity? If I were trying to pass a law that would ban, say, Christianity, would you not take it personally, being a Christian? Or would you buy into my saying that simply because I think that your sinful, unnatural, disgusting way of life should be outlawed doesn't mean that I think of you as a lesser person than myself?
I mean, I'd take it personally, but maybe that's just me.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 am
Unless you're just omitting it for my sake, I'm not seeing the command “pair off into two-gender pairs and have yourselves legally recognized as a single unit” in “be fruitful and multiply”. But I'll cede the point about sex being a sin.
With the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” is the opposite true? Are vows of chastity a sin? Does dying childless get you into hell? Or do you, in those cases, just accept that some people want different things out of life, because it's not as icky?
Getting pretty far afield here, and I'm aware of that, but really. A legally binding contract between a male and a female as the heart of creation? They didn't even HAVE marriage as it exists today back then. If you're trying to protect traditional marriage in that sense, you're about four thousand years too late.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“Natural” in the sense I used the word in the last sentence of that paragraph doesn't just mean “occurring in nature.” I mean “natural” in the sense of being proper to human nature. Just think of any disease. It occurs in nature, but we don't say, “well, it's natural, it must be ok.” We recognize that it isn't “natural” to a flourishing human.
If you were trying to pass a law against Christianity, I would assume it would be because you recognize that I have a choice to be Christian or not. So really you're just strengthening my point. When I say that it isn't a matter of “personal identity” I don't just mean that you shouldn't take it personally in an emotional sense. This would be true of anything that we believe or do. What I am saying is that my disagreeing with some activity that you engage in doesn't mean I think you're less than human. So unless you actually think that I'm somehow less than human because I believe in something that you think is obviously irrational and absurd, then you actually agree with me in principle.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“A legally binding contract between a male and a female as the heart of creation? They didn't even HAVE marriage as it exists today back then.”
Sure, but why assume that marriage must take the exact form that it does today in order to be marriage? Remember that the only thing we're trying to defend here is the principle of one man and one woman in some sort of exclusive relationship. The civil institution of marriage as it is today (legal contracts and all) was simply designed to help facilitate this Biblical paradigm. People can “get married” without any legal documents if they want to.
Point is, the heart of the Bible is a covenantal God who enters into covenantal relationships with human beings and creates certain covenantal relationships for humans to enter into with each other, hence marriage.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“People can “get married” without any legal documents if they want to.”
True, and currently that's true of homosexual marriages too. The proposed laws I think we're discussing are specifically and only about legal documents, though, which I'm just saying were never in any of your God's directives.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Not less than human, but you would think that my love, say, is less deserving of recognition than your love. You just now introduced the term “less than human”, which I'm not accusing you of. More of a “less than me” kind of sentiment, which I'm not sure is really any better when we get right down to it.
I think that the word I would use is “healthy” where you use “natural”. In which case, sure, I don't see any reason to consider it unhealthy. Nor does the APA, the AMA, the WHO, or any other authority on the subject. If you consider a flourishing human specifically one that reproduces (which, given the current world population and environmental status, isn't really helping us to flourish at all), then, and only then, I would agree. Beyond that, there's no real evidence that being homosexual negatively affects a person's functionality beyond the pressures that heterosexual society exerts on them to remain unhappy with themselves and their lives.
Furthermore, even if we did somehow establish that being homosexual was unhealthy, I don't think that refusing to acknowledge their relationships as equal to our own would “cure” anybody.