Scott Clark On Natural Law And Gay Marriage
October 28, 2008 Posted by David N
With Proposition 8 on the ballot in California, it is important to stop and think about the issue of marriage and family in general and how these institutions relate to the state. How should a Christian (or anyone) approach the issue of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage from a philosophical and political point of view? Is there a case to be made for traditional marriage apart from the Bible? Is this simply an issue that should be left to the individual?
Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California addresses these questions on his blog. Without addressing prop 8 specifically, Dr. Clark attempts to sketch a foundation for thinking about the relationship between marriage and the state from a Natural Law perspective, drawing from both Christian and Pagan thought.
Here is a rather lengthy and meaty paragraph to give you the gist of his argument:
magistrate has a legitimate interest is the regulation of marriage and
the constitution of the family. The family is constituted by marriage
as a male and a female and whatever children may issue from that
marriage or be adopted into it. It is a creational institution. The
state does not create families or marriages but it recognizes and
governs them. In the nature of things, the definition of fundamental
social institutions such as the family or marriage, which is the
beginning of the family, the social and civil recognition of the
covenant between persons to live together as a natural family. These
natural, creational institutions are fundamental to any society. If
marriages and families are defined in homosexual terms, then society
itself is redefined and its relations to nature are radically
re-defined. This is why the magistrate has an interest in marriage and
families generally. If nature or creational boundaries are no longer
normative for marriage and family then what norms are there? All social
relations devolve to mere convention (will), become arbitrary, and
constantly re-defined. When nature is recognized and obeyed, bestiality
is illegal because it is contrary to nature. If bestiality is defined
as mere convention then it can only be prohibited on the basis of will
or convention or in the interests of the animals. What if someone
decides or gives plausible arguments that his animal has given consent?
What then of pedophilia? Apart from the constraints of nature and
natural law, why exactly should civil society forbid it? This is not a
“slippery slope” (if this happens, then that will happen) argument. I
am merely pointing out questions that already exist (there are
advocates of both pedophila and bestiality) and the necessary
consequence of denying the existence of nature and natural boundaries.
The magistrate has a right and a duty to enforce marriage and divorce
laws in order to enforce natural, creational boundaries in the same way
he has a duty to protect a society from theft and fraud.
Read Dr. Clark’s full article at the heidelblog.
Related posts:
- Judge Declares Marriage Definition Unconstitutional
- Playing Politics With Same-Sex Marriage And Undermining A Free Society
- Gay Marriage And The Bible
- Interview with Scott Smith, Part II
- EFBT: What Does Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage Look Like?
- Book Review: The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
Posted in Apologetics, Culture, David's Posts, Gender Issues, Main Page, Philosophy, Politics
content rss
Recent Comments