Gay Marriage, Eden & Our Constant Illusion – UPDATED

My column at First Things this week completes the journey I began three weeks ago, and I have to say the timing of the whole thing seems oddly coincidental, to me. I’ve had the idea of discussing homosexuality and God, otherness, nature and nurture and calling and depth of longing and marriage for a while, but never felt like it was the right time to bring it up, and then — even though I wasn’t paying much attention to the headlines when I began — it all seems to have landed at the same time as the NYS legislature’s passing of the gay marriage law.

In the end, I didn’t do a very good job of expressing what I really want to say — partly because I am not that smart, but also because it is something still so deep within my heart that I don’t yet have the means of bringing it forth, and really expressing it. But what I wanted, primarily, was to begin a discussion that was about more than our worldly — often sentimental — takes on these issues, and also looked beyond the easiest part of our spiritual understanding.

I wanted, mostly, to be able to wonder
, and in wondering, to get folks talking about homosexuality with words other than “hater,” or “homophobe,” or “abomination” or “sodomy.” I wanted us to remember that God’s ways and thoughts are not ours, and that no one — not the gayest gay or the catholiciest catholic — has the full mystery and the whole answer; we have reason, and 2000 years of some brilliant thinking, we have design and instinct, but we don’t have it all.

And I wanted to encourage everyone to explore the idea that maybe we are all called to so much more than we dare suppose, but we don’t spend enough time actually asking God what he wants us to do with ourselves, in surrender to Him:

“Equality!” was the word heard over and over again on the streets and in the headlines, and it is one of those powerful words to which we instinctively wish to add our assent, even if we know in our hearts that true equality exists only within the Triune God, and in our willingness to place ourselves before and within its mysterious depths.

Watching the men and women celebrating outside The Stonewall Inn—the jubilant young ones and the quietly pleased men who said they had been together and waiting for this moment “for 42 years”—I understood their glee, but couldn’t help thinking that they, like the sister from our parish, were ultimately chasing an illusion.

Ultimately, I think I’ve made a balls of it. It will take a better writer than I, with a better mind, to go anywhere with it. But that’s my thinking, for now, on the whole subject.

Anyway, if you want to read all three pieces in succession, they’re here:

Homosexuality; A Call to Otherness?
The Substitute for Reason
Illusions of Equality

UPDATE: This is upsetting. For crying out loud, gangsters and mobsters get funerals. Ted Kennedy had a Catholic funeral! Can we at least all agree that none of us — none of us — knows what happens between a human being and God in those infinitesimal moments between life and death, and so give a benefit of a doubt that if even if we on earth are so keen on Justice that God — who IS Justice — might have a bit more wisdom than us and bestow His Mercy?

If we must err, let us err on the side of Mercy, with the hope that in those last moments, Christ made an invitation and it was accepted.

The consolations we can offer each other in a time of grief can do more to preach the gospel than any five-hour sermon. If we offer misery, instead — if we compound the pain of people in grief, because we are certain we know the state of someone’s soul, because we know the rules — I wonder how pleasing that is to God? Recall Jesus’ parable:

A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’
He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.
The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.
Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.
— Matthew 21: 28-31

And James 2:13 For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

I say give the Catholic funeral, in good faith — in the humility that recognizes that we cannot know the state of another’s soul, or whether God has chosen mercy over justice (for any of us) — and let God sort it out.

UPDATE II: Meanwhile Tim Muldoon, who in two previous pieces angered many Catholics by suggesting that the gay marriage struggle was pointless, and that Christians may be in a “Gamaliel moment”, has continued to think, and he’s reversed some of that in his column today:

if Christians are to be part of a culture, rather than removed from it in a kind of ghetto, it is our responsibility to help shape laws that promote the common good. We must do it with the careful discernment and love that characterized Jesus’ attitude toward all: generosity and compassion, rooted in the truth of who God has called us to be as individuals and communities, not naming the speck in our neighbor’s eye without first removing the plank in our own.

The common good in matters of marriage is fundamentally not about the rights of adults, but rather about the goods that accrue in a society that protects the welfare of mothers, fathers, and children. The tenor of the argument about gay marriage in New York and elsewhere misrepresents both the notion of rights and the notion of marriage, and both misrepresentations will have negative effects for our culture. Christians and others who therefore share a commitment to a robust and meaningful understanding of rights must therefore be part of the legal argument about gay marriage. But we must do it by first naming how we ourselves have gotten marriage wrong, through callous participation in the toxic contemporary sexual zeitgeist.

It is a smart and typically thoughtful piece — you’ll want to read it all.

And Max Lindenman wonders if (or how) the church might try to reframe its arguments in the face of NYS’s law — how it might better persuade.

Peter Nixon: The church is going to lose, but it shouldn’t lose ugly

UPDATE III:
Religious Exemptions: What the laws do and do not cover
A Same Sex Marriage “PostMortem”
Media Escalates Attack on Pro-Marriage Bishops
From August 2010, Eve Tushnet: Lesbian, Catholic, Celibate

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Rhinestone Suderman

    So, no, according to the Catholic Church, an individual doesn’t get a free pass on sin, any kind of sin, just because he, or she, is a registered Republican, or claims to be Conservative.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Kenneth, you’re moving the goalposts.

    Nobody here is arguing for bringing back slavery, that’s a strawman you’re dragging in. The subject is religious freedom, and same sex marriage.

    If the state makes same sex marriage the law of the land, then the state—not individual religious bodies—is taking upon itself the right to declare what a marriage is, and what it isn’t. Churches will be forced to fall in line with the state’s ruling, or they will be breaking the law, and there will be any number of “victims” initiating lawsuits, and any number of lawyers, hoping to cash in, pushing such lawsuits forward. Any exemptions on religious grounds will be repealed, on the grounds that they infringe on civil rights; the same will apply to churches teaching that homosexual acts are a sin; this will be considered a violation of civil rights, hence against the law, hence needing to be prosecuted by the state, which has set itself up as the arbiter of what constitutes marriage, and what doesn’t.

    Just give it time.

  • SteveP

    kenneth — the Jim Crow laws were an outcome of the Englightenment “discovery” that black persons had smaller brains than white persons. In other words, the law was based on the scientific fact that black folks were “born that way.”

    Sound familiar?

    Religious arguments in the United States against abolition are a different matter. As a matter of argumentation you may want to avoid the analogy.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    James, I confess—the idea of the state as caregiver for all children does, indeed, send a chill up my spine.

    I also get chlls when contemplating the surrogate parent industry! (How can a parent be a “surrogate”? Either you are a Father, or Mother, or you aren’t.)

    I fear things are going to get worse in both industries (children are an industry?) as time goes on.

  • James

    (kenneth – said “The idea that gay civil rights represents an “artificial right” that takes away the real rights of decent folks is again, nothing new. To the letter identical to the defenders of Jim Crow “natural order.” They believed with all their hearts, and some still do, that there is an inherent fundamental difference between the races and that sanctioning “unnatural” behavior ie interracial marriage, was an assault on civilization.”)

    Uhm kenneth? The Natural Law itself does not support slavery. It never did, and it never will. Just because someone attempted to corrupt the rational basis of Natural Law does not make Natural Law irrational.

    And just because it was a “mainstream Christian belief” (and I’ve seen no evidence that it was) it was never the official position of Catholic doctrine and it was never rationally supported by Natural Law. It was in fact “bastardized” by so called “Christians” much like the self-induced slavery of gay-marriage by supporters among so-called “Christians” today.

    And the abolition movement WAS in fact a Christian movement. At the behest of Dominican priest Bartolomé de las Casas who was shocked at the treatment of natives in the New World, Spain enacted the first European law abolishing colonial slavery in 1542, although it was not to last (to 1545). In the 17th century, Quaker and evangelical religious groups condemned it as un-Christian. And here in The States, does the name John Brown (and his Bible) ring a bell?

    And Natural Law is self-evident in it’s observations. It is not God’s “thoughts” per se but rather, the very nature of the “Creator” and the “image of the Creator” in the very nature of the species called “man”.

    I thought you were able to “draw intelligent distinctions” unlike the “save-marriage” rubes, kenneth?

    Is that not the case?

    Now then:

    Show me in the Constitution where “marriage” is a “right.”

    Show me in the constitution where disordered sexual acts are an acknowledged status of an individual.

    Show me in the constitution where “gay” is the natural order of man.

  • kenneth

    It’s not a matter of whether you or any other poster here is advocating slavery or segregation. The fact is that if we accept your argument against gay marriage on the reasons you give, we must allow the strong possibility that George Wallace of the old days was also right. You employ all of the same reasoning as the segregationists. You assert up and down that no, what you’re saying is fundamentally different, but you fail to demonstrate so in any way.

    The state has ALWAYS decided what marriage is because it is a matter of contract law overseen by the state. The state has NEVER defined nor practiced the sacrament of marriage, nor will it in the future. The state has performed many, many tens of millions of marriages which are considered invalid in the Catholic Church or many others for a wide variety of reasons. The state has allowed civil divorce on demand for a long, long time now. As a demographic power block, divorced people are vastly more powerful than the gay lobby ever could hope to be. Divorced people have won the recognition of various parenting right etc in civil law. Can you find me one court case in which a divorced person even ATTEMPTED to force the Church to grant them a sacramental marriage or to otherwise redefine the Church’s internal sacrament? I think not.

    Nor has racial civil rights infringed anyone’s legitimate freedom of teaching or belief. Many families and many religious organizations (sadly) still openly teach that mixing of the races is immoral. This is clearly WAY agaisnt goverment orthodoxy. Yet a half century after the Civil Rights act, nobody is being prosecuted for it.

  • James

    (kenneth said – “The intelligent distinction between homosexuality and things like pedophilia and marriage to an animal is one that any seven year old who has ever watched a courtroom drama show could figure out: consent.”)

    I never said anything about animals. But as far as pedophilia, pederasty, and incest- aren’t these all just “natural” and “innate” inclinations/ Aren’t these all just physical acts of “love”?

    Who are you to say that the child, the teen, the sibling will derive no pleasure from these acts? What is there for the “beloved” to consent to? As long as there is no physical harm- who are YOU to deny these forms of “natural” “love” and “RIGHTS” from anyone, kenneth?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Kenneth, enough.

    Where, in any of my comments, do I defend slavery, or Southern segregation? You are using the specious argument that because (according to you) I’m using the same reasoning as southern racists (WTF?) I am somehow as bad as they were, and advocate slavery.

    This is B.S.. Holding that marriage should only be between one man, and one woman—as the Church as for centuries—is not the same as upholding racism. The Christian view is that homosexual acts are freely chosen sins; they have nothing to do with one’s race; you weren’t “born that way.”

    Are you aware that many blacks who belong to Baptist, or evangelical churches, oppose same sex marriage?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    As for the state regulating marriage, it always did so on a purely secular level—it never bothered interfering with how any religion defined marriage—and it always regulated it on the basis of one man + one woman = marriage; it never tried to change it to anything else

    If the state does make same sex marriage the law of the land, it will be changing it to something else—changing its very nature. And this will, sooner or later, bring it into conflict with those religious bodies which consider homosexual acts a sin, and which will not marry same sex couples.

  • kenneth

    “I never said anything about animals. But as far as pedophilia, pederasty, and incest- aren’t these all just “natural” and “innate” inclinations/ Aren’t these all just physical acts of “love”?

    Who are you to say that the child, the teen, the sibling will derive no pleasure from these acts? What is there for the “beloved” to consent to? As long as there is no physical harm- who are YOU to deny these forms of “natural” “love” and “RIGHTS” from anyone, kenneth?”

    If you truly can’t see the difference between predatory acts and relationships between consenting, competent adults, I fear for those around you.

  • kenneth

    “As for the state regulating marriage, it always did so on a purely secular level—it never bothered interfering with how any religion defined marriage—and it always regulated it on the basis of one man + one woman = marriage; it never tried to change it to anything else

    If the state does make same sex marriage the law of the land, it will be changing it to something else—changing its very nature. And this will, sooner or later, bring it into conflict with those religious bodies which consider homosexual acts a sin, and which will not marry same sex couples.”

    The state isn’t changing anything at all about religious marriage or how it’s defined. The state, and civil society, have very frequently held values (and laws), which have been in conflict with one or more religion’s views of the world. Under our Constitution, churches have a very broad latitude to hold their own beliefs and practice them within the sphere of sacrament and ritual. They DON’T get the right to impose their religion on the rest of us nor the absolute right to order our society in a way such that nothing in law contradicts their beliefs. We don’t have a supreme council of Imams or the Orthodox Rabbinate or the Church of England of Reformation times imposing sacramental law upon religious law, and it’s been one of the biggest selling points about our country.

    Again you are asking that we treat this as some new and scary transition into an age of oppression with absolutely no historical precedent to suggest it is so. There is not a single instance in our country’s legal history of which I am aware in which the state has forced any church to re-write its doctrine or to administer sacraments in ways that go against that doctrine.

    Could something surprising happen despite any lack of precedent? Sure. I can’t prove to you that gravity won’t suddenly change direction tomorrow or that our sun won’t go supernova this evening in violation of everything we thought we knew about science. But we don’t make public policy on the possibility of fantastically improbably worst case scenarios. We base them on what seems realistic, and your fears of persecution so far do not…

  • James

    (kenneth wrote – “If you truly can’t see the difference between predatory acts and relationships between consenting, competent adults, I fear for those around you.”)

    You can stop with the disingenuous histrionics kenneth, and stop dodging the valid question.

    On the contrary kenneth- if you cannot easily explain such an obvious distinction between such obviously disordered acts then maybe, just maybe, it is because they are ALL obviously disordered and (are as such) indefensible in their unnatural inclinations.

    What is “consent”?

    At what “age” is “consent” not “consent”?

    Do Massachusetts public schools that hand out condoms to first graders recognize some form of “consent” within those children? Or how about fourth graders?

    Or perhaps legalized abortions for minors involves some sort of innate childhood consent? No?

    Do two minors consent to one another?

    Could a minor not likewise consent to a “loving” adult.

    Could a “mature” teen “consent” to an adult?

    Define “competent” as related to age.

    Are the outrageously immature participants in “cheek-less” cowboy chaps at any number of gay-pride parades “competent” kenneth?

    While you’re busy advocating the destruction of all our traditional moral boundaries, please be so kind as to define the premise for the moral boundaries that you feel are in need of preservation.

    Draw that line kenneth.

  • James

    kenneth wrote – “Could something surprising happen despite any lack of precedent?”)

    You mean like the unnatural legalization of “gay-marriage” kenneth?

    kenneth, your argument is beyond inane:

    “Just because we’re advocating an unprecedented, illogical, and completely unnatural law- is in no way indicative that we will be advocating even MORE unprecedented, illogical, and completely unnatural laws!

    After all- show me any evidence of any other unprecedented, illogical, and completely unnatural laws that have been passed…… except the one we’re advocating right now….

    silly fools……”

  • kenneth

    “After all- show me any evidence of any other unprecedented, illogical, and completely unnatural laws that have been passed…… except the one we’re advocating right now….

    silly fools……”

    Umm….for openers, the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. And Emancipation.

    Each one of these things was completely unnatural according to many many centuries of mainstream Christian moral reasoning and precedent.

    In particular I would commend your attention to the Declaration of Independence. At the time it was signed, it was widely seen by the world, and by many of our own ancestors in the colonies, decent folk, as being an invitation to mob rule and anarchy. According to the prevailing wisdom and the divine right of kings, it held absolutely no more promise for good governance than a street riot by hippies.

  • kenneth

    The whole consent issue is very obvious under the law. Once someone is of age, usually defined as 18, they are considered mentally and emotionally mature enough to consent to the obligations of contract law and to participate in all other acts which are not criminal (including essentially all physical interactions which include other consenting adults). Nothing complex about that at all. Competence likewise is defined according to statute and case law. If someone is in possession of their mental faculties and has an intelligence sufficient to have a functioning adult understanding of what they’re agreeing to, they’re competent.

    None of this means that the actions they choose to engage in will pass muster as “moral” according to your church or any other, but our government is not in the business of enforcing church law or dictating conscience. Unless what you’re doing poses a clear and present danger to public order or someone else’s property or well being, it’s none of the government’s business.

  • James

    (kenneth wrote – “Umm….for openers, the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. And Emancipation.”)

    Uhm…kenneth? Each and everyone of those were in line with Natural Law.

    And every single one of them were built upon the fundamental self-evident truth of a “Creator” and “rights” endowed by that “Creator”. Sounds like basis for the dreaded “Theocracy”. *shudder*

    Once again: gay-marriage is not in any way, shape, or form, derived from Natural Law. It is a deviation from Natural Law.

    (“According to the prevailing wisdom and the divine right of kings, it held absolutely no more promise for good governance than a street riot by hippies.”)

    Actually the Catholic Doctrine of The Two Swords held the concept of the powers, rights and duties of kings to protect the Christian Constitution of states. This doctrine, and Natural Law were instrumental in the development of our representative republic.

    And again: gay marriage is a contradiction to Natural Law.

  • James

    (kenneth wrote – “The whole consent issue is very obvious under the law. Once someone is of age, usually defined as 18, they are considered mentally and emotionally mature enough to consent to the obligations of contract law and to participate in all other acts which are not criminal (including essentially all physical interactions which include other consenting adults).”)

    But kenneth- with gay-marriage we’re rewriting “law’ here.

    You’ve given no logical, rational, or “natural” basis for the exclusion of the physical expression of “love” between “minors” and “adults”.

    (“If someone is in possession of their mental faculties and has an intelligence sufficient to have a functioning adult understanding of what they’re agreeing to, they’re competent.”)

    No one below the age of 18 fits that definition of “competence”?

    Define “adult understanding” in the matter of sexual expression and “love”.

  • http://google.com,facebook.com Joni Allen

    I’d like to review your article at some length, but that will have to be in the future. For now, I will only commend you for your courage in speaking out. Everytime I condemn this abomination, even in the mildest scripture-based language, I receive almost the same rebutal, “oh, you are hating GLBT.” There is a powerful Satan-backed homosexual agenda, which seeks to recruit youth to pornography and sexual addiction, to desensitize society and basically wreak havoc with the family. God bless you.

  • Greta

    again the spam blocker. It does not seem to like serious discussion around homosexual issues..so multiple posts..

    Kenneth and others, I think you have to look at the entire matter of gay special rights as exactly that, special rights. I tried to lay out a few scenarios to compare to the legal reasoning being used for these rights and why they are special rights, not equal rights, in 16-18 above. I suggested we remove the religious arguments against gay lifestyle because in effect that is what the courts and NY legislature have done. So in all the scenarios, I do not want to see any religious arguments for or against gay lifestyle, or the three other lifestyle choices I am using in the argument. No talk of gravely disordered sin for homosexual lifestyle, incest, polygamy, or even the most radical, bestiality. Most religions would call these all sins. But because the liberals fought for separation of church and state distortion of the first amendment, I want to leave religion out of this and just go with law. Here we have rights and consent being involved. This would also prohibit a child from being involved although one could make a point that child have rights as seen in the recent decision that violent games cannot be barred from being sold to kids by the right of the first amendment and we see kids being taken without parental consent to get abortions, but let’s leave kids out.

    I also wanted to leave science out in regard to possible genetic issues with children born out of incest since in many ways a government could do this to protect from a mom and son having a kid that was deformed. I put the two incest scenarios with the female beyond childbearing age. So no kids, just consenting adults with love desires that are seen as incest. Our adults both believe they were born with these types of desires and thus unable to control based on homosexual rights arguments.

    I challenged anyone to give the legal right on why using the same logic for legalizing homosexual behavior and marriage why the courts could prevent my various scenarios. No religion, no kids who might be harmed or born with defects, just consenting human beings in love who simply want to express their love in marriage…

  • Greta

    In my most controversial, I asked also about a man and his animal love. The only human involved is consenting and the animal has no right of consent provided even to save their life or from being eaten. He was born with this love for animals. Religious belief says he is deviant and if acted upon, his action would be viewed by many as gravely disordered. But religion has no place in legal matters according to the left who gave us Homosexual marriage. He can kill and eat the animal and does not need its consent. The animal and all human being should be protected from cruelty, but this man would never hurt his love. He only wants to give it pleasure. It has been steralized so no odd form of life can result…

    Kenneth blew it off, but I would really like a serious discussion on why homosexuals get special rights not be given to all of these others. Fred wants to marry 6 women..Why can’t he base his argument on the laws used for homosexual special rights?

    If someone can not lay out a clear legal reasoning that can be used to barr these various scenarios, then I would say that we should expect folks with these type of desires to seek the same righs given to homosexual choice behavior.

  • Patrick

    Kenneth, God bless you, you are doing a yeoman’s job trying to be reasonable in the face of some unreasonable statements. I don’t know that I would put up with such treatment.

    For what it’s worth, homosexuality is not a disorder as one commenter suggested, just because his priest says it is. And some mainstream Christian churches teach that homosexual acts between loving consenting homosexuals is not a sin.

    But I suspect you aready know this.

    Peace out, man.

  • momor

    Kenneth,
    I can put the lie to your assurances that homosexual marriage is not the top of the slippery slope to legalizing virtually ANY description of marriage. All you have to do is go back 50, 60, or 70 years in time and imagine what would have been said to you then about legalizing same-sex marriage and adoption. It was inconceivable. Obviously times have changed and the first change is always the slowest – the rest are like snowballs.

  • Joseph Marshall

    It seems to me that Kenneth, Rhinestone, and James have covered all this ground before. The future is mere speculation, the past is but memory. Speculation can generate an infinite number of possibilities of what might happen. Nostalgia and memory can generate an infinite number of explanations and excuses for what did happen.

    How many of us here are truly in the present? It is genuinely all we have. In the present there is no more possibility and explanation is beside the point. In the present, the State of New York permits gay couples to marry. In the present everyone here in America is guaranteed “free exercise of religion”. In the present Greta, Kenneth, James, and Rhinestone between them have generated more free speech than it is possible to consume locally.

    In the present nothing in America [save for the opinions of your neighbors] prevents any of us from praying, believing, agreeing, or disagreeing. And I, at least, don’t pay so much attention to my neighbors, that I need worry about losing any of it.

    Will this pretty much stay the same? I think so. But my speculation is sold at a deep discount just as much as anyone else’s.

    I simply note that the more I attempt to stay in the present, the less I seem to need to worry about the future or justify the past. Both worry and justification are forms of immense and needless suffering. But to know how much you truly suffer, you have to stay in the present and pay attention to it.

  • James

    Point well taken Joseph.

    “Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of
    itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.” -Matthew 6:34

    To kenneth, I apologize if I have offended you in anyway.

    Peace be with everyone here.

  • kenneth

    Joseph, that just may be the one true pearl of wisdom in this folly in which we are engaged. Also the most Buddhist thing I’ve ever heard anyone say on this forum!

  • Boxster

    James – I thought your posts were well-reasoned and thoughtful. I think there are two kinds of people who participate in the battle we find ourselves in, and you are a warrior. Hat’s off to you, and a hearty thanks also. Pace yourself, brother, it’s a brutal and truly evil battleground.

    To all of those on the sidelines? This is the time to think deeply about principles and what we contribute to this age as Christians. Participate, pray, educate yourselves on biblical truth (remember objective truth is timeless and unevolving) and make a stand. Don’t just sit in the stadium and watch others carry the ball.

  • Greta

    The future is often decided by how we operate in the present. We live in a society where groups with agenda’s never rest until they have arrived at their full end game result. When we are involved in the courts as we have been with behavior choices like abortion and special rights for gay lifestyle, each decision by the courts sets precedent for the future. The argument for a long time and one major difference between the two parties is around judges who legislate from the bench. Few really seem to understand the danger of this action. With each action, the right to vote, the entire amendment process of our constitution, and the balance of power and its checks and balances are impaired. The central power becomes ever greater. This diminishes the ability of each state to be able to have differences and yet all to remain one nation. This was an essential part of the founding principles and the documents our country is supposed to live under for all. We are to be nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are to be a nation where all our rights come from our Creator, not the central government or unelected lifetime serving appointed judges.

    When the Democratic party decided they could not use the system to get their agenda forced on everyone, there solution was to begin to push for judges who would rule with empathy, not equal justice and certainly not restrained by the system of government or the constitution. They use words like a living constitution as if the original has no method of change. We have an election process in the local, state, and federal level. We have and desired limited government with the people maintaining power, not the judges. We had judges to protect against those who were breaking the laws that applied to everyone. We have the amendment process which has been used effectively over the years to bring concensus to changes that would impact everyone. We had state laws to set the standards and laws we wanted on a local basis which gave us a way to match the beliefs and practices of those on a local level with the protection of the state and federal courts to those whose legal rights in the constitution were being denied.

    We cannot simply sit back and pray and hope things work out. We are called to bring our values and our morals and yes, our religious beliefs to the forefront in driving our government. This was so important that it was provided in the first amendment. Freedom of religious beliefs unimpaired by government came before speech and freedom of the press. The founders who wanted to have a country free of slavery knew that what would continue to push for its end would come from those with strong religious driven beliefs and this would apply to all things which needed to be changed over time. Religion would endure and it needed to be free and protected from government. That is why the left needed to lie and create the false belief that it was the other way around, that government needed to be protected from and separated from religion. What they wanted most was in conflict with religion and the Constitution as written. Stay active and stay alert and work in the present hard because our future depends on what you do with that present time…

  • Boxster

    Greta – well said. We are faced with a clear choice. Are we to act as sheep, passively watching the culture morally regress, or do we take a principled stand, based on traditional moral understanding, natural law and common sense?
    Where are the Christian leaders to confidently assert right from wrong based on biblical truth? How have Christians, salt and light, become so frightened and confused? Do we really WANT to be so broad and open-minded to accept/embrace human depravity because we are told it is “love?”

  • James

    Thank you for the compliment Boxster. It’s much appreciated.

    Early on in this thread I took special notice of your comment at (7):

    “It is unfortunate so much apparent trepidation goes into writing an argument against homosexual marriage. It is as though, compassion and mercy notwithstanding, that we are so mired in a postmodernism that we fear to articulate right from wrong. It is confoundingly sad to me that the church is not strongly condemning this abasement, based on logic, history, human dignity and natural law, for starters. That our church spokesmen and women, whom we need now more than ever, are making barely a meek attempt to navigate this minefield should make us ashamed, not proud in its attempt not to hurt any feelings.”

    Very astute. Very concise. Perfectly stated. And much needed.

    It’s an honor to share this thread with you.

    Peace be with you.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X