Gay marriage is now legal in IOWA! Middle-American, rural, salt-of-the-earth Iowa. Does this mean the culture war is essentially over?
If it is, and if we cultural conservatives lose on every issue, what would that mean for the church? Anything?
Christianity, Culture, Vocation
Lucas Cranach, self portrait c.1530.
-
-
Site Statistics
{ 1 trackback }
{ 154 comments… read them below or add one }
For the Christian that really believes in the truth of Scripture and speaks out and lives accordingly, it means further marginalization and conflict with the culture which worships the spirit of the age. It also means increased conflict trying to pass a Biblical faith on to your children. Eventually it will affect your ability to find employment in more and more areas.
A large part of the Church will compromise just as it's been doing all along and be cultural chameleons.
According to the Iowa State Constitution, Article III, Section 20: "The governor, judges of the supreme and district courts, and other state officers, shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor or malfeasance in office; but judgment in such cases shall extend only to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit, under this state."
According to the Iowa Supreme Court: “’malfeasance’ is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all.” Proksch v. Bettendorf, 218 Iowa 1376, 1379 (1934).
If two-thirds of the state senators present at impeachment trial agree that malfeasance occurred, the members of the Iowa Supreme Court are removed from office.
The Iowa Supreme Court Decision No. 07–1499, Varnum, et al. v. Brien, should provide a cornucopia of malfeasance evidence.
In 1897 Indiana legislators had considered a bill to fix the value of pi to a rational number (fortunately it was not passed). The Iowa justices have now made Iowa a mockery.
Iowa tends to be a very "progressive" state. When candidates campaign there, they know that pacificism plays well, for example. This wasn't all that surprising to me, but it was very disappointing.
It means nothing, Prof. Veith, for the Church. And with all due respect, THAT is the reason "cultural conservatives" have erred, politically and Spiritually, by focusing their public message on this type of issue. Gay marriage is in the future, whether we like it or not. But that says nothing about MY marriage, just as a heterosexual couple living in sin says nothing about MY marriage. Nor does it say anything about my faith, my congregation, my synod, or my Church. The Word of God will be spoken until the end of the age. Period.
"Marriage," in the legal sense, has for a long time been dead, meaning nothing more than a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities. Believe me, I work in a law firm that does divorces, and the legal "salvation" of marriage by denying gays rights they would otherwise have is a myth. Recognizing those rights for gay couples does nothing more to "marriage" than has already been done. We can only "save" – and I use that term loosely – marriage by preaching the Gospel from our pulpits and in our neighborhoods.
You hit it, Manxman. What the culture does effects Christians and the church because of how it affects our children, our families, and our ability to function in the world.
The Iowa ruling is significant for at least two reasons: 1. It redefines "marriage" as "two people in a committed relationship" regardless of sex over and against the existing statue and historic precedent; 2. It recognizes homosexuals as a specific "class." Equal protection under the law trumps any notion of civic morality in a pluralistic, secular society. "BurkeOhio" accurately reflects the hard reality.
What does it mean for society? This is impossible to predict. Pray for the nation.
What does it mean for the church? Nothing. Preach the Gospel.
It means a great deal for the church. It makes homosexuality mainstream and acceptable and legally protected. None of these things are desirable, and all of them work against the Gospel.
"You say homosexuality is wrong? Well, you're an antiquated idiot."
You're probably right about inevitability, but that doesn't mean that the inevitable shouldn't be fought. It's probably inevitable that at some point if I preach against homosexuality from my pulpit that I'll be subject to criminal prosecution, but I'll fight against that too.
"What does it mean for the church? Nothing. Preach the Gospel."
This would appear to say that the church should disengage from the world. We preach against the world, and this is something that definitely needs to be addressed. I'm not saying we condemn the Iowa Supreme Court from the pulpit, persay, but I am saying that when the world calls evil good and good evil, that we condemn it for it.
If we don't do that, then we're not preaching the Gospel. In the fallen world the Gospel only begins where the Law ends.
Rev. Lehmann, it already IS, in virtually every possible way, mainstream and "acceptable," and in many states (New Jersey springs to mind), legally protected (as a protected class, similarly to gender, age, race, etc.). I don't buy the notion that government sanction of a class of individuals "leads" culture – culture leads, and government follows. The promotion and sanction of sinful living is nothing new in this country, and many libertarians would tell you it is nothing wrong. I think "sin," in general, is a more corrosive virus than "culture," and CERTAINLY it is more corrosive than laws that say homosexual couples who are already living together now inherit each other's intestate estate.
It is inevitable that this world will end, that sin will continue to corrupt, and that Christ will return triumphant to claim his own. Until then, please continue to preach the truth, even in the face of persecution. When you begin to be subject to prosecution for preaching the truth, I (and many other) Lutheran attorneys will spring to your help and follow you to the prisons.
You speak of this issue as if the Church is not ultimately at fault. I sympathize with BurkeOhio above: this does nothing to marriage that has not already been done, since the church long ago capitulated on divorce. For decades (since the beginning of the 20th century, in fact), the church has been complicit in the utter destruction and devaluation of marriage b the state: marriage is now merely a legal contract, not a sacrament. Who cares whether it is two members of the opposite sex who enter and leave this completely breakable contract?
Ultimately, separation of church and state is the root of this problem: while the church has for almost four centuries exercised a moderating and even controlling power over the morals of society, it has never had the legal sanction to, by force of law, regulate/ensure the sanctity of marriage or any other sphere of virtue. This danger may also be the Church's salvation in times such as these, however: just as the church cannot force a definition of marriage upon the legal superstructure, the state cannot force the church to adhere to a particular definition of marriage within its own doors (yet).
But I hope we now see the results of Luther's schizophrenic bifurcation of the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of the world"…
Very good points. I especially appreciate your comment on government following culture's lead.
On the other hand, as a big believer in letting natural law guide government (and I find it useful in preaching the Law also), I ultimately have a lot of trouble buying into the whole libertarian package.
I wonder when polygamists will be recognized as a "class?" What about the unborn? This ruling is so selective. Thankfully I believe Iowans will pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as many other states have.
This ruling has a significant impact on the church. How would it not? The natural law and the Bible teach that homosexuality is deviant. If we regard sin as good or acceptable then do we need a Savior for that sin? No! The biblical church will continue to condemn homosexuality. Thus, it will cause it trouble for preaching the Law.
How can we preach the Gospel without the Law? If there is no Law then we do not have a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Preaching the Gospel (Christ freely forgives sins) presupposes the preaching of the Law. Thus, we need both Law and Gospel, more of the Gospel since we sin much.
I think you're confusing "Church" with sinners. It's always dangerous to assign sins to the body of Christ. The problem with the church is that it's comprised of sinners who often behave as if they are not church.
Well, if Lutheran worship services haven't raised imprecatory prayers to God against those who legislate and support murder-by-abortion, I doubt such prayers will be raised by Iowan Lutherans against their Supreme Court justices.
C.F.W. Walther's Law and Gospel needs to be re-edited as Political Correctness and Gospel.
It is mistaken to argue that homosexual behavior and marriage will have no impact on devout Christians. Our children, grandchildren, et al will be greatly influenced by existing decadence; ultimately civilizations fall from such decadence. Christians who blithely ignore societal corruption have their head in the sand.
Indeed. I'm reminded of Chesterton's comments about how though both Carthage and Rome were decadent, Carthage needed to be destroyed and it appears that God saw to it through Rome.
You don't burn thousands of babies alive without there being long term consequences. God's wrath is real. Though when it comes we can't say that it is due to this or that in particular, there's really no doubt that we deserve it.
"Does this mean that the culture war is essentially over?"
You may have touched on a major source of the frustration and distress, perhaps even cynicism, within much of Christendom. Many have framed the church in society as essentially that–a culture war. Framing it as such will inevitably lead us to think in the wrong way. The goal and measurable success of the church becomes (more or less) to "change the world," and since wars have winners and losers, it also opens the prospect of failure. Jesus did not send us to "change the world," but to live the truth, because this world is passing away. It will not get worse before it gets better. It will just get worse. Every good thing that continues is a gift from God. (continues)
(continued)
A number of posters have already touched on this point, but what does it really change if this becomes a pagan nation? We may grieve the loss, but salvation is still freely through faith in Christ alone. There are many pagan nations to whom we send missionaries all the time. We do so not with anxiety or distress, but with the hopeful expectation of reaching the lost.
So perhaps you are right. If we concede that we have "lost" the culture war, we may be more able to think clearly about where the true battle lies.
The schizophrenic bifurcation is from Thomas Jefferson and american politics. Luther's "two kingdoms" overlap and integrate.
My only question about this would be when we weren't a pagan nation.
Point taken, tongue in cheek or not.
Still, there has been a massive shift in the culture, and the paganism has become overt and hostile. This bodes a significant change for the social institution of the church and her place within the culture.
Rev. Lehmann, I think it touches upon HOW the church should engage the world, not WHETHER the church should engage the world. As in all things, we must ask ourselves, do our actions point sinners to their sins, and do they subsequently point them to the cross? Christians acting "corporately" as the "church," protesting laws that confer on homosexuals benefits given freely elsewhere, hardly points them to either. (My apologies if this posted twice – I'm having browser issues).
It was barely tongue in cheek. I don't see any particularly Christian foundation to our nation. The founders had a generally good understanding of natural law, but it was still limited.
You're right, of course. Paganism is becoming more visibly predominant.
One must wonder after reading this comment, Mr. Leavitt, if the object of "Christians" with respect to gay marriage is to save our civilization. Been to a newsstand lately? Not too much worth saving there. But I digress.
We could really eat up my day and discuss the arguments emanating from natural law for legally proscribing gay marriage, but suffice it to say in terms of the church, Dan Kempin, bless his soul, hits the proverbial nail on the head below. I've got news for you Peter: The US of A will not forever exist. "Western" civilization postdates the message of Christ…one must wonder how we can be so sure of our faith despite the fall of the early Catholic church! Civilizations come and go. This, too, will pass.
Tocqueville viewed America, for all its faults, as an essentially Christian nation. He understood the serious Christian history and the reality of America that hasn't really changed, however noisy the minority activists might be.
The culture war that we're involved with is a tough one, though we have by no means lost it. While some state courts have caved to the sodomites on marriage, every state referendum on sodomite marriage has been defeated. The worst thing we can do is to lose backbone and concede defeat in this fateful culture war.
In years past these sorts of cultural "defeats" would have made me angry. But now that I have come to a more Augustinian understanding of the wayfaring, peregrinating life of the pilgrim Church, I am not surprised to find Babylonians here in Babylon.
I shed no tears for dying civilizations, because that would mean mourning every civilization. All civilizations are dying. America is no exception.
But I do pour out tears of sorrow for dying individuals, those homosexuals who, like divorcees already, will mistake what the state grants them with what no state has the power to grant: a gateway into total truth, total unity, total love, total acceptance, as shown in the sacrificial love of Christ for his bride the church and imaged forth and modeled in the mutually self-denying marriage of men and women.
I hear a great deal about the "impact" and "effect" of culture on Christians; what about the effect of Christians on culture? Aren't homosexuals in danger too, in danger of being set on fire by the gospel?
"I wonder when polygamists will be recognized as a "class?""
Polygamy is often raised as an argument against a fixed definition of marriage. (I'm not saying this is going on here.) Notice that polygamy (poly-many, gamy- marriages) is one man holding multiple marriages at the same time, each marriage being between the man and a woman. The women are not married to each other.
So even polygamy works with the historic, universal understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
And what exactly is our exit strategy from this "culture war," one must wonder…Or, perhaps more on point: when will we know we have won?
I think to ask this question is to answer it. Unless you're a utopian…in which case I suppose you'd give an answer I otherwise wouldn't have anticipated. Tocqueville did indeed esteem the churches and their fundamental importance to the greatness of this country. But he was speaking politically and socially, not theologically. I would hardly describe checking the "indifferent" box on gay marriage is conceding anything that hasn't already been conceded. We can amend state constitutions all we want, pass every bit of legislation, and make known from the mountain what exactly marriage IS NOT, but unless the sanctifying power of Christ compels the population through such earthly instruments (of which, I confess, I'm skeptical), I doubt His bride will reap much benefit. Couples will continue to live in sin; children will continue to be born out of wedlock; divorces will still be increasingly common amongst the "married"; those with no appreciation for the true, spiritual meaning of marriage will continue to "marry" (egregious example: Britney Spears); adultery among those living in state-sanctioned (and therefore, supposedly, natural) marriages will continue to be pervasive; and the gay population will continue to be…gay. Aghast!
I find it amusing to note how many people think that marriage is fundamentally a religious ceremony
Marriage is and has been – for at least the last 10,000 years – a socio-political contract binding one man and one woman. In its barest essentials: the woman promises to keep his house, fulfill his sexual needs, and bear his children. The man, in return, promises to care for her and her children. Sexual faithfullness is traditional but often optional since some societies permit multiple simultaneous marriages on the part of either the husband (polygyny) or – more rarely – the wife (polyandry). One important aspect of marriage is to ensure the legal definition of heirs: where it is legal, or at least socially permissible, for a man to have mistresses or concubines only the offspring of the wife are legal heirs.
Of course all major religions bless and sanctify marriage since it is God's primary mechanism for keeping societal order. Without it men tend to get into fights over women, women and their children are left destitute, and society rapidly descends into anarchy. See what is currently going on in Africa for a good example. However, marriage is primarily a social function. __
This maintenance of order is why governments give special privilages and rights to marriage, such as tax breaks and automatic assumptions regarding estates after death. These rights and privilages are, of course – along with the social acceptance of marriage – what the homosexual community desires.
Totally off topic, but your reference to a "utopian" reminded me of a local dj's psa spoof, "progressive transitions." They're a hoot. Start from the bottom.
http://www.ktlkfm.com/pages/hughtopian.html
This is a rather defeatist argument. We're involved in a robust culture war with the Christians by no means yet on the losing side. As to Western civilization, it remains, for all its faults, the highest and best civilization on earth. I fear that you are rather too hasty in throwing in the towel.
Tocqueville understood from history and reality that America had a strong Christian foundation. Though we're involved in a tough culture war with a dominant secular liberal zeitgeist, many Christians are fighting hard and far from throwing in the towel. Personally, as a former Marine officer, I enjoy a good fight and shall continue to mix it up with these jerks.
Trey:
I must inform you that Iowa, unlike California, Arizona and much of the west has no process for initiative and referendum. Unless the GOP takes back both houses and Chet Culver is ousted as governor, this ruling will stick. Iowa looks like heartland on the surface, but much of eastern Iowa is dotted with progressive colleges like Cornell College that gives the Hawkeye State some liberal flavor. Also, the state is hooked on ethanol subsidies so as long as the nation is getting hoodwinked by this global warming nonsense, Iowans will roll in government subsidy dough and vote Democrat.
Hey guys. I would argue that Idolatry and worshiping false Gods IS the worst and most immoral thing anyone or a society can do. Does any one here object to this proposition? Consider the following propositions then..
The definition of the word marriage (God ) can only be true when it understood in it´s true and original meaning (is trinitarian and is the God revealed fully in the person of Jesus Christ).
I will never accept the government broadening the meaing of that word marriage (God/religion) to include homosexual marriage (false gods).
I will never accept that homosexual sex (the practice of Islam) is not sinful.
I do not like that the government is forcing me to accept that homosexual marriage (islam) is the equal equivalent to the definition of marriage (christianity) that I hold to
#2
the government is tacitly accepting homosexual marriage and sex (the practice of islam) as moral and right.
This sends the wrong message to our children,that any religion is as good or true as any other and is therefore a sign of post-modernism infecting our society and relativism , reductionism and revisionism.
I am in favor of decriminalizing homosexuality and homosexual sex (islam and the practice of islam), but I am not in favor if the government institutionalizing it´s acceptance on an equal footing with my beliefs.
You will never convince me that homosexual sex (the practice of islam) is right or is not sinful.
I cannot at this time identify exactly how putting homosexual marriage (allowing the practice of islam on an equal legal footing as the practice of christianity) is deleterious to society, but I am sure that any thing that is sinful has negative consequences.
God help our nation and preserve it from judgement for legalizing gay marriage and normalizing homosexual sex (legalizing and normalizing the practice of any religion but the worship of the one true God).
#3
There was a time not that long ago, when christians would have run this argument. I think that the 30 years war convinced europeans that this view was sort of futile. And worse , it was used as an argument against holding a deterministic and dogmatic view that there is only one true religion. Those people became viewed as the enemies of freedom, tolerance, open mindedness, and rational debate. Christians should be known for the opposite of all of these things. We have nothing to fear from open debate. the truth is on our side.
#4
We should be opposed to all class exclusion, especially religiously based ones and we should be opposed to all censorship. yes even most pornographic censorship. There are many christians who think we should still be using the government to get others to see things our way. this is called the "culture wars" today ("if we don´t DO something, political, the world as we know it will end"). Yes I know. Other groups are trying to use the government to force their views on us. We should be smarter than they are. And more fearless. They actually may be right eh? Maybe we should all vote with our feet and found a community that is only Lutheran. On the other hand, the amish have tried to do that. we know what that looks like. it would not look different for Lutherans probably, we too being sinners.
there are good things to be said for the pluralism we have and that christians no longer feel they need to resort to the sword (the use of government ) to enforce their religious views upon those who do not share them.
The 'left' which is engaged in tearing down every decent institution in the country…is winning this culture war.
They never build up something of their own without destroying that which others have built up.
#5 as a christian, I hold the following propositions to be true:
the word marriage has always meant something between men and women.
sex outside of marriage is sinful, including logically gay sex.
children do better when raised by their blood mother and father.
(other more religious arguments here fill in the blank)
we are agreed that there is no readily identifiable social harm in allowing gays to marry and that there are possibly some social benefits.
But we , in saying that, hold the right to caveat that anything that is sinful, whether we see it or not, has deleterious consequences. And finally as Lutherans, we believe that in the civil sphere, this is probably not a great or persuasive line of argument of course.
#6
so I am saying that your stand should be to forcefully continue to argue for every one of your points above. in fact you are REQUIRED to do just this as a pastor. at the same time I am trying to persuade you to agree that: GRANTING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS AS TRUE, the iowa ruling, and it´s basis is the only practical outcome in a pluralistic society.
why is this position the right one?
it obviously protects you as a religious minority.
It is fair ( there are people who are as passionate and religious about their view that gay marriage is right) in that your religious views are held equal to theirs.
no one is harmed in the practical sense (yeah they might go to hell for it. islam is an example of that…but that is not for government to deal with).
what would be the alternative that would be better in terms of the logic of the court and dealing with these things?
#7
finally, and most importantly: the church should not be distracted in this way from doing what it does, and should pick it´s battles wisely. To hold your arguments firmly, and at the same time grant that in a civil society your views should not be forced upon your neighbor might avoid preventing someone from rejecting what we believe unnecessarily, viewing us as sort of tone deaf to principles of a pluralistic society….. this is not a trivial reason.
#1 consider the following statements a christian COULD logically make against gay marriage, with a slight twist:____The definition of the word marriage (God ) can only be true when it understood in it´s true and original meaning (is trinitarian and is the God revealed fully in the person of Jesus Christ). __I will never accept the government broadening the meaing of that word marriage (God/religion) to include homosexual marriage (false gods). __I will never accept that homosexual sex (the practice of Islam) is not sinful. __I do not like that the government is forcing me to accept that homosexual marriage (islam) is the equal equivalent to the definition of marriage (christianity) that I hold to__the government is tacitly accepting homosexual marriage and sex (the practice of islam) as moral and right.__This sends the wrong message to our children,that any religion is as good or true as any other and is therefore a sign of post-modernism infecting our society and relativism , reductionism and revisionism.__I am in favor of decriminalizing homosexuality and homosexual sex (islam and the practice of islam), but I am not in favor if the government institutionalizing it´s acceptance on an equal footing with my beliefs. __
Let's not overreact, and declare all to be lost. The courts are not the people. This is another example of a runaway liberal court imposing its will on the people under the guise of adherence to the constitution. Unfortunately, Iowa is a historically Democratic state, and a lot of bad judges have been appointed to its benches over the years. But it is a populist state, not a socially liberal one. The people did not want this ruling, I guarantee it. No state in this country, even California, wants homosexual marriage to be the law of the land, as evidenced by every popular referendum ever taken on the issue.
We must help people understand that the Democrats are no longer about populism. They are about elitism, and we cannot allow them to control the judicial appointment process any longer. Because their ideas are, at their root, unpopular, they use the courts to impose their agenda.
Late breaking news: The Vermont legislature overturned the governor's veto today, making it the first state to have gay marriage by legislative vote.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97DOPPO0...
The Iowa ruling is significant for at least two reasons: 1. It redefines "marriage" as "two people in a committed relationship" regardless of sex over and against the existing statue and historic precedent; 2. It recognizes homosexuals as a specific "class."
Equal protection under the law trumps any notion of civic morality in a pluralistic, secular society. "BurkeOhio" accurately reflects the hard reality.
What does it mean for society? This is impossible to predict. Pray for the nation.
What does it mean for the church? Nothing. Preach the Gospel.
Another liberal court imposing its will on the people under the guise of adherence to the constitution this certainly is…but that's a topic for another day. The shocked and awed crowd, angered by another runaway court, misses the point, however, when they continue to point to state after state that is passing "marriage amendments." They're winning battles, but fighting the wrong war altogether.
The next generations of Americans simply doesn't care. They don't CARE. And why should they? They've been told repeatedly by the Right that marriage is a sacred institution between man and woman, but their parents have given them firsthand witness of what a mockery this statement is. They've been told that God instituted marriage to give us a glimpse of the union between Christ and his church, and so long as the church spends its limited time preaching the gospel in this way, they are further alienated from the truth. From Christ. They've been told that marriage is the sacred vessel in which God grants us the privilege of sexual knowledge; meanwhile, it is gay, sodomite sex that gets the Right shouting while the Palin kids get a pass (as do almost everyone else).
What do you think they think about your hollow, perfunctory retorts? I would guess they believe what they see, not what we say. And they see people who are more interested in gay sex than they are in preaching the forgiveness of sins, the love of Christ, and the sanctification of God.
I agree with this observation on both the reality and the hypocrisy.
Exegetically speaking, marriage does not give a glimpse of the union between Christ and the Church, rather Christian husbands and wives are to order their marriage in view of Christ and the Church. "Husbands, love your wives AS Christ loved the Church." "Wives, be subordinate to your husbands AS the Church is to Christ."
I would agree that the foundation of marriage has been eroded, if not destroyed, by casual divorce and even more casual sex. However, these do not alter the fundamental definition of marriage as does "gay marriage." There is a difference.
You're wrong on two counts.
First of all, it isn't fair. Marriage was created for specific purposes and to meet specific needs. By its very nature it melds two completely different natures – male and female – and meets the needs of each. Homosexual couples wish the legal benefits of marriage and the social acceptance but cannot fulfill the other requirements and obligations.
Secondly, people are harmed. That is why homosexual activity is generally looked down upon in the first place. Homosexual activity breeds sexually transmitted diseases, it promotes promiscuity, and generally destroys the support structure for the family, which is – in turn – the foundation of any civilization. It is no accident that the Spartan's (who institutionalized homosexuality) died out, and an argument can be made that the widespread acceptance of homosexuality helped in the overthrow of the Roman empire.
There is this common view that "religious views" are somehow arbitrary and may be dismissed at will. In fact, most religious practices and rules are based in long-standing social fact and serve very practical purposes. Some of these are unique to a particular people/place/time or the particular diety involved. Many, however, are based on basic social needs which it is the function of the religion to enforce. (Government keeps short-term order, Religion handles the long-term requirements). For a good explaination of this see "Man on Earth: A Celebration of Mankind: Portraits of Human Culture in a Multitude of Environments" by John Reader.
I couldn't agree more that they do not alter the definition of marriage. We CANNOT alter the definition of marriage any more (or less) than we can alter the definition of what it is exactly that we're sticking in our mouths on Sundays whilst sitting at the communion table. These things simply ARE, because God made them so.
Legally defining "marriage" in a way that includes two men, as I read my bible, is no less an abomination than legally sanctioning no-fault divorce. But I must have missed the ceaseless chatter on the latter subject.
We have to preach Christ crucified. I for one lack the wisdom and strength to implement his new Jerusalem here in Ohio just yet.
If any good comes of this, perhaps it will be that those who live in the "salt-of-the-earth" heartland (or those who champion their purity) will no longer be able to pretend they are morally superior merely because they don't live near an ocean.
Don, what will you put your faith in when the people fail you? So many of your (and others') replies here puts faith in a silent majority of upstanding folks who, deep down, really do agree with your views.
And maybe you think they'll always be there. That those on the side of "right" will always be in the majority. But that's not where I'm putting my faith in this battle.
I would note that Vermont has judge made same sex marriage legal overturning the state Governor's veto. All this around Holy Week, sigh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.ht...
That should be "has just made" not has "judge"
The founding fathers – whether Christian, Deist, or agnostic – did have a notion of civic morality, whether as natural law or the "Judeo-Christian" ethic. Even "paganism" has a notion of moralty. The Stoic philosophers were quite negative in their assessment of homosexual sex over and against its rather loose acceptance in Graeco-Roman society.
What we have today are the bare principles of liberty and equality without regard for morality or the societal implications of individual actions.
"I am saying that when the world calls evil good and good evil, that we condemn it for it. "
Granted. What I meant by that was "preach the Word" (as Law and Gospel). From the church's perspective, "marriage" remains the ordered union of a man and woman and homosexual sex, along with all other sex acts outside of marriage, remains sin. Court rulings do not change that.
As for Iowa being a conservative state, it used to be but when the farmers got dependent on ethanol subsidies, the state leaned more toward the Democrats. There is also a liberal contingent in eastern Iowa where many small liberal colleges dot the landscape like Cornell College. Also there is no intiative and referrendum in Iowa, so the decision is going to be around for a bit. (This is a repeat of a pervious post that somehow disappeared)
I'm not sure that I'm a fan of this rather un-substantive and uncharitable comment. Care to explain?
This is a rather defeatist argument. We're involved in a robust culture war with Christians by no means yet on the losing side. Our opposition, while noisy and sometimes successful, is still in the minority. So far we have won every state referendum on the subject of sodomite marriage.
That was not a judicial ruling. It was an act of the legislature.
Actually, the most morally superior creatures in America live on the coasts. They are wedded to the immortal truths of secular liberalism and fancy that their turds ought to be cast in bronze. Living in Massachusetts, one can attest to this.
In an extremely general sense, I would have to second this statement.
*Having spend significant time in both areas.
I thought it was rather self-explanatory. No one here would express surprise if this happened in, I don't know, New York, because the prevailing opinion here is that New York is full of heathen sinners. Oh, but when this happens in Iowa — "IOWA! Middle-American, rural, salt-of-the-earth Iowa" — there is genuine shock, because good, moral people live there, not sinners! And if sinners are there, it's because they've snuck in via the borders (you know, closer to the heathen sea).
Even Peter's anti-elitist note, below, is, itself, elitist. Tell me you're not looking down your nose and tut-tutting at all around you in Massachusetts, Peter. Tell me you don't think you're better than all those liberals and their wacky ideas.
If the culture war is over, and with it the ridiculous notion that certain geographic areas are more better in God's eyes, then good.
I'm just going to have to say that the above comment is inflammatory, highly uncharitable, and dreadfully misinformed…and I think you know it. Interestingly, until Iowa changed the manner by which seats were apportioned in its state legislature about a generation ago–a paradigm which granted more representation to the rural areas of the state (i.e., most of the state)–Iowa still maintained blue laws, strict marriage laws, etc., etc. As soon as representation was altered to give greater weight to Iowan urban areas, blue laws disappeared, and with them came gay marriage and all the other things often mentioned in the "slippery slope" argument. So maybe there is something to the old (going back to medieval times) platitude that the city is the seat of corruption and vice, while the countryside is the home of virtue. In any case, the laborious life required of the farmer does necessitate moderation, at the very least.
Even in simple statistical terms, the Midwestern farm states have proven to be more politically and socially conservative than anything on either coast.
In other words, you're obfuscating the true nature of the situation by falsely attributing some sin of pride to the "salt-of-the-earth" types: none of them claim to be free of sin; they are merely willing to recognize sin as it is and erect a social framework to restrain that sin, something the coasts have been increasingly unwilling to do (but let us remember that New England was once home of the virtuous and moderate).
I suggest this brief article for more insight into my argument: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=2272
The Vermont legislature voting in gay marriage is a lot more legitimate than a court imposing it. If the people don't like the legislature's action, they can vote it out in the next election cycle. They don't have that option with the courts.
I could reply point-by-point, but I don't see a lot of value in that. Instead, I'll just note that your comment is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the first place.
BurkeOhio, I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Why is the issue of runaway courts a "topic for another day"? Runaway courts are the direct reason why all but one state that sanctions gay marriage does so today. And the next generation doesn't care about gay marriage because the present generation has let them down. We no longer revere God, nor His Word as inerrant truth. We don't respect the concepts of good and evil, or the reality of sin. Whatever the answer is to the issue of secularism that plagues the next generation, it cannot be to eliminate the standards. People will always sin, and fall short of the standard of righteousness. However, we still need to know and revere those standards, and to teach them to our children. Along with that teaching of right and wrong, we need to teach them of the sacrificial gift of the One who can impute His righteousness to us and make us holy. You seem to be saying that we should capitulate to the culture of the day. I disagree. Of course, our primary focus should be on evangelization, rather than politics, to be sure.
Stadler, my faith is not in the people. But I am sick and tired of courts leading in areas such as this, claiming to be reflecting current cultural norms. This was the justification the California Supreme Court used in legalizing gay marriage last summer. They were just "reflecting cultural norms". Six months later, the people spoke and said "no you're not". Yes, unfortunately, I agree that there will come a day that the people will be worn down by the elites and their constant trumpeting that the rights of homosexuals are being abused by the continuance of traditional marriage standards which have been in place since the dawn of civilization. It has happened with countless other cultural issues. If we truly live in a country with a democratic form of government, why do the courts always insist on usurping the role of the people, and substituting the values of the intellectual elites? That is my issue.
Stadler, you're the one who raised the canard of regional superiority. No one on this thread claimed such superiority until you came on scene.
The issue on the thread has to do with sodomite marriage. If you wish to defend it, state your reasons,
I don't know if it's quite a canard. The Californians have, rightly, rejected Sodomite marriage. While in the "heartland", the so called salt of the earth have accepted it. Stadler notes, correctly I think, that midwesterners are no more likely to virtuous that coastal dwellers, so we should not be shocked into thinking that midwestern acceptance of sin is a sign that the "culture war" is lost. It's a fair comment I think.
I thought I replied here, but now it's gone. I'll try again.
I don't think Stadler's comment is a canard. The Californians (of all people) have rightly rejected sodomite marriage, while the Iowans have accepted it. Stadler notes, rightly I believe, that midwesterners are no more likely to be virtuous that coastal dwellers, so we shouldn't be shocked or see it as a sign that the culture war is over when they (midwesterners) do something like this to prove it. I think that's a fair comment.
Further, Cincinnattus, your assumption that the pastoral life breeds virtue is naive. I began my legal career as a prosecutor in a remote, rural, community. And I can tell youi from that experience, that the rural environment breeds wife beating and sexual abuse of children and substance abuse and loose sexual morality at a pace comparable (per capita) to any metropolitan area.
Kerner, to be fair, it is only the Iowa Supreme Court which has "accepted" "Sodomite marriage", on behalf of the people of Iowa. The California Supreme Court did the same last summer, though by a smaller margin (4-3, rather than unanimous 7-0). The California people subsequently overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling. I expect the good people of Iowa would do the same, if given the opportunity to actually govern themselves, rather than be governed by men and women in black robes.
Peter, do you have any idea why I keep putting the phrase "salt-of-the-earth" in quotes, in reference to Iowa? Do you know what I'm quoting? I'm directly addressing the original post. Have I not made that clear?
I don't dispute that in contemporary terms, having grown up in a meth-ridden rural town myself. However, I think that has more to do with the fact that America no longer has a rural culture, characterized by virtue or otherwise. Most modern "rural" communities–at least the ones where I grew up–are largely aimless, characterized by a massive generational gap between the elders who remember and participated in the difficult life of the true farmer that demanded and nurtured an atmosphere of virtue, and the youth who are either degenerate alcoholics (for lack of anything better to do) or desperate to leave for more urban, sophisticated climes (such as can be found on the coasts). Such it is in my own hometown (in the South) and all across the formerly-rural Midwest.
In any case, Stadler's comment still stands out as ridiculous: no one here claimed that the "heartland" is intrinsically more virtuous or less prone to sin, and it is nothing more than silly to claim as such. The only point I am attempting to make is that the "red" states still retain vestiges of an era that attempted to erect both social and governmental frameworks to protect virtue, something the coasts, for instance (at least the East Coast, where much of my family is from), discarded decades ago. As others have adequately pointed out, however, even these states are dismantling what is left of such a framework and are either largely subsidy-dependent or otherwise "progressive." Only what Stadler said even approaches regional snobbery, and to ignore the cultural differences amongst the various regions of the United States, including in traditional standards of morality is, well, quite ignorant. While men are always sinners, some societies do tend to be more "virtuous" or moral, at least externally (a debate on the merits of this fact is not germane to the discussion at hand).
That said, Kerner, you're merely raising the point once again of whether the courts speak for the people, whether they should, etc.
I am late to this discussion, but I have to say that I am very tired of Christians acting like sin was invented during the last 2 generations. Richard the Lionhearted was a homosexual (see also William II and Edward II, and that's just in England) Richard sodomized his way from Wales to the Holy Land, and both western civilization and Christianity survived somehow. Charles II (who was restored to the throne after the collapse of the Puritain republic) had 16 (or so) illegitimate children and no legitimate ones. When a mob confronted one of his mistresses they mistakenly believed to be Catholic (Nell Gwynn), she talked her way out of it saying, "Good people, I am the PROTESTANT whore…". And western civilization and Christianity survived that era too. And English law developed the concept of a "common law marriage" because loads of people were living together and having children without benefit of clergy. This was centuries ago, and somehow western civilization and Christianity survived the culture that needed "common law marriage" to organize it.
The culture war started in the Garder of Eden and will continue until Christ returns. The battle against sin and the world has to be fought by every generation of Christians, and we American Christians in this century are only engaging in a struggle the like of which has been waged by every previous generation and will have to be waged by every succeeding one. We should not be such drama queens. We should focus more on Preaching the Word.
A valid point, though incredibly off-topic, particularly since no one has even remotely claimed that sin was recently invented, in America or otherwise. We are, however, distressed that the traditional frameworks that have restrained vice in our very particular American circumstance, and that have existed for the duration of our republic (now empire) are being rather swiftly dismantled, with the sanction of the people, no less.
As for me, I see myriad parallels between our current situation–economically, militarily, morally, and otherwise–and that of the late Roman Empire (Nero, after all, publicly married his young male lover, as Rome's taxed armies struggled in various engagements across the furthest extremities of the empire, the empire's economy crumbled, and the once-virtuous denizens of a republic descended into the most vile wickedness).
Kerner, the difference, in my view, is that in earlier times, at least in America, wrongdoing was acknowledged as sin. Our current culture simply dismisses the concept of sin, and it is this cultural "evolution" which marks a dramatic transformation at least in American culture, if not historic western culture. Yes, I agree that preaching the Word is the best thing for Christians to be doing — it is, in fact, what we are called to do. But it is reasonable to fight the efforts of those who wish us, as a society, to recognize sinful hedonistic lifestyles as being of equal validity to those which acknowledge traditional, Biblical, values.
The point I am trying to make is that American Christians tend to act as though no overtly Christian culture has ever survived these periodic flurries of open immorality. Consider the tone of the original post, which is something like: "Woe is us! Iowa is fallen! The culture war is lost! Oh woe and despair!" This seemed to be the tone of many of the comments as well.
You could be right about the Roman Empire. But, remember, Nero and all that immorality didn't bring that Empire down. It went on in the West for another 300 years. In fact, it was right after Christianity became a major political force that the Western Roman Empire collapsed. So I'm not sure that there is this concrete correllation between how overtly Christian a culture is to its life span.
It is definitely reasonable to fight the efforts of those who wish us, as a society, to recognise sinful hedonistic lifestyles as being of equal validity to those which acknowledge Biblical values. Actually, I believe it is vital that we do so. Your state fought that fight and won. Mine (Wisconsin) did too, pre-empting the possibility that our Supreme court, or even our legislature, would do something like Iowa just did by amending our state constitution ahead of them. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight that sort of thing.
What bothers me is what I think is the subtext. American Christians often compare the USA to ancient Israel (i.e. if the USA becomes immoral and idolitrous, as did the Israelites, God will destroy the USA as he did Israel). This is a false assumption that leads to flawed conclusions. The USA is not God's chosen people, and never was. It is much more like the Roman Republic/Empire, as Cincinnatus suggests. Like the Eastern Empire, the presense of Christians as citizens may help preserve the USA. Or like the Western Empire the emergence of Christianity as a political force may not help it at all. While it is important to fight against sin wherever the Church finds it, I still don't believe that our present struggles are that much more dire that the struggles of earlier ages in which other sins (slavery, for example) were tolerated.
I agree. I do wonder, however, on what basis you identify slavery as a sin? It's not that I'm in favor of it. Absolutely not! But is it sin? Hard for me to go there especially when the OT has divinely given laws ordering it and Christ applies the language of slavery to himself in that he dies a slave's death and comes "not to be served but to serve…"
Homosexual sin has indeed been around for millennia, though, until recently in the West, no civilized people attempted to sanction it through legal marriage, which happens to be the subject of this thread. Even the ancient Greeks didn't come close to advocating legal sodomite marriage.
The sexual revolution in our time advocates an equality of assorted forms of sexual looseness with proper sexual behavior, as defined by traditional norms, Biblical and otherwise. Christians more than most understand and forgive ordinary sinful proclivities, though they don't confuse sin with correct behavior. Nell Gwynn, unlike the confused Sex and the City whores, had no illusion as to her status.
A former marine officer — it explains a lot.
I didn't ask and you should not have told me Peter.
You amy have me here, Rev., but my rationale is that the assumptions underlying slavery are much the same as those underlying legal abortion, i.e., that people can be treated as articles of property, which can be bought, sold, used or destroyed as the owner sees fit. Just as the slave owner could abuse, kill, or rape his slave, because the slave was property, and not treated as a person, so today the unborn are destroyed, used for experiments or made into medicine, because they are treated like property instead of human beings. Maybe I am projecting my 21st century sensibilities into what amounts to a natural law argument, but I think that treating people as property is fundamentally wrong.
Well-said. And certainly the kind of slavery described in the Bible and even as practiced in ancient Greece and Rome was nothing like the chattel, race-based, permanent slavery practiced in this country. See John Nordling’s “Commentary on Philemon.”
The abuses of slavery extant in the Roman Empire and in the preabolition US are definitely sin. There is no justification for any of the horrors that you mention above.
But, in fact, those horrors are outlawed in the OT law regarding slavery, and, in fact, all slaves are to be freed in the jubilee year (unless they choose to become slaves permanently).
I tend to think that we go a bit too far when we say slavery is prima facie sin. I don't think we go to far when we say, "Slavery tends to produce such serious abuses that we are going to outlaw it so that we can prevent those abuses."
I think we can (but are not required to) argue against capital punishment on similar grounds.
Perhaps Dr. Veith could explain how the paradigm shift in Germany's morality in the first decades of the 20th Century affected later developements and the eventual pogroms, a la Modern Fascism.
What if the advancements of immorality are merely the means and not the ends? German Fascism created a void through redefinition and reassignment of meaning. It was the void that was the object of the undoing of public morality, an not the morality itself.
Why is the Iowa ruling even a practical one, much less the only practical one? why leap to the conclusion that this is an exclusively religious question, as opposed to a question of public policy? And since by every poll the overwhelming majority of the American people oppose gay marriage, how are we a minority on this issue?
Homosexual activity is an inherently dangerous thing. The lifespans of male homosexuals are significantly lower than that of the general population. While certainly I would oppose sodomy laws, how is it in the interests of society to encourage this?
Study after study has shown that children raised in homes without a parent of the opposite sex have adjustment difficulties in dealing with members of the
opposite sex as adults. This doesn't mean that every such child is doomed, or that children in such homes should be institutionalized or taken away from single parents. But it's certainly very much in the public interest not to encourage such situations.
Finally, monogamy (or anything close to it) among "committed" gay couples is rare. Andrew Sullivan even argues for gay "marriage" on the ground that it might cause it to appear. More likely monogamy will be undermined as an expectation in marriages generally if it is no longer an expectation for an entire class of "married" people.
You don't have to resort to religion to see that this is bad public policy. Most Americans- the overwhelming majority, of all religious backgrounds- agree. So I'm afraid your argument just doesn't follow.
Islam frowns on homosexual marriage, too. In fact, under Sharia, it is a capital offense.
Again, under Sharia, gays are hanged and stoned. Its position against homosexuality is far harsher than the Christian position.
Nope. The Kingdom of the Left Hand is based on the law that is written on the human heart. Homosexuality is contrary to the mores of the overwhelming majority of cultures (and religions- including Islam) in the world, because it is instinctively recognized as contrary not to special revelation, but to God's revelation of His will in nature.
This is a matter, not of religion, but of natural law.
Nor is this a matter of "class exclusion." It's a matter of redefining humanity's foundational institution and legitimizing an act which it is not in th
Which is why we need to argue against it as bad public policy, rather than on religious grounds.
Christians are obligated to fight for what is right in the Kingdom of the Left Hand as well as in the Kingdom of the Right. As long as we do this on the basis of natural law, pluralism is fully respected. The entire notion that this (or abortion, or any of the other issues in the "culture wars") is inherently religious is a red herring.
I commend to you President Obama's observation that so long as the argument on its behalf is made on grounds accessible to everyone then even a proposed law that is religious in origin fully respects pluralism and is a completely appropriate proposal in a pluralistic society.
Christians are obligated to fight for what is right in the Kingdom of the Left Hand as well as in the Kingdom of the Right. As long as we do this on the basis of natural law, pluralism is fully respected. The entire notion that this (or abortion, or any of the other issues in the "culture wars") is inherently religious is a red herring.
Although, parenthetically, they are not church and state.
And also to witness to the truth- which in this case means opposing gay "marriage."
This is a dangerous argument. Whatever Tocqueville (or even, on one memorable occasion, the Supreme Court) may have said on the subject, there is no such thing as a Christian nation. Nations are not baptized, nor do they believe. You're confusing the Two Kingdoms, as the Reformed folks who dominate the Religious Right generally do.
The issue is not Christianity, but civil decency- natural law, not religion.
Excuse me, but how does a piece of judicial legislation opposed by the overwhelming majority of Iowans say anything at all about Iowa?
King James I (James V of Scotland), he of King James Bible fame, was also a homosexual.
the iowa court asked that specific question: "what social ills would prohibiting gay marriage avoid?" This was the practical test to see if the exclusion of gays was merely to exclude or rather to further a practical policy goal. the government had no plausible response to this specific question.
even allowing that BEING gay carry´s social ills with it, the govt could not demonstrate that disallowing gay marriage would reduce those ills either with gays or the general population. example: government argument : "children do better with their original mom and dad". preventing gay marriage would not increase or decrease the number of children remaining with their original mom and dad, therefore this is not the reason for existence of the exclusion…ergo: the purpose of the law was PURELY to exclude a group. this was constitutionally not permissible under the iowa constitution.
#2
I am saying: run ALL the arguments you use against gay marriage substituting ANY other group ( I chose islam because it is the most odious group), what becomes evident is that we need to tolerate what we don´t like to preserve our own freedom.
why do you think it would be bad to have homosexuality be a capital crime?
homosexuality has been decriminalized since the late 90´s. that is not such a long time….
wow. the lone voice of reason here. congratulations.
I don´t see people predicting the end of the world and pushing for constitutional amendments against divorce….. this certainly smells alot like hypocracy to me. and the general public is coming around to my perception.
Or, on the other hand, a Christian could point out the social ills which gay marriage will bring about, and simply argue that it's bad public policy- thereby fulfilling his duty as a subject of God's Kingdom of the Left.
And again, I don't get the equation of homosexuality, which is a capital offense under Shariah, with Islam. They hang gays in Iran- and while you can marry up to three women if you're a Muslim, Islam is no more pro gay marriage than Christianity is.
Furthermore, homosexuality is decriminalized in this country. Has been for a long time.
Yes, the court asked that question. I don't know what the state answered, but it doesn't follow from the fact that the question was not answered, and answered well. I don't think the court was especially interested in an answer; this issue was decided not on the basis of the law, but out of a desire to do a little social engineering.
"Being gay" isn't the issue; nobody is talking about abolishing gays. Gay marriage would lower the expectation of monogamy in marriage by creating an entire class of "married" people among whom monogamy isn't even an expection; a Dutch study found that the average "partnered" male homosexual in a "committed relationship" had eight sexual partners a year! Homosexual journalist Andrew Sullivan even asked whether gay "marriage" would encourage gay monogamy in terms that made it clear that even he has his doubts. Gay "marriage" inherently subverts the expectation of monogamy in marriage at a time when it is already under serious attack.
Lesbian couples are "having children" by artificial insemination fairly routinely. Gay "marriage" certainly will increase the number of children being raised in homes without a mother and a father, and do so significantly.
The purpose of the law was to include or to exclude anybody. In fact, there was no law limiting marriage to people of different genders; common sense and the entire history of human civilization does that. You might as well argue that since some people like to have sex with animals, they are unconstitutionally excluded because they are unable to legally marry a cow or a horse, or that a three year old is deprived of equal protection under the law because he can't drive or vote.
Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. And that is the entire issue.
Because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and because tolerating Islam does not involve either the negation of the rights of others or a logical absurdity like gay "marriage."
Homosexuality was decriminalized most places in America long before that., de facto if not de jure.
I concur that if you substitute "sheep" or "dining room tables" for "members of the same sex," you would be able to make the same arguments both pro and con. That ought to tell you something. The point is that it cannot be discriminatory to forbid something which is an inherent absurdity.
No, the civil sphere is simply the arena in which we should argue against gay "marriage" as inherently bad public policy and an inherent absurdity.
True enough. Then why do you want to concede the debate at the outset?
No equation here. God does not require or desire that false religions be made illegal; faith cannot be coerced, being of its very essence a matter of the Kingdom of the Right.
But ethical behavoir, as part of the Kingdom of the Left, can and must be.
That's your basic problem, fws: you don't understand the Two Kingdoms.
I don't think homosexuality should be a capital crime because it would accomplish no socially useful purpose to criminally punish homosexuals.
paragraph 1. read the full iowa opinion before you rush to judgement.
paragraph 2 your last sentence. I am not sure how "inherently" affects the meaning of your sentence. lutheran pastors seem to like that word when referring to all things gay. The fact that some gays, as humans would mess up marriage about as badly as it already is not an argument is it? "already. under. serious. attack. Has this happened in massachussets? are there more hetero divorces now there as you imply? no. the opposite is true there strangely. so what. that also proves nothing.
paragraph 3. gay marriage would not change that either way then would it?
paragraph 4 the court concluded that the law existed soley for the reasons you agree with. exclusion and tradition and ruled that that did not pass constitutional muster. there had to be at least ONE other stated state objective that would be materially furthered (measurably) by the exclusion. this should not have been hard eh?
no-fault divorce is an oxymoron. but it is the law and no one is nearly so worked up about that. and the logical conclusion from that is…… prejudice.
by the way. if you had read the iowa case, you would see that they say that exclusion of a class is NOT "inherently" unconstitutional. the example they gave is discrimination against the blind as a class in not allowing them to get drivers licenses. marriage is a civil contract. both parties have to be "legallty competent" to enter into such a contract, so no, the law will not allow you to marry your horse or cow. so? so as not to look ignorant, I will not take u up on our offer to argue the merits of marrying livestock. silly. comparing your relationship to your marrying a cow …… not a way to win over the other side with respect and meekness…. ok
it would eliminate them. you dont think that would be a good thing pr bob waters? why not? lesbians would stop artificially inseminating. a whole class that you characature as hyper-promiscuous would be gone.
unfortunately, courts require attorneys to do more than throw around the word "inherrent". how does letting a couple of homos get a marriage license negate the rights of anyone else.
you know you have no argument left, because you need to resort to "sheep and diningroom tables" . try substituting any class of "people" to argue fairly prbob. it will make my point. you know in your heart that that is true. this is not a moral question. it is more immoral to tolerate islam and rank idolatry than it is to allow two homos to get a marriage license.
ah bob. there are alot of churches now. you disagree with those churches . fine. who, as a religious tenant, believe that gays should be allowed to marry.
so now I have a basic problem. …
there was a time, not too long ago, when women could not work as attorneys. black could not marry white, and slavery was universally accepted. all these things were argued, successfully, based on natural law. thiis is the argument used for the first half of the american republic. so?
I am not sure I buy into the scholasticism of thomas aquinas as you do. actually, I am sure I do not. I am not roman catholic. and aquinas´s work was based on aristotle´s natural law. and he was cool with homosexuality. go figure… looks like natural law can be used to argue for alot of things…… ok… your point is here?
good luck.
i agree. lets side with the conservatives and not allow women to enter the legal bar association and restore slavery steve. I am as indignant as you are!
arguing that something is inherently so is no argument at all. the court asked for a public policy argument in iowa. read the full opinion. tell me what the government should have argued differently. they argued the public policy angle as best as anyone could.
read playboy, penthouse and hustler. and while you are at it, check out the sex ads in craig´s list in any small town usa. allowing gays to get married would not increase or reduce any of the harmful gay stuf would it? how would it?
secondly: the iowa court asked how forbidding gay marriage would result in measurable harm reduction. paint me a scenario here paul b. and letting them get married… exactly what would happen that is not already happening. your arguments are without legal merit.
Paragraph #4 monogamy IS rare. forbidding gay marriage is going to contribute towards fixing this problem? how is that? exactly the kind of question the court asked the state pr bob…
paragraph #5 since when is it wise to trust that the majority is right about anything? your point here is sorta dangerous. you SURE you want to go there?
P #1 read the full opinion before you shoot off your mouth and look less than intelligent to those who have.
P #2 you probably got this from the NAARTH website. there is no peer reviewed , statistically valid study that supports this. i dare you to find one. even IF it were true, preventing gay marriage does not aim to cure this ill. if so, the bill would outlaw smoking, drinking and eating too much etc to accomplish this….
P #3 gay are already adopting. excluding gays from marriage would not reduce this problem. the horses here are not only outta da barn, the barn done burnt down, and even the hinges are lost.
so what public policy goal do you present that excluding gays from marriage would further in any reasonably demonstrable way? this is precisely THE question that the iowa case hinged on constitutionally and legally. long standing tradition and majority will are NOT allowable arguments. sorry about that. slavery was outlawed in the face of that. it was not until 1996 (!!!!!!) that a majority of the public agreed that it was ok for races to intermarry. but the supremes overturned THAT prohibition in 1970 in a case appropriately called "loving vs state of virginina" so you think they were wrong eh?
it appears that , yes, you DO have to resort to the religous argument dorothy!
when will the culture war be won, in your opinion. silly. natural law was used to forbid women to vote and work as attorneys or medical doctors or run for office or be in positions of authority over men. here luther and ALL the protestant reformers AND the roman theologians WOULD fully agree with your position!
slavery and anti interracial marriage laws were also defended with natural law arguments. how were those arguments wrong prbob? i am not sure it is cool to use roman catholic scholastic arguments and then say they are not religious arguments. try going back farther in the chain of natural law tradition to aristotle. he had no problem with homosexuality….
how can you argue that executing homos would be wrong. god ordered it in leviticus after all. and then if you agree, let´s also then consider the morality of genocide. how could you argue with something that God sanctioned?
wow the lone voice of humble, moderated reason.
I just want to say, fws, that regardless of whether I agree with you, your arguments are rife with sloppy reasoning. Be careful there, especially since it's obvious you aren't an expert on natural law theory.
marriage can no more be REdefined by allowing a couple of gays to get a license to do so, than what you receive with your mouth in the holy supper can be redefined. by DEFINITION what you are saying is wrong.
because clearly our debate has nothing to do with christianity and everything to do with prejudice ignorance and bigotry. argued of course in the arena of logic and public policy only. just as you say.
quit while u are ahead bob. paul b is agreeing with ya. he is just not calling it natural law.
"rife" now THERE is a word…. no I am not an expert. I suspect that you are not recognized as one either by your academic peers.
I would be really pleased to be shown to be wrong on this: ie that your contenttess criticism is to mask your own lack of education on this issue that you apparently are invested in deeply.
while you are at it, get out more and read up from a more diverse library….. would anyone at stanford university qualify as an expert in your considered opionion?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-eth...
the term "natural law" means alot of different things to alot of different people. show me where I am wrong?
Well, I don't have time to be writing lengthy comments on an expired thread, but I will say this: your argument is all over the place, and thus fails to do justice to a robust concept of natural law. Natural law, as articulated by Thomas Aquinas, does not allow for homosexuality, race-based slavery, and a number of other evils you spuriously attribute to the concept and, apparently, to Aquinas himself by default. Indeed the term "natural law" has been employed for a variety of disparate ends, but according to St. Thomas–the authority cited by both you and the others above–natural law does not permit extreme equality, as that worshiped in modern America, or the denigration of the family into something defined merely by subjective love, as you and countless others contend, to the severe detriment of our social framework. In short, the strictly-defined family unit is essential to society and the common good, and I would thus argue that the issue of homosexual marriage is not, in fact, a (purely) scriptural problem, but one that must be confronted by configurations that are engrained in and necessitated by nature (nature here is used much differently than in your argument that you are homosexual by birth, i.e. "naturally"). It is tragic that Christians have largely refused to exercise the intellectual capacity to confront homosexuality philosophically rather than with some version of divine command theory.
Furthermore, as an aside, Aristotle had little or nothing to do with natural law, unless you are speaking of his "baptized" form as cited in Aquinas. Natural law is only attributed to Aristotle because he is cited so heavily in the works of St. Thomas, the actual author of the concept of natural law employed here.
/would explain/expound more if I had time…
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
get educated about the topic of homosexuality. can you even DEFINE that word in a way that the MAJORITY of all professional organizations define that word? in a way that a homo would recognize?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D2132...
while you are at it you can read the full iowa opinion. and not look less than reasonable……
there u have it folks. natural law=thomas aquinas=baptized reason/philosophy=roman catholic dogma.
if I am wrong, show me ONE place where roman catholic teaching departs in any way from the teaching of thomas aquinas.
dishonesty. religious arguments cloaked as purely secular ones. there is nothing PURELY secular about aquinas.
"Furthermore, as an aside, Aristotle had little or nothing to do with natural law, unless you are speaking of his "baptized" form as cited in Aquinas."
i fully agree that aquinas´s ideas form the core for most all christians who argue for natural law, whether they know that as a fact or not.
I also think you wayyyy overstate in downplaying the greek philosophers here. i doubt that many in the academic community, even roman catholic ones, would agree with your broad dismissal of the earlier greeks.
like I said.. the term natural law means alot of different things to alot of different people. that is a fact. you can argue all you want that everyone needs to accept that your aquinian version is the one true version… you sound so very certain in a roman catholic sorta way. good luck there in engaging the larger world of thought. and being salt and yeast…..
Wait…what?
your sloppy logic…
18th century americans used theories they claimed were based in natural law to support their views on interracial marriage, women´s place in creation, and slavery.
thomas aquinas natural law theories are the only true natural law theories
therefore fws is slandering aquinas by saying natural law arguments were used to support slavery etc etc.
how silly are you going to get? c´mon now. we can do better…..
Actually, according to Harry Jaffa, a philosopher (albeit a Straussian), in his work "Thomism and Aristotelianism," the evidence for Aristotle articulating a coherent and complete theory of natural law is sparse, and, again, the attribution of natural law to Aristotle is due mostly to his frequent inclusion in Aquinas. That is not relevant, and much less so are Aristotle's views on pedophilia and/or homosexuality.
But anyway, I don't know what you're arguing. Obviously, there are several theories of natural law evident throughout the ages, but nearly every instance of its use in the American project is a watered-down version of the Thomistic theory, or a reduction of natural law to a few tenets found in Thomistic theory (such as Locke's obsession with private property, a tenet of the natural law that holds an important, though much more modest place, in the Thomistic framework). This leads me to wonder what your continuous mention of Catholicism has to do with anything at all. Are Catholics not Christian? Is anything a Christian happens to say intrinsically religious and thus not philosophical? Is there a disagreement between religion and philosophy? St. Thomas is, true, the "token" philosopher of the Roman church, but that says less about Thomas than it does about the Church. St. Thomas was first and foremost a philosopher, and while his views on transubstantiation, for instance, are theological, his views on natural law are philosophical, and can stand regardless of his Catholocism (after all, natural law, in the Thomistic sense, was once crucial to Protestant doctrine). Anyway, the boundaries between the religious and the philosophical were once more blurred, and rightly so.
So again I ask, what is your point? You can't dismiss a good argument against homosexual marriage from natural law (which, to be fair, I have yet to offer thoroughly) just because it was articulated by a religious person or a Catholic.
The decision, btw, can be found at http://tinyurl.com/dyvemg.
The justices- social activists whose logic I do not find convincing- did indeed reject these arguments, just as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nix v. Hedden that, the science of botany to the contrary, the tomato is a vegetable.
If you prefer, rather than "inherently" I'll use a legal term: res ipse loquitur-. "The thing speaks for itself." The issue is not that gays would "mess up" marriage, but that for the most part success in it would not be contemplated. That would be enough to negate a contract in itself. Whether or not the divorce rate has been influenced by gay "marriage" in Massachusetts, the fact remains that its adoption effectively removes monogamy as an expectation the State of Massachusetts has for the institution of marriage. That is not a good thing.
There is no question that gay "marriage" would encourage the adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples, and indeed facilitate it. That is a significant change.
No-fault divorce is an oxymoron indeed. But it is not a legal concept. Rather, it's a slang term. The law does not say in Iowa and other "no-fault" states that no fault exists; it simply chooses not to treat the question as relevant. I and every other thoughtful Christian finds no-fault divorce extremely problematic indeed. And to you really want to argue that one absurdity justifies another?
Since procreation is not possible in same-sex "marriages," and since lifelong, exclusive companionship would be the exception rather than the rule, there is a real question (despite what the court argued) as to whether the legal purposes of marriage would be possible for members of the same sex. Members of the same sex are therefore not legally competent to form this particular contract- unless you modify its terms, which is precisely the point.
The measurable criteria I have already cited, and respect isn't the issue. Absurdity- and the undermining of the institution of marriage- are the issue. That, and the real agenda involved in gay "marriage-" the use of the law to bludgeon society into accepting homosexual behavior as normal.
cincinatus. there is a tradition of natural law thought. there were 3 men, among about 12 important ones, who very very deliberately secularized natural law. locke grotius etc al. the american ideas sprung DIRECTLY from THIS school, of the MANY schools of natural law that exist and existed. take your pick. stoics, plato, aristotle, aqunas. some less educated christians assume that natural law could not exist without believe in a wood or plaster god. this is contrary to scripture. the law is written in men´s hearts. even atheists cannot escape. it is a false premise to state that either one must in some sort of god, or else they must necessarily believe that there are no objective moral standards. silliness….
No, I don't. And if you believe that eliminating a class of people because you dislike their morals, or even because they have nasty habits that hurt other people, I think we've just learned enough about you that no morally serious person needs to hear more.
"Homos," fws?
God ordered it for the one society uniquely set apart as holy before him- a nomadic society lacking any other sanction, If you truly are unaware of the distinction between the civil and the moral law, you need to retake confirmation class!
If you want to teach God ethics, be my guest. Personally, I don't think you have the credentials.
1. Illogical arguments have appealed to natural law in the past.
2. The argument against gay "marriage" appeals to natural law.
3. Therefore, the argument against gay "marriage" is illogical.
How silly are you going to get? C'mon, now. We can do better.
Your argument seems to be that since many people have indulged in what they allege to be natural law thinking, therefore all arguments made on this basis are inherently of equal value.
Sorry. Not very convincing.
You might notice that the problems resulting from children being raised without a parent of the opposite sex are never addressed by the decision. They were apparently never raised.
Wasn't that at least the legislature of Vermont overriding a veto?
charles, this is why I always say RACE BASED slavery is wrong. and by saying that I am saying that the meaning of slavery and the social context were almost absolutely different between biblical times and american times. up until the 16th century, slaves could buy their freedom, they could become advisors to kings. the entire mechanism of becoming a slave or what the word "slave" meant was different. in the bible and nt times, to my knowledge, slaves were not regarded as cattle. correct me if wrong.
In NT times, slaves could be put to death at will by their owners.
yes. I am well aware of that Pr Bob. in addition, it seems that that "head of household" checked off on their IRS return gave men the same life or death power over their wives and children. infanticide was therefore common but not a crime. Until the mid 1800´s people were arguing court case law with the assumption that dependents and slaves were pretty much of the same legal standing. of course in mass the man could not kill his family members legally.
Iowa plays to the extremes. Democrats here are far to the Left of the national party, and Republicans are far to the Right.