-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
The Marital Spectator
Blundering Into a Culture War
Surveying the scene fourteen years after the Defense of Marriage Act.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro of Massachusetts ruled in two separate cases that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. Though his decision had little immediate impact, it was a reminder of how much has changed since DOMA was enacted in 1996.
DOMA passed the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14 and sailed through the House by a margin of 342 to 67. A large majority of Democrats in Congress voted for it; President Bill Clinton signed it into law. It is impossible to imagine a similar initiative claiming such bipartisan support today.
In fact, as late as 2008 every Democratic presidential candidate with a serious chance of winning the nomination claimed to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That included Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Only fringe candidates with no realistic path to the nomination dissented. Obama may well be the last Democrat to, however nominally, oppose same-sex marriage and become his party’s nominee for the presidency.
Back when DOMA first passed, most Americans not only opposed same-sex marriage but viewed it as an oxymoron or definitional impossibility. Less than a third of Americans disagreed with this consensus. Fourteen years later, a much smaller majority rejects same-sex marriage. It is now a partisan, left-right issue, with liberals and Democrats perfectly within the mainstream of their side of the political spectrum believing the traditional definition of marriage is now inadequate or even unjust.
Tauro’s decision reminds us that some things haven’t changed, however: same-sex marriage still fares much better in the courts than at the ballot box. Despite an uptick in public support, judges still remain the most reliable constituency for changing the public meaning of marriage. Five states — Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Iowa — plus the District of Columbia have approved same-sex marriage. At least 31 states have rejected it, by either statute or state constitutional amendment.
Many of the states that have enshrined traditional marriage in their laws or constitutions have done so by popular vote. Zero states have popularly approved same-sex marriage, not even in places where the polls predict it could pass. Only two — Vermont and New Hampshire — have successfully redefined marriage by democratic acts of the legislature. Maine’s legislature and governor gave their imprimatur to same-sex marriage, only to see the voters reject it through a “people’s veto.”
New England became what supporters of same-sex marriage hoped would be a “marriage equality zone” because outside of Maine the voters had little recourse. The process for getting the issue on the ballot was either cumbersome or nonexistent. (Though it is worth noting that few New Englanders outside of Maine took advantage of the democratic recourse they did have: voting out legislators who either supported same-sex marriage or opposed letting the people vote.) Rhode Island may well be next if the Republicans lose the governorship there this fall.
Gay rights activists have successfully resisted attempts to put the issue on the ballot in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia. Some have sued to try to overturn Proposition 8 in California, the state’s second ballot initiative on marriage in a decade. A statewide ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman has lost only once, on a technicality: voters narrowly turned back a broadly written Arizona initiative that they feared would have implications beyond same-sex marriage. When the question was rewritten to address these concerns, it passed easily.
Every other statewide defense-of-marriage initiative has also passed, by margins ranging from 52 percent to 86 percent of the vote, in red and blue states alike. This process began in Hawaii, the very state whose supreme court prompted Congress to pass DOMA in the first place.
Yet there is a growing divide on marriage in this country. On one side, there are those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman because that is the only combination whose unions regularly and naturally produce children; that moving away from this definition will have unintended consequences; and that in any case they should at least have the opportunity to vote on the matter.
On the other side, there are those who believe that marriage should just as obviously be extended to any loving adult couple; that allowing same-sex marriage does not change matrimony so radically as to yield any adverse consequences for the heterosexual majority; and that in any case this is a matter of equal rights for a minority that should not be subject to a popular vote any more than we should be allowed to vote on the First Amendment.
Advocates of these competing visions are on a collision course. For if there is no moral difference between opposing same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, then the majority of Americans — and their religious traditions, some of which show no signs of changing — are morally equivalent to racists. American law for good historical reasons deals harshly with racists. Ask Rand Paul what people think of abstract discussions about their freedom of association.
Compromise has always seemed possible, as few Americans want to deny a gay man the company of his partner as he lies dying the hospital. But if qualms about this new marriage regime are morally equivalent to racism, then civil unions represent a return to Plessy v. Ferguson’s doctrine of “separate but equal.” Some gay rights activists believe that the polls show time is on their side as attitudes shift in their direction. But if this issue is as clear-cut as racism, then why not agree with Dr. King’s complaint from the Birmingham jail, “For years now, I have heard the word ‘wait’”?
Judge Tauro issues his edicts from Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage for six years now, the Defense of Marriage Act notwithstanding. Based on his musings about states’ rights, he probably doesn’t know what he is doing. Hopefully the next officials to entertain this issue will think it through a little more carefully.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (198) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From The Marital Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/12/blundering-into-a-culture-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 7.12.10 @ 6:59AM
In all recorded time of humanity, by it's definition of marriage, between a man and a woman, has been the norm. The issue at hand has more to do with the moral consequences than the "rights" of adam and steve vrs. Adam and Eve.
God will not be mocked, nor his plan for humanity. Regardless of the side in which you choose to be on, you will have to answer for your sins. How is it that a group of roughly 2-3% of the population is running roughshod over the other 97-98% is beyond me and I believe while I do not care if you sleep with or have a relationship with a pig, a dog, or a horse for that matter, you have no right to infringe your sick and twisted thought process upon me or my fellow brethern throught the court of your favorite commie thinking revisionist of humanity. Mock God at your expense and consequences, leave the rest of us out of it.
Harry L.| 7.12.10 @ 8:14AM
The Bible! The Bible! The Bible!
Here are behaviors the Bible condoned but we now condemn: prostitution, polygamy, livirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl as young as 11 to 14).
Mr. Retired Marine, I imagine you condemn these behaviors. Am I correct?
And here are some sexual practices the Bible condemns but we condone: intercourse during menstruation, celebacy, marriage to non-Jews, naming sexual organs, nudity under certain conditions, masturbation, and birth control.
The Bible has been interpreted literally to uphold slavery, to battle against the way illnesses were treated, to prevent women from becoming ordained in the church, and to hold them in the status of second-class citizens.
There is so much primitive tribal foolishness in the Bible that needs to be jettisoned.
Men and women who are born with same-sex affectional orientation deserve the right to marry. Here is one intelligent conservative (fiscal) who will support them in their efforts. Support them all the way!
Anna from Emory U.| 7.12.10 @ 9:36AM
We are living in a time when a new consciousness is arising in which there is a growing recognition that for homosexual people their only "sin" seems to be that they were born with a sexual orientation different from that of the majority.
Overwhelming scientific and medical knowledge exists today pointing to an inescapable conclusion.
Sexual orientation is not a moral choice. It is something to which people awaken. It is therefore not morally culpable.
The texts in Leviticus 18 and 20 are simply wrong. They are morally incompetent because they and other homophobic texts are based on ignorance.
If the use of the Bible is to demonize innocent people, then the Bible has no place in our world unless the ignorance of primitive tribesmen is to be called "knowledge" and evil is to be called "virtuous."
By the way, I am a divinity student.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 10:28AM
Yeah, that's what scares the rest of us! If divinity school is being taught like journalism school is, it's no wonder you think like you do.
"HEAR YE, HEAR YE! ANNA of EMORY has spoken! As the new divine giver of The Word, Anna says go to your bibles, find Leviticus 18 and 20 and apply a large dose of white-out! Anna has spoken! So let it be whited out, So let it be done!"
AMENBRO| 7.12.10 @ 11:03AM
WEll AIN'T THIS SPECIAL. Its your your thaing, do what ya wanna do, I can't tell you who to sock it too.
AHHH,,,, I can hear the Isley Brothers crooning that fateful funky tune CAN'T YAWL
The objects of Homosexual desires aren't exactly what the majority of HUMANITY has ever had an affinity for despite, RACE, CREED, COLOR, ETHNICITY whatever amalgamation of socioeconomic values you seek .
Why are we so entitled now that HUMANITY must bow to a minority of of folks that want to ram their lifestyle down the MAJORITY'S LIFESTYLE while complaining we are doing the same to Homosexuals. What a cricking oxymoronic request.
Can not an intelligent being see the absurdity at which yawl are laboring at????? Homosexuals got their hats handed to them in CA by traditional liberal voting blocks.
I could frankly care less what people do in the sack. Who they love or what blows theirs skirt up.
Just don't expect me to accept & condone it as normal! Cause it isn't. You all know it and your guilt at being obsessed with the historic forbidden fruits is your passion problem.
QUIT MAKING IT THE REST OF HUMANITY's.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 4:02PM
Why should the minority bow to the majority? They are not asking you to marry some one of the same sex. They just wish to do so. It has nothing to do with anyone other than the two people involved. Furthermore this is a violation of church and state. The government is encroaching on a practice that is firmly in the jurisdiction of the church. If a church doesn't wish to allow same sex marriages than that is at the discretion of their clergy. The government should but out of God's business. The government should have no authority or involvement in marriage.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 4:16PM
Toolbag,
So, you don't want divorce laws. Or, inheritance laws? You want churches to decide these matters, right?
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 5:05PM
It might not be a bad idea. The church would only have jurisdiction over its members. The government has hosed these things up. I don't know if you have looked at divorce law lately but it is a mess. Look at Tiger Woods. He is giving up 750 million to his ex-wife. The reason is she is used to living a certain way. She didn't earn that money he did. Inheritance laws are arbitrary at best if someone wishes to challenge my will they just have to find a good enough lawyer. The major flaw with this is if you don't belong to a church or people jumping from whichever church best suits their needs at the time. I am not sure what to do about that but I know the government has not handled it at all well.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 5:25PM
You may have a point about divorce laws, Toolbag. But somehow I don't think the lawyers, feminists, courts, etc., etc., are going to go quietly into the night.
Quartermaster| 7.12.10 @ 7:20PM
I don't care if it's easy or quiet. As long as they go into the night works for me.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 5:51PM
Toolbag,
On this, we agree. Government has made a mess of marriage laws. That is because the further away man's law divurges from God's law, the worse society gets.
I'm a Roman Catholic and unmarried. The Church teaches that you can never get divorced and remarried. If someone's spouse leaves them or divorces them, civily, that sin is on the one that left. The Church still considers them married.
If either one of them gets remarried, they are committing adultery. Actually, any marital act, committed outside the bounds of a legitimate marriage, is a sin against the God's Commandment forbidding adultery.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 7:13PM
Unfortunately not everyone is of the same faith. So we can't have a blanket law for an entire nation. I understand the sentiment about God's law and Man's law. I would add that The law we have now isn't even Man's law it si Government law which is different. The people of the world are no longer involved in makeing the very laws they are forced to abide by. We are allowing our representatives in government to get away with not representing us.
So as I have said before let Marriage be governed by individual faith. Nick you may adhere to Roman Catholic Churches dictate as to what marriage involves, a Muslim may adhere to the rules of his faith, a protestant to theirs, and members of Rev. Unruh may smoke pot and mary anyone or anything for that matter.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 12:25PM
Unless, of course, you are wealthy and influential and can get your first marriage annulled by the Church as so many have done.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 4:18PM
Tell that to the divorce courts.
AMENBRO| 7.12.10 @ 9:18PM
Whatever, States Rights, Divorce Laws, Church-n-Entity of choice. You didn't address the 9,000,000,000,000 guerrilla in the Tool my man.
Sc-use me my coffee just kicked in. Ever see Steel Magnolia, Toolieo???
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 9:29PM
I can't remember if I have ever seen Steel Magnolia or not. But enlighten me about the large Guerrilla.
AMENBRO| 7.14.10 @ 11:59AM
That stinking Pore.
Who you kiddin. You know Part of Your Tool Bag. Not the matched set the equivalent feline as in LION toolbag some tribes feed to adolescent prepubescentl youths.
You know as a Homosexual friend of mine & I have a few claims, cause i asked,,,, JUST a SPECK RUINS IT ALL,,,,,,,,REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH YOU DOUCH IT STILL STINKS..
With the enormity of all my empathy I cannot find the connection to the porta potty sexual ritual.
Quartermaster| 7.12.10 @ 7:32PM
Anna is more proof that Emory long ago ceased to be a Christian University and Seminary. It's also proof she is not a Christian. Her lack of respect for scripture is amply demonstrated. No one ever taught her anything about Inductive Bible Study. Anna's idea would allow Adultery and murder, as God gave those commands in ignorance as well, if we follow here reasoning.
Homosexual. Sex. Is. Adultery. Any sex outside of a marriage between one woman to one man, is adultery in scripture. All adultery is abomination. You will note the penalty for all forms of adultery was the same under the Mosaic law. Death. God clearly sees all forms as serious sin and was telling the world that he will not accept anyone doing that trash.
So sorry if you find that archaic, backward or ignorant. You can tell God at your judgment that he is backward and ignorant. I can guarantee, he won't be amused.
The idea of separation of Church and State is actually anti-constitutional. The left treats the church as if it is some kind monolithic thing like a corporation. It is not. It is individuals who come together around the fact that Christ is Lord, and the Bible is the Word of God, and that Bible is what determines the faith and behavior of those who accept Christ as Lord.
To truly enforce the Separation of Church and State would mean disenfranchisement of every Christian. The left would love that, and that is the main reason they prate on it so.
Harry L. is a leftist troll. No conservative can accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. The APA may have removed Homosexuality from the DSM, but it didn't do it based on science, but on politics. Conservatives make decisions on facts, not leftist fantasy. It is still a serious mental illness and many Psychologists and Psychiatrists still recognize it as such. A man that sees a man as a normal man sees a woman is a very sick puppy.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 11:53AM
" Conservatives make decisions on facts, not leftist fantasy."
I find the above statement to be funny coming from someone who believes in the equivalent of thor based on no facts what so ever.
Tyler S.| 7.13.10 @ 4:48PM
I'm curious, do you think your god would appreciate you telling people what he thinks? I mean that seems like hubris to me, which is something christians generally frown upon, right?
Anyways, where in the bible does it say that a good christian surrounded by sinners and nonbelievers is doomed to hell by affiliation? Why does it tarnish your soul if gays marry? I'm serious, explain to me exactly where in the bible it says the sins of others can tarnish your soul.
Sam| 7.13.10 @ 2:34PM
Why are we even fighting out the culture war here? It seems that we should be discussing the constitutional basis for overturning DOMA. It seems that DOMA was an unconstitutional infringement on states rights- but I guess many people here forget that in their determination to oppose gay marriage.
Basically, the federal court said it is up to the states and not the fed. govt. to define marriage. How is that wrong? As this article pointed out, nearly every state has defined marriage as most of you desire.
Bottom line: Open your eyes and admit that DOMA was an unconstitutional infringement on states rights and save the culture war for the battles within the individual states.
Sheryl| 7.12.10 @ 12:58PM
"By the way, I am a divinity student." Here is a great, huge part of the problem.
KyMouse| 7.12.10 @ 1:29PM
Anna, are you at Emory's Candler School of Theology? Let me guess -- you're Episcopalian?
Just curious: What convictions do you have about killing babies by abortion? I have yet to meet a pro-same-sex divinity student who didn't also defend the killing of unborn babies.
Nurse Taylor| 7.12.10 @ 1:57PM
First of all, do not call fetuses "babies." The correct term is fetus.
Secondly, pregnant women do not "kill" a fetus. The fetus lacks the sentience of a baby; it is merely a blob of protoplasm and is not capable of independent life outside the womb.
If you are saying that a fetus is a human being, then let's assign that blob of protoplasm a social security number.
Lastly, the fetus is in the woman's body. A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy because it is her body.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 2:04PM
Adolf? Is that you? I thought your protoplasm died in 1945. Will miracles never cease! So how's Goebbels?
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 2:26PM
Nurse Taylor,
"Fetus" is Latin for unborn baby, Einstein.
I see that you have "terminated" the logic center of your brain.
At the moment of conception, 23 chromosomes from the father combine with the mother's 23 chromosomes, and a new, unique human being is created.
Abortions kill innocent human life, period.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 4:08PM
Nurse Taylor brings up, albeit in a roundabout way, a good point. The quickest solution to most human rights cases (right to life in this case) is officially determining what constitutes a human being. Once that is done an abortion performed after the defined point at which a fetus becomes a human would be considered murder. Furthermore any right that is granted to a human any one human being would be granted to all human beings. Our rights are inherent to our very existence. Therefore these rights are applicable to all people regardless of sexual orientation, race, citizenship, religion, or sex.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 4:26PM
Toolbag,
Human life is created at conception. Any intentional destruction of that person, after conception, is an homicide.
There is no such thing as "sexual orientation." Who, exactly, people decide to have sex with, is a choice, or a "preference," if you will.
How, or why, physical attraction occurs is still a mystery. It should not affect past laws on what constitutes a proper marriage.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 5:08PM
I will grant you that sexual orientation is not demographic. But isn't religion a choice as well? I am not the person to decide when a human life begins. That is a very serious discussion the nation needs to have. As for past laws (yes I know this is a cheap shot) what about mixed race marriages? They were illegal at one point. If that is now legal than why can't two dudes get married. Why the want to join the misery of everyone else I don't know.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 5:35PM
Toolbag,
When human life begins is a scientific question, not a religious one. Religion has something to say about it, but the point at which physical, biological human life begins, is demonstrable scientifically. It does not depend on your religion, or lack of one, personal beliefs, or world-view.
As far as prohibitions against inter-racial marriage goes, these were not uniform in all states, or countries, for that matter. As far as I know, the Catholic Church never forbade inter-racial marriage.
Marriage, like children, is a blessing from God, not an affliction or disease.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 7:20PM
As I said inter-racial marriage was kind of a cheap shot but it does illustrate how the government, whether it be state or federal, should stay out of marriage. The Catholic did not forbid it. So why should members of that faith allow Government law to trump God's law?
It seems to me that Science has yet to determine what the legal definition of life is. But that isn't their job. Science is not the creator of law. It is more of an advisor. Society as a whole needs settle on what the definition of life is.
As far as marriage being a blessing that depends on who you ask. I , personally see children and marriage much the same as you, but not everyone does and for good reason. at some point in their life they made a terrible choice. We all wear the chains we forge in life.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 8:05PM
Toolbag,
I didn't claim that science should make the legal definiton of when life begins. That is the legislature's job. All science can do is show what is true or not true. And, science shows that life begins at conception.
But, are you asserting the legal definition of when human life begins should be different from the scientific definition?
The Catholic's in those states could either fight those inter-racial marriage laws, or move away. But, when the Congress or Supreme Court takes that decision away from the people, they don't have much recourse, do they?
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 8:12PM
Yes while science may have defined life as beginning at conception society hasn't accepted that. Until society does these laws will always hang in the balance. I'm not saying that is logical or right. I am saying that is the way it is.
Great Catholics fought inter-racial marriage laws. That is great. And I think it proves my point that the Government should not make laws that concern marriage. That authority is only held in the institutions of faith the two (or three, or four) participants are members of. As for the legal definition. I said before that I am not the one to decide when life begins. I do not know enough about it. I have a hard enough defining life coherent terms. I am saying society needs to officially decide when life begins. Then they must adhere to it.
Appleby| 7.13.10 @ 5:14AM
Didnt we learn from the Global Warming Fiasco that deciding science by majority vote of the ignorant and credulous is a bad idea?
How is it a good idea to allow the same ignoranti to vote on when humanity is bestowed upon humans?
When conception occurs, the being that is created thereby will grow into the same species as its parents are. That is, if a male and female human conceive, what they conceive is a human. There are no recorded cases of two humans conceiving a Canada Goose. Ipso facto and Q.E.D. we are human from the moment we are conceived.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 11:57AM
please define proper?
Once you do please allow the next person to come up with their own definition.
Mark| 7.12.10 @ 4:10PM
Hey, Nurse, have you ever, even once, had someone ask you if you would like to feel the fetus kick?
Paul D| 7.12.10 @ 4:46PM
Nurse Taylor,
At what point in your Mother's pregnancy could she have aborted you, and not killed you?
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 7.12.10 @ 8:49PM
If Almighty GOD created all men & women, which He indee did, a woman's body & the child growing inside her body BOTH belong to GOD. A woman can terminate her pregnancy. Just be prepared to pay the consequences if this act goes without repentance. EVERY life is precious & a gift from GOD. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is so hard to understand people? Abortion is a sin and an abomination to GOD like every other sin. There is no gray area here. Abortion is pre-meditated murder! The truly scary thing here is you claim to be a nurse! Adolph Eichmann would applaud your warped ideas about human life were he still around "nurse" Taylor. The Nazi Party is NOT dead. It took over the American abortion industry. Murder Inc. indeed!
Toolbag| 7.13.10 @ 11:45AM
A woman pays the price long before she stands before God. Imagine these partial birth abortions. They are the most god awful things imaginable. Whether women know it or not when they get an abortion they will bare emotional scarrs that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. I figure they be allowed to do it. They made the choice now they live with it. There are worse things than death.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 12:01PM
so under your religion as long as she repents she is all set then? Abort, repent, abort, repent, abort, repent, ahhh I feel one with god now.
Sam| 7.13.10 @ 2:41PM
Careful, Kenneth. Let's not invoke the whole "thou shall not kill" crap. Killing happens everyday. We fight wars where we kill people-justifed normally- but still killling. So if you want to talk about abortion, that's fine. But forget the whole thou shall not kill nonsense. No one actually believes it is a sacred commandment- otherwise, we'd be protesting the hundreds of people killed by our military everyday.
My point: Sometimes, killing is necessary. Nobody actually believes that God forbids it.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 3:39AM
An unborn child is a baby, your semantic shenanigans to the contrary. How's this: "Have you chosen a name for your baby yet?" You medical types have been known to excuse all manner of evil; pity you. I don't really care what your terminology is, Nurse Taylor -- you didn't author the rule book for the world. And you can employ all the dark deceit in the world to justify murder of the unborn, but you will be held to account.
Roe was wrongly decided. That's a fact. And marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Argue 'til your blue in the face and it still won't change a thing.
Toolbag| 7.13.10 @ 11:50AM
Sure under God's law marriage may be one man and one woman. But not everyone in the US is going to be ruled by God's law. There is more than one faith and none at all in America. Our country exists so they each person may live according to their own beliefs as long as those beliefs don't harm others. If you want a country that forces people to submit solely to God's law then go find a nice piece of land in the Middle East. I hear the are all about God's law. They call it something like Shuria Law.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 1:43PM
God's moral law is meant for all people for all time; that it is ignored by huge sections of the population doesn't make it any less God's law. Our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, natural law and natural rights. Our country does not exist so that each person may live according to their own beliefs as along as those beliefs don't harm others. For who can define "harm?"
Go back to the Founders. Read our Founding documents, google our state Constitutions and read them. Read the Federalist Papers; reacquaint yourself with why our country exists. Get a bio of John Jay, for example.
So much to do, so little time.
Toolbag| 7.13.10 @ 4:00PM
Yes the founders were devout Christians for the most part but I don't believe that they would condone any law that would violate the rights of any demographic in the country they created. "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I read that to mean that whether you worship God in a prescribed way or not the fact that He created you means you are endowed with these rights. Now interpretation is a funny thing. Mine I am guessing is different from yours. Whether we like it or not the interpretation is the only thing that matters. So we cannot violate anyone's rights just because it violates the Christian God's law. Conceivably Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all worship the same God. And yet they all have different laws. So which should we follow? Which is right? None of actually know. So why should any member of these religions be forced to abide by the laws of the others? They all live in our country. The reason they live here is the same reason the left whatever country they came from. They wish to live there life according to their own beliefs. Same reason the founders and earliest colonists came here. So why destroy what was built by people far greater than we are.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 7:03PM
Toolbox: you are seriously confused.
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all worship the same god? Where to begin? Words fail me.
So you are the product of our liberal indoctrination centers, aka, the public school system? Or worse yet, your parents brought you up in a liberal church? A disciple of postmodernism?
Yes, we do know what is right and what is false.
My heart aches that you're so tossed to and fro over every wind of doctrine -- and that you cannot discern truth from error.
Toolbag| 7.13.10 @ 7:28PM
Do all three religions not worship the one God. Is it possible they are worshipping three different gods. It is not possible since there is only one God. It is impossible to worship anything other than God. These three religions are considered the Abrahamic religions for a reason. How can you even try to seperate Judaism from Christianity. My upbringing has nothing to do with this. The issue I am trying to address is weather American muslims, Jews, Athiests, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Scientologists, Agnostics...etc should have to abide by laws that are drawn from a faith that they are not a part of. Our Founders were Christians but I do not believe that they believed that people should sacrifice any of their rights because they were not of the "correct" faith. That is oppression. That is also why the conservatives and liberals are falling from favor. They continue to push their beliefs and agendas upon the American people. American people wish to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. That is why our country was formed. Life, Liberty, and purstuit of Happiness. Not Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness*.
*only if you adhere to a specific faith's doctrine.
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 10:00PM
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the God of Abraham. They each have differ in highly significant ways, but to an outsider the differences would appear to be minor doctrinal quibbles. Judaism is obviously the mother faith of the other two, with Jehovah, the God Abraham worshipped at it's center, and the Old Testament as its scripture. Christianity holds that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah foretold in the Jewish scriptures, and that He in fact was God incarnate, beliefs which Judaism rejects. Islam, the newest of the three Abrahamic faiths, accepts that Jesus was sent by God to the Jews, accepts the Virgin Birth, and honors Mary. But Islam hold that Jesus was a human, not divine, and that Mohammed was also a Prophet to whom God revealed the Qu'ran. Islam honors all of the Old Testament prophets as well.
KyMouse| 7.13.10 @ 3:08PM
Nurse Taylor, what nursing school did you attend?
"Baby" is perfectly fine to say -- in fact, it's better to say than "fetus," because "fetus" de-humanizes the baby (as you well know). An unborn puppy or elephant may also be called a "fetus" (we dissected "fetal" pigs back in biology class), but a "baby" is human.
Tell me, do you insist on saying "neonate" instead of "newborn"? If not, why not?
If the baby in the womb isn't alive, how can she/he be growing and developing? Can a dead baby do that?
Did they teach you anything about embryology at the school you supposedly attended? My copy of "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology," which was written for medical students, says on page one: "Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male...A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."
You say that "the fetus is in the woman's body. A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy because it is her body." Even you must be bright enough to know that "in" does not mean "part of." If the baby is part of the woman's body, how can a mother (who is female) give birth to a son (who is male)?
Are you really unaware that, from the moment of conception, the baby has a DNA code that is different from his/her mother's?
If the baby and the mother are one and the same, how can the obstetrician detect two sets of heartbeats and two sets of brainwaves? Do you really think that women have two hearts and brains?
I'd love to see some sign that you have even one of each.
Believer| 7.12.10 @ 4:35PM
Anna from Emory U- You say your a Divinity student, why would you want to be interested in a Religion that teachs against Homosexuality. If you dont believe as we do, for heaven sake leave the church and leave us to our ignorance. Take up Buddism or whatever but get your perverted self out of Christianity.
Skeptic| 7.13.10 @ 7:38AM
A divity student? Then you must really know what the will of God is.
A divity student? From Emory University, no less!Then your brand of morality must be superior.
A divinity student? Then you must really understand science and medicine.
Why is the left so willing to tamper with a human society in this way? Look, I don't claim that human nature is unalterably opposed to homosexual marriage or that there have never been homosexual marriages in history. But I do say that the current enthusiasm for homosexual marriage is essentially fashionable liberalism and that American society mostly rejects homosexual marriage today and has rejected homosexuality itself for hundreds of years. Society should not necessarily be changed on so deep a level in the twinkling of an eye by judicial fiat just because some clever liberals can cast this as a constitutional issue.
Fifty years ago, anyone who seriously promoted the notion that the repulsion many people feel in the presence of overtly homosexual behavior is "evil" would have been seen as sadly mistaken. The Founders are even now turning over in their graves at the idea that state laws defining marriage to exclude homosexual unions violate equal protection. I'm not trying to make the case that the heterosexual majority has a right to harrass homosexuals or prohibit them from sodomizing one another in private, and if you want to associate with them or ordain them as bishops of the Church of the New Consciousness, Anna, then go right ahead. But anyone who presumes to tell an entire society to change because she has seen the light has probably never read de Tocqueville, or if she has read him, hasn't understood him. Learn a little humility, priestess.
Purple Lips| 7.12.10 @ 9:37AM
Harry,
I wonder if it all comes down to Nature vs Nurture? If it is Nature (ie a homo gene), then a bit of therepuetic medecine can take care of the problem. The can have the unborn tested for homosexuality in the same way the unborn is tested for Downs. And I don't know about you, but I imagine many parents would abort thier child if it tested positive for the homo gene. I don't know if you noticed, but since the Downs test went online some 18 years ago, very few mentally retarded children can be seen today.
Of course, if there isn't a genetic pre-disposition for homosexuality, then it must be Nurture (ie an outside source). In that case, homosexuality can be treated like any other pathology.
Tatiana Goldenberg| 7.12.10 @ 9:51AM
Purple Lips, your blind hatred is showing.
The same-sex cultural war will eventually be won by same-sex marriage proponents. It always takes a long, long time, but knowledge will eventually trump ignorance.
Gay married couples? What's the problem? How is it going to affect my marriage? It won't!
Most gays will not marry. Good grief. Much ado about nothing . . . nothing except blind hatred from the putrid right.
As Anna K says in her above post, "a new consciousness is arising."
Well, thank God for that!
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 10:10AM
Tatiana Goldenberg?! Is that your real name? Because it's a really cool name!
Tim*| 7.12.10 @ 10:29AM
Are You Related To Chews & Peanut Goldenberg ?
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 10:39AM
WOW! Chews and Peanut??? This just keeps getting better!
Tim*| 7.12.10 @ 10:43AM
Remember ?
They Had A Daughter Candy Goldenberg .
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 11:02AM
Nope - doesn't ring a bell. Anyone? But you have to admit, Tatiana Goldenberg is a great name! It's so unnecessarily complicated it just feels great rolling off your tongue! Tat-ti-a-nya Gold - en- berg! It's great!
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 11:56AM
I just have this movie running through my mind:
Evil Republican Dictator: It's the end for you, Ta-ti-a-nya Gooooold-en-beeerrrrggggg! Your presence has annoyed my for too long! You have foiled my evil plans to cut down all the trees with saw-blades made from kitten teeth and drill for all the oil with dolphins and baby seal drills! Now you are preventing me from oppressing the Gays and Lesbians by spreading my evil "Lets Not Change Thousands of Years of Social Architecture Because It Makes a Small Percentage of People Feel Left Out" philosophy. So now, Tat-ti-a-nya Goooolllddd-en-berrrrrggggg! It is time to meet your doom! Meet your end, Tat-ti-a-nya Goooolllddd-en-berrrrrggggg! Perhaps the most ingenious torture machine EVER constructed EVER conceived by man! EVER, EVER! The fluffy squirrel-tail tickling machine, made from all the fluffy tails of all the squirrels that once lived in the trees we cut down! Buuuwahahahahahahah! Where's that idiot Michael Steele?
Michael Steele: Here I am, Master!
Evil Republican Dictator: Throw the switch! Boooowaaaahahahahahahahh! Good by, Tat-ti-a-nya Goooolllddd-en-berrrrrggggg! Parting is such sweet sorrow! Boooowaaaahahahahahahahh!
Man, I have to get a life! Well, at least go work out until my Tatiana Goldenberg fantasy has passed ;-)
Anal Retentive| 7.12.10 @ 12:09PM
That's "goodbye", Mr. Cartman. You should really edit your typos before posting. It's just common courtesy. Like when you sneeze, always carry a biodegradable bag to place your tissue, making sure you staple the top. Then, place that bag inside another biodegradable bag and staple that shut. Then place in a case for latter disposal in a proper BioWarning bag with proper markings to be transported to the nearest Bio-furnace for destruction. So please watch it.
Kipling| 7.13.10 @ 7:56AM
You are killing me. I'm dying, here. More like this, please.
John Navratil| 7.12.10 @ 11:14AM
Ever read "Brave New World"?
Puprle Lips| 7.12.10 @ 11:34AM
Tatianna,
Get ahold of yourself? Just think, if we can locate a gay gene marker anything is possible -even GAYDAR!
KyMouse| 7.12.10 @ 9:52AM
Mr. L., the Bible reveals people as the sinners they are, warts and all. Many things that they think, do and say in the Bible are not what God wants, although in many cases He permits them, for one reason or another. King David, for example, lusted after another man's wife and arranged for him to be killed in battle.
Many things God commands in the Bible are for a certain place (e.g. ancient Israel), a certain people (ancient Hebrews worshipping in the Temple), and a certain time (B.C. into the first century A.D.). To determine whether His commands are valid for us today, we must see whether they concern ancient rituals, ancient civil laws, or moral laws.
In the case of moral laws, God's commands are not bound to ancient Hebrews in the time of the Temple. God still forbids everyone, everywhere, to commit murder, to steal, to commit adultery, etc.
His commands against same-sex lust and behavior never changed between Leviticus, written to the ancient Hebrews in about 1440 B.C., and I Corinthians, written to Jews and gentiles alike in Corinth in about 55 A.D. (also I Timothy, written circa 64 A.D.).
The Bible is the best interpreter or expositor of itself, and its warnings against homosexuality are consistent over the centuries and among the multicultural peoples it addresses.
There is forgiveness and a fresh start available by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I Corinthians 6:9-11 says, "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed [baptized], but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
Ken Roberts | 7.12.10 @ 2:51PM
so you live in the old testament or are reading a different book other then the bible and just because people condone it does not make it right or biblical. we will all stand before God some day I would rather stand with what I have done and believe ., Will you stand before God someday and tell him his ideas are out dated . wow. the prospects of coming out of that one unscathed is nil , I will save you the trouble of replying as I know what your next statement will be typical .
Ed| 7.16.10 @ 1:35AM
You are one sick, twisted, commie individual. Remember one thing. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED! Those who promote perversion will burn in hell.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 9:54AM
Well, Marine, I hope you're happy! Your post brought all the kooks out! Now I have to sit through Gay bible school! Now we get to be told by people who have no respect for the complexity of the bible that the bible condones incest and bestiality. Sheesh!
To all the Gay Activists from MSNBC now posting, Marine is correct, you just don't like his message. Marriage is betwen a man and a woman because, wait for it, IT'S NORMAL! As imperfect as it is, it's the best arraignment for the raising of children and for society. There has to be a standard,not just "Oh, well, Bob wants to marry another 14 year old for his 4th wife. You go, Bob!" Because if Gay's try to prevent Bob from his matrimonial proclivities, they're just being bigaphobic! On what grounds do you prevent poor Bob from his 4th, 5th, of 10th wife? You bigaphobes! You just hate bigamists!
And what about Bob's friend who likes hamsters? How will Gays . . . . um, never mind.
BenditlikeBeckham| 7.12.10 @ 10:08PM
There are a few intelligent comments on this page--just a few.
The majority of posters, obviously, are angry old men or angry middle-aged men who are unemployed. How else could they sit hour after hour composing their hysterical, disrepectful drivel, attacking anyone who has anything knowledgeable to say.
Curmudgeons. That's what so many of you are.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 11:02PM
Some of us are Grad students researching finance papers. Putz.
Mark Anderson| 7.15.10 @ 12:56AM
I'm not mocking God, I'm mocking you! Here's what Judge Leon Bazile said in 1965 when he refused to reconsider his enforcement of the interracial ban in Virginia:" "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." You are right with him and Jerry Falwell who also railed against interracial marriage. You are simply wrong and God is not on your side.
Kenny| 7.12.10 @ 7:08AM
"It's sick out there and getting sicker"
Bob Grant, conservative talk radio host
Appleby| 7.12.10 @ 7:33AM
We have had No Rules Marriage and No Limit Abortion here in socialist Canada for two generations. Very few, relatively speaking, homosexuals actually get married, as it turns out; and the average age in Canada is now 40 and rising. Both these results have come to the locals as a big surprise.
Rev. Unruh| 7.12.10 @ 8:06AM
I guess you all didn't hear about my little girl scout political action project to end the drug war by legalizing marijuana, and thus end ALL war globally. It is all about religious freedom.
Or if you did, you just thought I was a nut. I'm assuming my goals are ones you don't approve of. I'm assuming you Spectators would prefer to kill Mother Nature and poison the gulf wit crude oil.
I have been blogging about my project for seven years in AlterNet. In the comments section, which was not internet searchable until fairly recently.
Surprise!
I argue politics and religion with people daily so I think of AlterNet as my own personal open source think tank. The Tea Party was also my idea, I'm very clever like that.
I coach people in politics - for free! And I lead by example, girl scout style. It is a culture war all right, you started it when you declared war on my people.
I decided to fight back. It took me four months to plan my campaign, four months to plan an end to war globally. Do you know anybody else who can do that? Because I don't.
Gay marriage is also one of my issues. It is especially useful for me, along with legalizing pot and supporting youth and unions in general, for my political team building. Why? Because I argue for equal rights.
Speaking of that, why can't we pass the equal rights amendment?
I'm really wondering, why did it fail? What is the 'moral' conservative argument for preventing women from having a legal right to equality?
I really want to know, because from here it looks like you want to preserve the institution of slavery.
Oh, that is another issue I have with you. I want MY country back!
I want YOU to stop discriminating against MY people from the south end and tail of Great Turtle's Back.
I know racism when I see it, I also recognize acts of and declarations of war. Don't expect me to ignore it, expect me to respond. With peace,
Reverend Lauren Unruh
THC Ministry
Pleasant Hill, California
A Native American Church
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 10:34AM
WOW! Well, that tops anything I have ever written here! Rev. Lauren of the THC Ministry, I bow to you sir (Ma'am? Whatever.). I now crown you King (Queen? Whatever.) of The Sarcastic Snarky Post! All bow!
Rev. Unruh| 7.12.10 @ 1:34PM
Sorry, no sarcasm, I meant every word. The peace-makers are supposed to inherit heaven. I want it now.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 1:44PM
WOWIE WOW WOW! Then I would like some of what you're smoking! I mean, unicorns and rainbows! Man, you are one floatin MO FO with the greenest, grungy Buddha Grass, with that hempy/hashy aroma makin' the air sweet and sticky! WOOOOOOOOOWEEEEEE! I'm hip with it, my man (woman? Whatever)! Roll me a spliff and let me go, baby!
Ken Roberts | 7.12.10 @ 2:54PM
you can't have it now .
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 3:19PM
Sure he/she can, Ken. All he/she has to do is go over to Pakistan or Afghanistan or (pick any Muslim country) and share his/her peace and love platform. I'll chip in for the plane ticket. I would love to see how it all works out for him/her.
Lauren| 7.12.10 @ 1:37PM
Girl scouts are almost certainly female, and 'Lauren' is a woman's name.
You need to work on your observational skills.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 1:47PM
So what? Since when does having girl scouts on your side or a woman's name mean you're a woman? You're not being very gender inclusive! Sheesh!
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 12:12PM
Hey, I'm also a native American.
I was born in Michigan.
And, thinking you can stop war is like thinking you can end poverty. As Christ said, "The poor will always be with you [...]." (The Gospel of Saint John 12: 8)
Sister Lauren| 7.12.10 @ 1:32PM
So are you with me, or are you against me?
BTW, the Rapture is scheduled for May 21, 2011. BONG HITS FOR JESUS!
Releasing helium filled blow-up dolls or other symbols of Rapture is fully optional.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 2:28PM
I thought you were a reverend?
Or, are you both?
Technical Difficulties| 7.12.10 @ 2:40PM
Please stand by. He, (she? Whatever.) knocked his (her? Whatever.) bong over. The Sister/Reverend will be with you soon.
Ken Roberts | 7.12.10 @ 2:56PM
she/he is no reverend as they do tend not to sin that great .
Arnold Ahlert| 7.12.10 @ 8:25AM
I think Antle misses the point. The real divide is between homosexual activists who are not content with Americans tolerating their lifestyle, but insist on active approval of it.
As a result, having another word in the lexicon describing gay marriage--"garriage" for example--is unacceptable.
I think a majority of Americans are willing to accept the idea that all the rights and privileges one attains as a result of marriage should be extended to gay.
On the other hand, that same majority is not about to accept the idea that the word "marriage," which has been commonly understood by every culture in the world for over five thousand years should be re-defined to placate a radical minority.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 3:47AM
No, Arnold, I'm not at all willing to accept the idea that all rights and privileges one attains as a result of marriage should be extended to homosexuals.
No. Not at all. Not in the least.
Tyler S.| 7.13.10 @ 4:56PM
That's because you're filled with hate, darcy.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 7:18PM
It's called LOVE, tough love, Tyler S.
Do you think that nothing exists beyond the "here and now." Do you think that whatever feels good, just do it. No consequences. No tomorrow. No hereafter?
Is that what you want? Maybe you're the one filled with hate because you cannot abide looking in the mirror -- the mirror of five thousand years of human history that has declared unashamedly that marriage is a union of one man and one woman (they fit nicely don't they?), for the preservation and continuity of human society and CIVILIZATION.
The haters are the ones who would seek to undermine, marginalize, attack, and mock those of us who would seek to PERPETUATE the species through laws that protect stable families.
Gay4Guns| 7.12.10 @ 8:39AM
Mr. Marine,
I don't wish to have a relationship with any of those animals; but if US law says it's legal for You, then by god it's legal for me. Otherwise give me my tax money back. I paid your salary and sent your kids to school while you were out protecting YOUR rights and not mine or apparently not the gay Marine next to you. Yes, he was there. You get married in church. You get a contract at the courthouse.
Politruk Danilov| 7.25.10 @ 7:58PM
You and Mr. Marine share equally the same exact rights, Skeezix. You (if you are an adult male) and/or Mr. Marine will not be issued a marriage license if you show up at the Bureau Of Licensing with your male "partner" in tow. And conversly if either of you wish to marry an adult female you cannot be denied a marriage license, in most cases. Equal rights, it's a beautiful thang. And don't stink up the room with that lame canard "i'm forbidden the right to marry whomever i love". I love my grandma but i don't think i'd ever be granted "the right to marry" her, even if we wanted.
Long Live Soviet Power And The Progressive Doctrine.!
Leo Wilson| 7.12.10 @ 8:47AM
My take on this is that this is the wrong battle to fight. Marriage as we know it is a religous institution, as evidenced by who comes out to protest against proposals that gays be included in the institution. Worse, it is a failing institution that doesn't work for more than half of the straight couples that engage in it. It would be a tragedy to include more people in what already isn't working any more.
Gay activists should instead be pushing for a parallel civil union that is secular, very different in terms and obligations, and more in tune with modern, secular society. This should be available for anyone to participate in, not just gay people.
The current model is a clear violation of the principle of keeping church and state separate.
In other places that this has been done, the secular union is becoming more popular than traditional marraige and, in response, churches are opening their doors to gay unions on their own rather than having government thugs with guns forcing their doors open.
Free people support the choices they and their neighbors make, and resist what is imposed upon them by thugs with guns.
Reverend Unruh| 7.12.10 @ 1:43PM
If the issue is civil rights and the argument you want to make is equal treatment under the law, then marriage equality is the obvious demand to make.
In my ministry, not only is the sacrament cannabis instead of wine, but we also welcome gay marriage. I blogged at length on that issue and now, years later, MY arguments are winning in the California supreme court.
I am very proud of our success.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 1:52PM
"MY arguments are winning in the California supreme court. "
Well, consider the source. What else is new in the land of fruits and nuts? As the state goes into bankruptcy because of its liberal policies, they consider this to be an important issue. So as we wave goodbye to California as it slowly sinks into the garbage pit, we can all breath a sigh of relief that gays can marry. Phew!
WeeWillie| 7.12.10 @ 10:42AM
Same sex marriage is like kosher pork.
Sheila| 7.12.10 @ 10:44AM
There must be a gay equivalent of Journolist, or something, that brings these pathetic people flocking to any movement conservative/republican website addressing this issue to overwhelm traditional posters. Even at altright sites, I cannot avoid the trolls. It's truly curious - just like two year olds, these folks cannot bear to let anyone else have their say (let alone the last word) or genuinely disagree - it's the same old, same old "RACISTSEXISTHOMOPHOBEANTISEMITEHATER!!!" This is why I have begun avoiding these sites, but to no avail - it's just like watching t.v. - there you'd think America was perhaps 30 percent white, 65 percent female, and 2 percent Christian. Read these comment threads and you know America is 98 percent fools. Decline and fall.
Tyler S.| 7.13.10 @ 5:04PM
Yup, must be trolls, no way people just disagree with you.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 7.12.10 @ 10:49AM
Opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples speak passionately about “States Rights” and Federalism and so on … but the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed on couples by the FEDERAL government. They number 1,138 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Most significantly they have to do with tax law and Social Security, so it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married once they move to a neighboring state. On the other hand, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked.
This is why DOMA is transparently unconstitutional under both the 14th Amendment and the “Full Faith & Credit” clause. The fact that Judge Tauro found DOMA unconstitutional according to the 10th Amendment is just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. I know marriage equality for Gay couples makes some people uncomfortable. There are still many people today who are uncomfortable with people of different races marrying. But “popularity” and “constitutionality” are not always synonymous.
If the federal government wants to wash its hands of this and leave it to states to define marriage for themselves, the federal government had better be prepared to dispose of all the benefits of marriage under tax law, Social Security, and so forth. I wonder how many married STRAIGHT couples would be happy with THAT?
How is it that Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is considered a very GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
It has nothing to do with religion, because the United States is not a theocracy. It has nothing to do with parenting, because one does not need a marriage license to have children, nor is the desire or even ability to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
Like it or not, there is simply no purely constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
Rev Unruh| 7.12.10 @ 1:48PM
Actually it does have to do with religion because all the arguments against it are religious. Also, there are other religions, like mine, that are OK with it. The prohibition of gay marriage, just like the prohibition of marijuana, is religious.
John II| 7.12.10 @ 11:24PM
"Actually it does have to do with religion because all the arguments against it are religious."
False. Most of the arguments against pseudogamy are anthropological, psychological, cultural, historical, and literary. Your remark indicates that (a) you don't know what you're talking about and (b) you don't care.
Kinsey| 7.13.10 @ 8:58AM
If you haven't yet seen Chuck Anziulewicz's website, please go there as soon as you can. The picture of the "Big Gay Volleyball Tournament" is priceless.
Chuck, I think there are people in California, and maybe the "Reverend" Unruh is one, who would pay big money to watch you deliver the same sanctimonious lecture that you've so bravely shared with us above, provided that you deliver it with a pronounced lisp while wearing a little girl's frock and a pair of shiny, new Mary-Janes, men's size 13. And fat. The whole thing doewn't work unless you're hideously fat.
The goal of homosexual propagandists like Chuck is not just to gain "rights" for a minority but to change people's minds and make it unfashionable and perhaps even criminal to dislike homosexuals. If you tell me I can't harm them physically or even speak severely to them, I can accept that. If you tell me that the Constitution gives homosexuals the right to marry each other, I guess I can accept that, too. But I'll dislike any person or group I've a mind to dislike, and I will resist the efforts of people like Chuck to tell me whom I should or shouldn't dislike. And people like Chuck hate it when anyone points out how manipulative and dishonest the homosexual propagandists are.
Decent people can never, never, never let Chuck and his ilk win.
PolishKnight| 7.12.10 @ 11:08AM
I wish it were true that "American law deals harshly with racists" but the opposite is true: Racism is lauded and viewed as "progressive" when it's directed at whites and especially white males. It's political incorrect racism that's unacceptable which raises the question as to whether "progressivism" is really progressive at all or just a hypocritical furthering of the status quo.
Back to gay marriage: Indeed, let's consider where this road is leading: As homosexuality is becoming mainstream and tolerated, accepted, and even viewed as desirable it will ultimately achieve special victim group status and open hiring and educational preferences. Elementary schools will teach homosexual lifestyles (by homosexual teachers) with heterosexualism regarded as a perversion. Little boys are already kicked out of school for kissing girls but expect the administrators to wink when two little girls or two boys kiss.
Traditionalist families, such as the Cheney's will, accept their homosexual children's lifestyle just as... conservatives learned to accept their career women daughters winding up as "single mothers by choice."
Why does all this happen?
Because the left is right in that they are providing "freedom" for people to engage in non-conservative behaviors. Conservatives who scream "stop!" slowly feel like the fuddy duddy whose hurting the minority of people who want to try something different. Then, as the left enters the mainstream and slowly practices it's own intolerance, it becomes harder for conservatives to fight those battles. It's like Constantinople being surrounded by Ottoman Turks. Give up the territory bit by bit until you don't have any more. It's one big game of Go.
In answer to Leo Wilson, yes, in theory it would be great if society could be tolerant but that's not how things seem to work out either historically or in modern times. Groups form coalitions and seek to use the government to strip away rights and property from the opposing group for their own benefit. This is nothing new. Marxism justified this political agenda via a class warfare scheme between the 'rich' and the working class but ultimately that meant just labeling the other group as "rich" even when leftists like to sneeringly refer to their opposition as "ignorant trailer parkers." "Privileged" means that Group X has something Group Y wants even if Group Y already has lots of other stuff. That's how it works.
Conservatives need to remind society that, hey, white males are not all that bad. That most people desire to be heterosexuals and that if a young woman wants to have a heterosexual relationship with a breadwinning, traditional man, she's not going to have a good chance of that after supporting politicians who seek to attack such men for doing their jobs and supporting families. This includes divorce laws that reward women for lying about abuse (and even REQUIRE attorneys to advise women to commit perjury in liars' court as it's called) and exploiting children as financial tools.
Those are the hard decisions. They're hard because they're obvious and practical. But in a way, that should be an advantage.
Purple Lips| 7.12.10 @ 12:07PM
Show me a person who does not believe in God and I will show you a person who will eventually believe in Frosty the Snowman. Even the famous athieist Dawkins, that supreme rationalist and scientist believes wholeheartedly that not only do UFOs exist, but they've taken residence on earth. And who says athieists do not practice Faith and Hope? And I'm sure Dawkins will be the first person to lobby for inter species marriage!
canuckistani| 7.12.10 @ 12:11PM
Get government out of the marriage game. Period. Or legalize all of it.
Tish | 7.12.10 @ 12:12PM
I'm weary of hearing about the gay man denied the company of his partner as he lies dying the hospital.
Any competent lawyer can draft a contract between the parties to prevent such a scene, yet very few gays and lesbians avail themselves of it. Isn't it time to ask why?
Chuck Anziulewicz | 7.12.10 @ 12:44PM
DEAR TISH:
I'm weary of hearing about how Gay couples can have some of the benefits of marriage if they just pay a lawyer to draw up some legal agreements.
Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, if any Straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. And that couple automatically gets 1,138 federal benefits and protections. No need for lawyers and legal fees.
But for the sake of argument, let me also add that even if hiring an attorney is all it takes, it isn't all that simple. The letter writer below, Stephen, is in an online newsgroup I belong to:
"In 1993 my partner died, I came home after the memorial service to find the doors on our house bolted shut and the windows boarded up by his family. The police would do nothing. The Judge would do nothing. Even though I had a will, the family contested it and won. I ended up with absolutely nothing. I don't even have a picture of my late partner. My only saving grace is that my own furniture and most of my personal possessions were in storage, otherwise I would have had to start my whole life over. Financially there wasn't much there after his long illness, so the inheritance was of little concern to me.
But....
"You think a medical power of attorney will give you the rights to see your partner in the hospital? WRONG. I was told by a doctor, then a hospital administrator that while I had the authority to make medical decisions for him, that did not give me unlimited rights to visit him as a spouse would have. I was given long enough to "assess his condition" and to give medical direction, then I was told to leave. My attorney went before a judge to stop that madness and the judge sided with the hospital.
"No, in this society you cannot overcome the legal issues by doing wills and power of attorney documents. It just doesn't work out like it would seem to on paper. These documents are only as powerful as a potentially homophobic judge will enforce them. I want to be able to marry so that these rights and responsibilities are cast in stone and not open to interpretation."
So you see, TISH, it isn't as cut-and-dried as you would like to believe.
Sister Lauren| 7.12.10 @ 1:59PM
I am very sorry to hear of your loss and all the troubles you had with that very painful experience. Let us all strive for equal rights for gay people so that others can avoid reliving your misery.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 2:08PM
How do you know the story is true? Liberals always make up big, teary stories (e.g. Al Gore and his polar bears) to push their agenda. I don't believe a word of it.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 12:44PM
Homos are not born, they are slaves to their lusts. It is not an orientation, it is a preference.
What about so-called "bi-sexuals?" Is there a gene that causes someone to prefer sex with both genders? I don't think so.
Homos pervert the marital act. As do adulterers, fornicators, pederasts, pedophiles, and masturbators. They cave into their lusts and lose their self-control.
We all have, at one time or another. The difference is, I won't defend these acts, or claim they are okay now, because times have changed. They were wrong 4,000 years ago, and they are wrong now.
To claim that they have, is to believe in relativism. Right and wrong do not change.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 4:51PM
Something tells me that the majority of human beings are "masturbators". For instance all of us on this thread are currently engaged in "mental masturbation". Is this a sin against God? Not sure.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 8:34PM
You must be speaking for yourself, Toolbag.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 9:34PM
I am no stranger to masturbation of any type. Hey at least I can admit it.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 11:57PM
Toolbag,
That is not something of which you should be so proud.
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 12:04AM
John II,
Did I use proper grammar in my 11:57PM comment, above?
John II| 7.13.10 @ 12:44AM
Hi Nick. I think the contemporary linguists would call it "hypercorrection," on the analogy of "between you and I." Churchill had a more charming comment on the injunction against ending sentences with prepositions: "That's a bit of pedantry up with which I will not put."
Me, I'd just say, "That's not something you should be so proud of." The idiom seems more secure.
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 1:06AM
Thanks, John.
I thought it seemed to wordy.
I listen to Laura Ingraham a lot, and she is a grammar cop. Now, I catch myself ending sentences with prepositions, constantly, as a write my comments. She did go to Dartmouth and was a lawyer.
Are lawyers more prone to be members of the grammar police, I wonder? They do have to be more exact in their writing, I suppose.
One of these days I'm going to read Sister Miriam Joseph's "Trivium," and learn proper grammar.
But, if you would word it that way, John, that is good enough for me. Thanks again!
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 3:54AM
Nick and John: You guys are fun to read. Keep up the good work.
Nick| 7.14.10 @ 1:58AM
Darcy,
Thanks! I really appreciate it.
I, too, like your posts.
(Just in case Laura happens to be reading this. Ha-ha!)
Joe D.| 7.12.10 @ 12:56PM
W. James Antle, III, you are dead wrong. Still some 70% know this is wrong. And a majority still know this is sin and homosexuals have a problem that needs fixing not an acceptance of your ok and I am ok.
And the true bigots or intollerant people are those who say you have no right to your opion. Mine is the only one that counts. I want practice my perverted life style in front of you and your kids everywhere you wish to go.
And those who have changed and come out of that life style are persecuted badly by those still living this life style.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 12:20PM
so joe, that one time you had sex back in the 50s, what was it like?
J. Evans| 7.12.10 @ 1:25PM
I thought DOMA expressly deprived the U.S. District Courts of jurisdiction to consider the statute's application and whether it was constitutional. How about some analysis on that issue?
David| 7.12.10 @ 2:07PM
Nurse Taylor, you are a moron. The "fetus" as you call it has a completely different HUMAN DNA than the mother, the father, and than anyone else who has ever lived or will live. The baby is a unique individual and can no way be said to be part of the woman. I sure hope you aren't a practicing nurse because you are an idiot.
Eric Cartman| 7.12.10 @ 2:09PM
David, Adolf doesn't care - all Adolf cares about is a body count.
David| 7.12.10 @ 2:14PM
Homosexuals can have the same rights to inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., as heteros do by have the proper legal documents drafted and filed. But that is not what they want. They want special treatment. They don't want family members to challenge their wills, etc., as happens in traditional families all of the time. They want for society to condone what they do to force everyone to accept and respect what they do. Do what you want in your bedrooms as you always claimed it what you wanted. Stop dragging your crap into the streets, and our schools, and churches, and clubs and private organization. Homosexuals are the intolerant ones. Although we would like for you to change, we don't demand or force you to change. You do DEMAND that we and all of society change to please you. It ain't gonna happen.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 3:56AM
Amen, David. Well said!
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 12:22PM
David, I'm not gay but couldn't what you're saying also be said about the religious folk who can't leave their religious myths in the church?
Mark Anderson| 7.15.10 @ 1:04AM
David, how is it that you know what homosexuals want?
Pete | 7.12.10 @ 2:43PM
I think we can all agree that "something" is killed during an abortion. As for marriage, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Everyone in this country has the same exact right (with some reasonable exceptions) to marry the opposite sex partner of his choosing. Under the traditional, workable definition of marriage, we all have equal rights.
Toolbag| 7.12.10 @ 4:53PM
Trust me marriage in America is definetly broken.
Seek| 7.12.10 @ 3:02PM
The best argument against the homosexual marriage advocates is that there is no inherent right to marriage for anyone, hetero or homo. The idea that gays are "slaves to their lust" is ridiculous. Show me one heterosexual who isn't a "slave" in the same way.
The way to answer the gay rights argument is not through Bible-thumping, but by recognition of the fact that marriage, like a driver's license, is a privilege, not right. As such, its grant lies solely at the discretion of a particular state.
Mankind always has restricted marriage. Consider: genetic proximity; age of one or both prospective spouses; number of persons; place of legal residence; presence of hereditary diseases; and until 1967 (in this country) race. There is no obligation on the part of government to marry two people, even if heterosexual. Thus, there is no right to marry.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 3:48PM
Seek,
If you had read further, you would have seen that I addressed the point that all people deal with the similar temptations.
Marriage has always been a "right" in Judaism and Christianity, as long as the man and woman met the criteria. Marriage has always been discriminatory under certain conditions. But, if those conditions didn't apply to the couple, marriage could not be refused.
It was purely religious, however. In Catholicism, the couple has to meet with a priest for 6 months, to show that they are ready to get married, on top of showing that they can get married legitimately.
The reason the state got involved was over property distribution and inheritance.
Duff| 7.12.10 @ 3:22PM
This problem has a simple fix: the government should just get out of the marriage business. Leave the religious ceremonies to the religions. Instead, the government should grant civil unions. All consenting adults who'd like to enter into a civil contract could get one. If those same adults then to choose to sanctify their relationship through a religious ceremony, they can find a church that will perform that ceremony. Individual churches could then decide what constitutes marriage under their dogma.
There...problem solved. Next?
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 3:31PM
Duff,
If brothers and sisters want a civil union, is that okay? What about fathers and daughters, mothers and sons?
Can a woman get multiple civil unions to both men and women? How would the divorce laws change?
And don't get me started with that crazy woman whose chimp mauled her neighbor. Can she and Bubbles have a CU?
Problem not solved, Duff. Next?
Duff| 7.12.10 @ 3:51PM
Nick,
What prevents all those things now? Current laws already prevent incest and polygamy. Current law also deals with inter family marriages. The same would/could apply to civil unions. I'm also fairly certain that relationships between humans and animals could be easily dealt with. Is that you Mr Santorum?
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 4:11PM
Duff,
No, I am Nick. From Detriot.
Yes, current laws prohibit incest and polygamy, but on what basis? Are you being purely arbitrary, or do you have reasons why these "consenting adults" can be discriminated against?
Are you going to allow homos to have civil unions, but deny them to the groups that I listed in my post, above? What is the logic behind this discrimination?
Duff| 7.12.10 @ 4:52PM
Incest is illegal because of the genetic output of incestuous relationships. That deals with most of your issues.
I don't really have much of a problem with polygamy. It's not illegal for a man to keep a girlfriend shacked up in an apartment. Why is it illegal if he then marries the girl? The only substantial difference is a ceremony. I certainly wouldn't want to be one of 4 or 5 husbands or have 2-3 wives. I have enough trouble with just one. I see no good reason why it's illegal other than "the Supreme Court doesn't like it". We also don't have more than a handful of Salt Lake citians who would like to have the right to be in polygamous realtionships. Perhaps if the outcry were greater, there'd be more said about it. Maybe some hard core Old Testament Christian fundamentalists will decide that polygamy is their religious right. Then we could see some action, Nick from Detroit.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 5:19PM
Duff,
I see that you have really done a lot of deep thinking about this subject......NOT!
You wrote: "All consenting adults who'd like to enter into a civil contract could get one."
That was ALL consenting adults. Now, it is only SOME consenting adults.
Adultery was illegal in every state, not that long ago, by the way.
PolishKnight| 7.13.10 @ 8:25AM
Duff, the same logic "incest is illegal because of the genetic output of genetic relationships" is the same one used against homosexual marriage: Gays are not able to naturally have children.
What about incestuous relationships where the couple cannot or does not want to conceive?
The gay-marriage logic and rallying cry: "ANY two consenting adults!" quickly breaks down and then the waffling begins: "Well, by "any" I really mean according to MY definitions but that's not like YOUR "arbitrary" man-and-woman thing!"
How? How is "man and woman" any less "arbitrary" than "two consenting adults?"
Duff| 7.13.10 @ 11:04AM
PK,
How is "man and woman" any less arbitrary than "two consenting adults"? Well, let's start with the "adults" part. As a practical matter, it's been decided that citizens must reach a certain age, 18 years, before they can legally make decisions for themselves. The "consenting" part is easy. If the other person does not consent, a crime is being committed. "Any consenting adult" is about as broad as possible. I don't see a way to be less arbitrary than that.
I get your point and agree to a certain extent, especially wrt to incest and polygamy. There really is no good law based prohibition against those two sorts of relationships. Having said that, there's already legal protection for family members in terms of death benefits, visitation rights, etc. The only benefit they wouldn't derive is the tax benefit.
From a liberty stand point, shouldn't we, as adult American citizens, be allowed to enter into a binding contract with any consenting adult we choose? Give me a non-religious reason why we can't .
PolishKnight| 7.13.10 @ 2:56PM
Sure it's arbitrary or more specifically, ambiguous.
Can crimes be committed during a marriage even with consent of adults? What if the marriage is fake (such as a green card marriage where the couple has no intention of co-habitating?)
The gay marriage argument that "it's about two consenting adults" to imply that they're both being broad minded AND more basic than the "man and a woman" is false. I love breaking it down and watching the "two consenting adults" believers waffle and then say: "oh, EXCEPT for incest. And Polygamy. And green card fake marriages..."
In answer to your challenge: If I enter into a binding contract to have you killed with an assassin, do you see a problem with it?
Aren't over-simplistic arguments neat?
PolishKnight| 7.13.10 @ 2:59PM
FYI, I also love the "two consenting adults" argument to imply that an age limit on marriage is a sure, simple moral safeguard of "consent."
Do children "consent" to a parent sending them to a rehab facility? Or play the piano? Or do chores? Or go to bed? If they don't, then are their rights, by definition, being violated?
Ton's o' fun. The problem with people attacking one assumption with another is that they often don't check to see if both of them are the one and same...
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 4:09PM
Duff,
Your problem is that you don't understand what a true marriage entails or the proper reasons for people to get married.
You have reduced marriage to a mere contract, an exchange of promises to be fulfilled by both parties. It is much more than that.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 12:26PM
Duff
My wife and I got married 30 years ago this past May by a justice of the peace. No religion involved, thank god.
EJP| 7.12.10 @ 4:42PM
Those who bash the Biblical perspective on homosexual conduct frequently mention Leviticus, but strangely have less to say about how it comes up in God's New Covenant, the New Testament, which for Christians does supplant many of the laws of the Old Testament no longer necessary as a result of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
In Corinthians, Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is presented not as a passage focusing *exclusively* on such conduct but in the context of categorizing a long *list* of things we regard as sinful conduct. These include among other things those who are "drunkards", "liars" and "swindlers."
Now if the conduct is to be regarded as something irrelevant to today's Christian doctrine, then we would have to presume the occasion is there to say that the sins of being a liar or swindler (the corporate bigshot who raids his company's money) are perhaps....no big deal either.
That isn't how it works.
RCV| 7.12.10 @ 11:00PM
Corinthians is a letter written by a human being (that's all it means, from "epistole" transliterated from Greek). St Paul was a wise and, for his time, radically progressive man. But his time was 2000 years ago, and he was infected with the same prejudices of most of that age. Contrast his words with those of Jesus himself, who Never uttered a word on the subject. Instead, Jesus focused on the real sins of man: indifference to the poor, judgment of others, and greed.
John II| 7.12.10 @ 11:39PM
You left out lust (Matt. 5:28), anger (Matt. 5:21-25), smug preoccupation with social justice (Matt. 26:11), and indifference to the order of worship (Mark 12:30 and Matt. 22:24), among many, many other teachings of Jesus that you may perhaps find inconvenient. So the question is: which parts of the Gospel do we ignore when we're behaving like children of our own time?
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 12:23PM
How many prisoners did you visit this week, John II? How many beggars did you give you cloak to? How many AIDS patients in hositals did you comfort? I'd bet a lot that the list of Gospel commands you ignore is long; stop being so self-righteous and start casting the beams out of your own eyes before turning to others.
John II| 7.14.10 @ 12:50PM
What are you talking about? Was Jesus being "self-righteous" when he ranted against the corruption of children or when he drove the merchants out of the Temple or when he scolded Peter or, for that matter, when he chided Martha for her complaints against Mary?
On the other hand, are you being "self-righteous" when you respond with an infantile tu quoque utterly off-point? What the hell's the matter with you, anyhow?
And now back to my daily practice of abusing beggars for not working.
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 10:11PM
He's God. He gets to judge people; it's His job. It's way above your pay grade, however.
Nick| 7.12.10 @ 11:46PM
RCV,
That is just more of the typical liberal revisionism of Christianity, that is so much in vogue today.
The Romans and Greeks had no problem with homosexual acts. Zeus, later Jupiter, was a pederast, who kidnapped the young Ganymede to have as his lover. Other male gods had sex with young boys.
Saint Paul, following Christ, was very "radical" for the times. So were all the Apostles. They were not "progressive" however. They were instituting God's plan for humanity, which started in Eden with Adam and Eve.
It is you liberals, RCV, who are trying to turn back the clock, not us Christians. You guys are trying to take us back 2,000 years, to an age when abortion was accepted; when homosexual acts were permited, even by the gods; and human dignity was unknown.
It was a barbaric time. Only by the Grace of Our Lord, did that world disappear. But, not totally.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 12:02AM
Sorry, Nick, but I'm a card-carrying and weekly church-going Christian myself. It is human dignity itself that I try to uphold. Thousands of years ago, there was indeed pederasty and slavery and misogyny. God appeared incarnate on earth in Christ and taught us to really love and respect one another, and stop judging other people's behavior and pretending to focus on rules and rituals while mistreating our fellow human beings. That's the message of the Lord I have always tried to follow. You and I disagree on many particulars, but not on that basic Truth I hope.
John II| 7.13.10 @ 12:26AM
"God appeared incarnate on earth in Christ and taught us to really love and respect one another, and stop judging other people's behavior . . ."
Nice example of Nick's point. We are mandated as Christians not to judge OTHERS (Matt. 7:1); we are just as surely mandated to judge their behavior (Cf. rest of Gospel). That's surely among the hardest teachings of Christ--and you're trying to make it easy by distorting it.
Homosexual behavior is gravely disordered and wrong; as to homosexuals themselves, who knows? If you can't make the distinction, RCV, that's your problem; rather, it's a problem foisted on you by a culture to which you give undue deference and allegiance, which is not the Christian thing to do. Dig?
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 12:46AM
RCV,
Well, I regard "liberal Christianity" as an oxymoron. There is One Faith, One Baptism.
I know there are probably a million differences amongst Christians when it comes to defining dogma, but you can't just re-write or ignore commands from God.
I don't recall the part in the Gospel where Christ commanded us to "stop judging other people's behavior," though. He did say not to be a hypocrite when judging, and to "cast out first the beam out of your own eye, and then shall you see to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye."
Telling a drug addict that he is an addict and needs to stop, is what a Christian does. Telling a slut to stop sleeping around is also the Christian thing to do. So is telling homos that their acts are sinful.
It is not an act of Christian Charity to let someone wallow in their sin.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 12:11PM
No, I don't dig. Christ taught us to love and care for one another, and leave the judging to Him. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." None of us are without sin, even you, John II.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 12:15PM
Christ didn't go around calling people "sluts" and "homos", Nick.
And I feel the same way about "conservative Christianity", Nick, that you do about liberals - I don't find it very Christian.
Nick| 7.13.10 @ 4:35PM
RCV,
Christ was no shrinking violet.
Ever read the account of Him chasing out the money changers? Right after He said, "Judge not, that you may not be judged," He said, "Don't cast your pearls before swine." That seems rather harsh, does it not?
Try reading what Christ said to the Pharisees in the 23rd chapter of the Gospel of Saint Matthew. He calls them names over and over again, and lists all the evil deeds they have committed and their just punishment.
If you read the Gospels as a whole, not verses taken out of context, you get the entire picture of Christ. He was no pacifist, preaching "Don't hurt anyone's feelings."
My Christianity has been around for almost 2,000 years. Liberal's so-called Christianity hasn't even been around for a century, RCV.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 10:43PM
"My Christianity has been around for almost 2,000 years.". Oh, you mean the "Christianity" (sic) that burned heretics like Joan of Arc at the stake, that silenced Galileo and insisted people believe the sun revolved around the earth; the "Christianity" that demonized, ghettoized and spread blood libels about Jews; the "Christianity" that ran the Inquisition, tortured people for their beliefs, burned "witches" and enslaved natives throughout the Americas. Well, Nick, I'll stick with the Christianity I know and believe in and am proud of.
Nick| 7.14.10 @ 1:51AM
RCV,
You can't do any better than more liberal talking points?
Saint Joan was executed for military and political reasons, not Christian ones.
Galileo's mathematics were wrong, yet he taught his theory as if it was fact. This violated an agreement he made with the Pope. The Pope didn't insist that "people believe the sun revolved around the earth." Galileo also humiliated the Pope, which wasn't very smart.
I'm not sure what your referring to, regarding the Jews.
Abuses by the Inquisition happened at the local level, and had nothing to do with Christian teaching, but dealt with violations of ecclesiastical laws. The BBC, of all orginizations, made a documentary that showed the Inquisition was not even close to being as bad as it has been portrayed.
Also, the vision of Our Lady of Guadalupe kept millions of Central American Indians from warring and killing each other. The Inquisition had nothing to do with the conquistadors.
The "Christianity" you know and believe has no foundation in history or theology.
I noticed you had no rebuttal to my points about how Christ was not the namby-pamby preacher the left is trying recast Him as. Have you read all four Gospels completely?
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 10:28PM
Nick - I have read all the gospels, indeed all the Bible through, many times. Your defense of the abuses of the Church is as appalling as it is nonsense. Have you read all the accounts of Joan's trial? The focus was on the heretical nature of her visions; of course she was killed for tactical and political reasons - that's what the Church did and was for centuries -- a scheming, political and financial empire. And even the Vatican has now formally apologized for what it did to Galileo, so it's OK for you to follow the party line. I won't even comment on you profession of ignorance about the Church's shameful history of persecution of the Jews, or the assertion that the Virgin of Guadelupe somehow excuses the Church's shameful mistreatment of American natives.
I've read many, many accounts of the way ordinary Communists in the Soviet Union (and in America) actually convinced themselves of Stalin's innocence of his monstrous crimes because their ideology couldn't let them acknowledge the facts they knew to be true. It's something all adherents of a faith who simply accept doctrine unquestioningly share.
Nick| 7.15.10 @ 5:17PM
RCV,
Christ said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church. He didn't say the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against individuals in the Church.
You can't point to the failings of members of the Church and use it to condemn Christianity as a whole. Why are you a Christian anyway, if you won't accept ALL of Christianity, from the beginning?
On Saint Joan, you seem to be arguing with yourself. You agree with my statement, but still want to argue.
The Holy Father apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest, that is all. He didn't apologize for past Popes insisting that "people believe the sun revolved around the earth," as you falsely claimed was the case. Galileo claimed the planets made circular orbits, he was wrong. Pope John Paul II didn't say Galileo was right, scientifically.
Copernicus, who reintroduced the Pythagorean idea of heliocentrism, was a priest. Catholics had no problem with his theory. It was Luther and Melanchthon who condemned it. Church clerics, for the most part, were the scientists of that time.
You seem not to know that much about this case. Try reading this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The only treatment the Church had, concerning American Indians, was missionary and converting their souls. The Church is not responsible for the actions of individual Catholic laymen.
The same goes for the Jews. The wrong-doings of individual Christians do not prove that Chistianity is false.
It wasn't just communists, RCV, it was also liberals. They now run the democrat party, Hollywood, and the academy. They have always been known by Lenin's epithet: Useful Idiots.
Nick| 7.15.10 @ 5:25PM
Oh, forgot one thing.
Am I to assume you have given up the weak argument that Christ was never curt with people or that He taught we should "stop judging other people's behavior?"
Mark Anderson| 7.15.10 @ 1:08AM
Nick, you left out slavery.
Nick| 7.15.10 @ 5:30PM
Mr. Anderson,
Thanks!
Actually, I could have listed many practices that were contrary to God's plan for us. I just didn't have the time!
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 4:17AM
Your higher criticism is showing, RCV. Or is it merely your liberal theology? The Bible is God-breathed and self-authenticating. And there was nothing radically progressive about the Apostle Paul, although I can see how a liberal progressive today would want to believe that about him. And since Paul's words on the page were the words God inspired him to write, we can take it as coming from God himself that in Paul's epistles the many sins listed above are sins indeed. Moreover, if you want to get all theological, your whole life is nothing but sin unless you believe your sins are forgiven in Christ. Even then, it's still simul iustis et peccator, saint and sinner at the same time, until we cast off this mortal coil and enter our heavenly mansion which God is preparing for us, as He promises in His Word.
The sin Jesus focused on, contrary to your claim, was the sin of unbelief. I recommend to you Martin Luther's comments on the Ten Commandments found in the Book of Concord as a good place to start. Please note especially Luther's comments on the First Commandment.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 12:19PM
To me, treating Paul's words as God's is blasphemy, Darcy.
As for Martin Luther, please. The man was a virulent anti-semite. Though courageous in opposing church corruption, I find his moral authority on most any subject highly suspect.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 1:32PM
"The Bible is God-breathed and self-authenticating"
YOU WIN!! This is the new dumbest statement ever. Who goes there? It is I.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 1:52PM
Your words condemn you, RCV and Alex, the ever-present agnostic; or is it atheism you tout?
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 2:32PM
I tout nothing. It is you folks who tout.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 3:58PM
Oh? A nihilist then.
KyMouse| 7.13.10 @ 2:55PM
RCV, the New Testament says that Jesus said many, many more things than are recorded there (John 21:25).
Another thing to consider: Since Jesus is God, the commands against homosexuality that are in the Old Testament came from Him. (Did those commands come from His father instead? There is no indication whatsoever that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have ever disagreed with each other.) Jesus did not explicitly say in the N.T. that setting fire to buildings is wrong, but does the absence of that comment mean that He approved of it? No.
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 10:52PM
So, KyMouse, are you following all those proscriptions in the OT - ritual bathing, keeping Kosher, avoiding pork and shell fish, keeping yourself apart when menstruating, not wearing clothes made up of two kinds of fiber, not eating with non-Jews? Don't you follow ALL of God's commands in Leviticus? And if those were Jesus's rules, why did he consort with prostitutes, break bread with non-Jews, speak with Samaritans, and do things on the Sabbath that shocked strictly observant Jews?
KyMouse| 7.14.10 @ 7:38PM
RCV, you must have missed my comment above which said: ...the Bible reveals people as the sinners they are, warts and all. Many things that they think, do and say in the Bible are not what God wants, although in many cases He permits them, for one reason or another. King David, for example, lusted after another man's wife and arranged for him to be killed in battle.
Many things God commands in the Bible are for a certain place (e.g. ancient Israel), a certain people (ancient Hebrews worshipping in the Temple), and a certain time (B.C. into the first century A.D.). To determine whether His commands are valid for us today, we must see whether they concern ancient rituals, ancient civil laws, or moral laws.
In the case of moral laws, God's commands are not bound to ancient Hebrews in the time of the Temple. God still forbids everyone, everywhere, to commit murder, to steal, to commit adultery, etc.
His commands against same-sex lust and behavior never changed between Leviticus, written to the ancient Hebrews in about 1440 B.C., and I Corinthians, written to Jews and gentiles alike in Corinth in about 55 A.D. (also I Timothy, written circa 64 A.D.).
The Bible is the best interpreter or expositor of itself, and its warnings against homosexuality are consistent over the centuries and among the multicultural peoples it addresses.
There is forgiveness and a fresh start available by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I Corinthians 6:9-11 says, "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed [baptized], but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
I'll add here, RCV, that I keep the moral laws, with the Holy Spirit's assistance, but since I am not a Jew living in the days of the Temple, I don't keep the ceremonial (or civil) laws.
Jesus never condoned the sins of the people with whom He spoke, ate, socialized, etc., but He did assure them that He would forgive them if they trusted in Him. Today, He loves each of us sinners (including you and me) today just as much, and extends the same offer to us.
Mark Anderson| 7.15.10 @ 1:11AM
Kymouse, like your argument. Now tell me, which other parts of the Bible can I ignore?
xdf43| 7.12.10 @ 5:28PM
EJP,
Please reread Harry L and Anna K. from Emory University's remarks.
I think they are both saying that the Bible is flawed. Homosexuality is NOT a moral choice; instead, it is mostly genetically determined.
Gay people have a right to respect, and they are not going to sit back quietly and let the majority assign theb second class status. And neither would I, a straight woman with two children. I would demand fair treatment under the law, and I would not be ashamed of my sexual orientation.
LiveFreeOrDie| 7.13.10 @ 1:37PM
"Homosexuality...it is mostly genetically determined"
Mostly? ZERO evidence exists of any genetic marker that determines sexual behavior in ANY species.
Petronius| 7.12.10 @ 8:33PM
No law can force me to like anybody or approve of their behavior. So called civil rights and affirmative action laws are Unconstitutional. And they were created by Federal Judges. Nobody voted to legalize perversion until aging hippies became the biggest demographic in areas now totally saturated by cultural rot. The right to freely associate is a one way street in favor of the miscreants and lowlife. They invade our lives where I would not deign to invade theirs.
Give them their own state. The west coast from the Frisco Bay area south through the L.A. basin west of the Sierra Nevada shall be ceded to all sexual deviants and be renamed Perversia.
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 4:22AM
Very creative, Petronius, I must say.
Duff| 7.13.10 @ 11:21AM
Freedom's a bitch. Isn't it?
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 1:35PM
"They invade our lives where I would not deign to invade theirs."
How can you possibly say this when you religious whackos try to bring your myths into the real world? Do we or do we not have a day off in december to celebrate a myth? Is the day even the day your myth supposedly happened?
darcy| 7.13.10 @ 1:54PM
The atheist whacko has spoken.
Alex Gilmore| 7.13.10 @ 2:29PM
Good comeback.
Duff| 7.13.10 @ 4:56PM
It's all they have. They love freedom....right up to the point where it allows someone to do something they disapprove of on religious grounds. Then, Constitution be damned....
RCV| 7.12.10 @ 10:52PM
No one cares if you like or approve anyone's behavior. But all citizens deserve equal protection under the law. The Civil Rights Act and various state anti-discrimination laws weren't "created by federal judges"; they were passed by Congress and state legislatures. But Federal Judges have enforced the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, as they are required to do. How's about we give you your own county and call it Homophobia?
John II| 7.12.10 @ 11:43PM
Come off it, RCV. Your own smug blather in defense of pseudogamy indicates that you cultivate an acute case of logophobia. And if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, do something useful and bone up on your Greek.
Rush Youngberg| 7.13.10 @ 12:35AM
Should any person have the right to judge the behavior of any other person? Civil law is evidence that they should, in certain circumstances. Civil law is based upon rules of religion. Should rules of one's religion supercede civil law (Sharia). How is a religion or sect defined? Can a religious conviction (Mohammadism) supercede international law and sovereign nation law?
In criminal law, the defendent has the right to trial by jury, composed of his peers. Why does conviction under criminal law require 12 votes for conviction and not civil law? Who are his peers? Gender, race, ethnicity, education, occupation. Who determines what are "war crimes"? Should the Hague or the UN determine international law? Should girls be allowed to wrestle on boy's teams and boys on girl's teams? Should a hermaphrodite run in the Olympics as a boy or girl? Do homosexuals have a right to join the Boy Scouts?
Why is prostitution legal only in Nevada?
I believe that the definition of marriage is controversial beyond religious beliefs. I am not aware of a country in which the definition of "marriage" is other than heterosexual. However, civil laws can be changed. These changes whether by legislatures or voters are decided by majority.
I believe that the controversy is based on "if this, what else" and should the majority pay for the preferences of the majority (abortion, marriage benefits)? Where do you draw the line, so to speak?
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 5:50PM
The current list of countries in which the definition of marriage encompasses homosexual as well as heterosexual couples is: Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Sweden and South Africa.
John II| 7.13.10 @ 7:32PM
The current list of countries in which state-sanctioned infanticide is practiced is much longer. So what's your point?
RCV| 7.13.10 @ 10:58PM
My "point" was simply to address Rush's statement that, "I am not aware of a country in which the definition of 'marriage' is anything other than heterosexual.". I was making him aware of 8 such countries, and I forgot to include Portugal.
John II| 7.14.10 @ 12:53PM
Oh.
D. Singh| 7.13.10 @ 4:14AM
Sir
You state:
‘For if there is no moral difference between opposing same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, then the majority of Americans – and their religious traditions, some of which show no signs of changing – are morally equivalent to racists.’
What a strange juxtaposition: same sex marriage versus interracial marriage.
In such a context the difference cannot be on moral grounds but on genetically determined grounds: race is genetically determined whilst sexual orientation is not.
The moral agent ought not to oppose that which another cannot help (race).
The moral objection is between the effects of same sex and traditional marriage.
If the traditional marriage has the same status as the former; then, there is no valid reason as to why a man cannot marry his horse or establish a polygamous marriage (or any other combination that attracts one’s flight of fancy).
The implications for the second generation and society are a matter for American social scientists, police chiefs and economists to think through.
EJP| 7.13.10 @ 6:10PM
The thing that gives me a chuckle in regards to RCV's condemning of the Apostle Paul because of what he says in regards to homosexual behavior (in passing while listing other sins of which there has been no call for tossing out), is that he falls back on the notion of Paul being just a nobody man. If that were the case, then how strange that our Lord and Savior would have chosen to appear to him specifically on the Road to Damascus and entrust him with the message of spreading the Gospel. So in short, to bash Paul, by extension means bashing Christ Himself for his evident bad judgment in selecting Paul.
RCV| 7.14.10 @ 11:56AM
He was hardly a "nobody man" - I've acknowledged his wisdom and piety. But he was a man, imperfect and sinful like the rest of us. Jesus was well aware of the weaknesses and human-ness of all of his disciples, as the Gospels make clear.
Matt| 7.15.10 @ 12:03PM
The unasked question is -- Why is government involved in marriage in the first place? Your taxes are filed jointly, or they're not. Why are there limits on beneficiaries? You name them in your will or power of attorney or you don't. The government has no place in the private lives of citizens. The mainstream of the left and the right want to expand the role of government to their own ends. Limited government means government that doesn't meddle in private affairs.
Stephen Fawcett| 7.15.10 @ 12:19PM
D Singh writes, as if it were a fact, that "race is genetically determined whilst sexual orientation is not."
This nonsense should not pass unchallenged. There is, in fact, a rising body of scientific evidence that sexual orientation may be genetically / hormonally encoded. The case is by no means concluded, but the vast complex which is sexuality has many triggers. 'D Singh' seems unaware of this.
In any case, this so-called debate is largely over. Talk to any kids in most communities and we see the same phenomenon, over and over. They now have friends who are openly gay, perfectly well-adjusted, and well-regarded members of their groups. 50 years ago, they had problems making inter-racial friendships. Today, they do not.
And today, they grow up with openly gay friends in every sector and -- guess what? They are unafraid. They are respectful, and tolerant.
The 'cultural war' re acceptance of gays is over. Our own kids have found the way. They're over it, and some of us are not.
In any case, "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" remains bedrock conservatism. And rightly so.