This week the politicians in DC are debating an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I am a little frustrated over this debate.
First off, most people realize that the Senate does not have the votes to pass the bill. So essentially the public is being forced to watch a show in which everyone already knows the conclusion. Unfortunately, this debate is the only way republicans know how to stem the tide of evaporating support among conservatives. The first rule of politics is to reach out to your base when you're in trouble. But with no real intention of actually solving the proposed problem I don't think it's going work. It looks incredibly self serving and explains why the public is so cynical and has such a low view of politicians.
Secondly, I am tired of the argument that is thrust out as the reason we need this amendment. It seems like all we hear is that gay marriage is an assault on traditional marriagethat we need this amendment to protect marriage. What crap. The reason they want the amendment is because they don't want the government to put their stamp of approval on a lifestyle that the bible defines as sinful. It's not politically correct to call homosexuality sinful but this is really why people are opposed to gay marriage. It has very little to do with traditional marriage. In fact, I would wager that the divorce rate will be completely uneffected regardless if gay marriage is banned or not banned.
One of the good things and bad things about our country is that people are free to choose what behavior they want engage in. My goal as a Christian should not be to outlaw sin in the law but to change people's hearts by pointing out why I think their behavior is morally questionable or harmful. Banning gay marriage will be a political victory but it will do very little in stopping the trend of homosexuality becoming an accepted part of american culture. That decision will be made in people's hearts not in the halls of Congress.
If the politicians were serious about "protecting marriage" they would rewrite the divorce laws to make it much tougher to get a divorce. Divorce is well documented to be harmful to children and is clearly spelled out as sinful in the bible. It seems like we should do all we can to prevent it. No fault divorce has allowed for people to simply walk away from marriage for any reason. In fact a lot of young people now have trial marriages where they get married to see if they like it. If it works, they stay married and have kids and if they don't like being married, they just walk away from it and begin looking for their next spouse.
The other threat to marriage is co-habitation or as older people call it "shacking up". I am amazed how many people live together before they get married or instead of getting married. This idea is based on the same idea as a trial marriage but without the messy paperwork and fancy ceremony. Many of these couples never get married even though many of them have kids together before they split up. But even if those living together do choose to get married, the statistics say that those couples have a much higher rate of divorce than those who do not live together beforehand. To me this lifestyle is a much greater threat to marriage than gay marraige. Why don't we simply vote to make this living together before marriage illegal because the bible calls this lifestyle sinful as well?
The reason Congres does not take on these issues is because many of the politicians are guilty of these choices themselves . It would also be unpopular with the public because it would be telling a large majority of people that what their doing is sinful. That is not a recipe for reelection and the reality is that Congress cares much more about preserving their own power than preserving marriage.
3 comments:
Fetz, you forget that among other things, the law is a teacher. The main purposes of government, according to holy scripture, is to restrain sin and crime. Sodomy and several other sins used to be prohibited by our nation's laws. Obviously that doesn't eliminate the behavior; the law is broken all too frequently. However, the law states our goals and values.
If we remove speed limits because they discriminate against people with heavy feet, traffic chaos will ensue. Speed limit laws reflect the need to preserve order, they codify our high value of human life, and promote healthy traffic flow.
The marriage protection amendment would preserve order, codify our high value of marriage, and promote healthy relationships. The proposed amendment only refers to the marriage of one mand and one woman. It doesn't specifically mention homosexuality or gay marriage at all, so how can you say that it has little to do with traditional marriage?
You are probably right though about the divorce rate. In the Netherlands where gay marriage has been sanctioned by the government, the divorce rate has remained fairly level, but the marriage rate itself has dropped significantly. The institution of marriage becomes worthless when any combination of men, women, animals, objects, etc are allowed to marry. So for the Dutch, an expanded legal definition of marriage has resulted in people, including the homosexuals, not even bothering to marry. They just shack up as you said. It is also obvious that homosexuals don't want to stop at gaining the right to marry each other. Their agenda is the devaluation of marriage entirely and the removal of all limits regarding sex.
So we MUST legally protect the definition of marriage as one man and one woman if we want hope of preserving marriage at all. With liberal activist judges running wild, our only option is to pass a Consitutional amendment.
You are right on about no-fault divorce. We've come along way with our protection of domestic violence victims and that was probably the only scenario that no-fault divorce had any value when those laws were passed. Those laws also cheapen the institution of marriage.
Remember that a significant part of the moral corruption of the Roman Empire was homosexuality. That nation crumbled from within. "Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it."
One of the good things and bad things about our country is that people are free to choose what behavior they want engage in. My goal as a Christian should not be to outlaw sin in the law but to change people's hearts by pointing out why I think their behavior is morally questionable or harmful. Banning gay marriage will be a political victory but it will do very little in stopping the trend of homosexuality becoming an accepted part of american culture. That decision will be made in people's hearts not in the halls of Congress."
Well said!
Hey Fetz
I can't say I agree with your take. I thought about formulating my own reply but then came across this on the First Things Blog:
Keep in mind, too, the number of senators who voted against FMA because, they said, they were relying on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by President Clinton in 2001. That act defines marriage, for all purposes of federal law, as a union between a man and a woman. If, these senators said, the courts undid DOMA, then they would possibly move to support the FMA. Of course, the top court in Massachusetts has already mandated same-sex marriage for that state, but it is said that Massachusetts is eccentric and hardly a harbinger of things to come in other states. That is a consoling thought that may turn out to be a delusion.
But back to Marc Stern. Writing in the New York Sun, he says: “Proponents of same-sex marriage rest their case largely on claims of toleration. In a diverse society, their argument goes, government should not impose a particular and restrictive moral vision on the whole society.” He ends his reflection with this:
Tolerance ought to be a two-way street. A vibrant tolerance would allow for formal recognition of same-sex relationships and their acceptance in the secular economy and (as far as possible) the right of persons with moral and religious views to refuse to accept those relationships as valid in their own lives and institutions. In keeping with the current degraded status of American political debate, proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage each seek total victory. We would all be better off if, for once, the extremists did not capture the debate.
This way of putting the question is riddled with problems. It is not a question of government imposing “a particular and restrictive moral vision.” Marriage and family long precede this government or any other existing government. It is pre-political. It is a question of government recognizing, respecting, and legally protecting an institution essential to human flourishing. Is marriage between one man and one woman “restrictive”? Of course it is. Just as the definition of any institution, or anything else for that matter, is restrictive. It is this and therefore it is not that. There may be all kinds of relationships, including legal relationships, between two men, two women, or any combination of any number of men and women. But to call such relationships “marriage” is to indulge in word games. Humpty Dumpty and his claim that words mean whatever he says they mean should have no place in a rational legal order.
Stern rightly observes, “When same-sex marriage is legalized, support for same-sex marriage will be fundamental public policy too.” He goes on to hope that there will be legal exemptions for people and institutions that have moral and religious objections to same-sex marriage. That is highly unlikely. Fundamental public policy means policy enforced by law, as in laws against racial discrimination.
The proponents of same-sex marriage know this perfectly well. Already, Marc Stern notes, the code of ethics of the American Psychological Association regarding homosexuality excludes those who think there may be a problem with homosexuality. That is but a small part of it. People are being fired from jobs in the public and private sectors for publicly suggesting that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it). Students are disciplined for dissenting from the propaganda of “gay weeks” in public schools.
For fear of discrimination suits, major law firms exclude from personnel committees anybody who is known to have incorrect thoughts about what Mencken called non-Euclidian sexual acts. The courts have already declared that “prejudice” with respect to homosexuality has no “rational basis.” Marc Stern hopes that dissenting institutions, such as churches and synagogues, will be permitted to keep their tax exemptions. Maybe so, although some may wonder why religious leaders, officially certified as irrational, should not be committed for therapy.
“Tolerance ought to be a two-way street.” You let us radically change the definition of marriage for the whole society, and we will not punish you–or at least we will not take away your tax exemption–if you continue to say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. You tolerate our intolerance of what societies from time immemorial have meant by marriage, and we will tolerate, within limits, your morally contemptible eccentricity in continuing to say that that is what marriage means. Give us the legal power to enforce our will, and we promise to respect, under a kind of grandfather clause, your expression of unenlightened dissent in private. Some two-way street.
Of course, the proponents of same-sex marriage do not really expect the American people to surrender so obligingly. They are looking to the courts to “impose a particular and restrictive moral vision on the whole society”–their moral vision, which very specifically excludes a very different moral vision of sexuality, marriage, and family. Marc Stern is apparently prepared to live under a regime of dhimmitude in which he and like-minded dissenters will, he hopes, not be treated too harshly. One would like to believe that most Americans and their political representatives will, in the time that remains, recognize the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment, or something very much like it.
Since I could not say it better myself, I won't try.
Yours
John
Post a Comment