"The US Senate's failure to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment this week is gutless and appalling."So here is my question, which several people have asked me recently and I think deserves an answer - if the ban on same sex marriages is to promote the sanctity of marriage, why are we not passing congressional ammendments making divorce illegal.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives Are Losing on Gay Rights:"After the Senate's rejection of the Marriage Protection Amendment Wednesday, supporters tried to portray it as nothing more than a temporary setback. "We are making progress," announced Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, noting that since the last vote two years ago, 14 states have approved bans on same-sex marriage."
I would say that the fact that 50% of American weddings (Christian and non-Christian) does more to damage the sanctity of marriage than letting some dude marry another dude. I don't agree with their actions, but what good will a constitutional ammendment really do?
I guess if it's passed, tomorrow we won't have to worry about sodomy any more. People will just give it up and change their ways... just like they've done with illegal drugs, alcohol during prohibition, abortion and every other time we've tried to legislate morality.
10 comments:
Divorce is a serious problem and opportunity for churches. Divorce happens so frequently that that many have become calloused to it. Others may have accepted it as a normal part of life.
The opportunity exist on several fronts.
1. Minister (reach out) to those hurt by divorce. Just because more people are crying doesn't mean the hurt is not real.
2. Teach about the holiness and ideals, and advantages of a good Christian marriage. Offer guidance to couples who are married and want to stay married.
3. Offer covenant marriage and serious mariage counselling to those who are thinking about marriage.
4. Instruct people how to pray and to make God welcome in their homes.
Divorce is necessary in some situations where abuse, adultery, and drug addition is taking place.
True - but in the "Land of the Free" where all men are created equal - shouldn't all be able to live equally and have the same rights as others?
I think if we're going to ban same sex marriages and benefits for same sex couples, they should be banned for everyone.
And can someone give me a reason, other than a Biblical/morality argument that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry. I know all the Biblical/moral issues at hand.
Last time I checked, homosexual people are only about 2% (or less) in the general population in the US. Perhaps that percentage has increased dramatically because somehow everyone has turned gay after watching a movie, a TV show, or reading a book. Placing the same sex marriage at the political debate issue/candidate selection is ridiculous (if not stupid). Besides (as people are awared) divorce and others factors (such as co-habited without marriage, single moms, adultry,....) are more damages to the holiness of marriage (if marriage is such as holy as Christian believed).
From e-mail:
Jonathan:
I just read your blog entry.
You asked : "what good will a constitutional amendment really do?"
My answer: It will keep homosexuals from getting "married" under one state's laws and then moving to another state and demanding legal recognition there. That's what they are aiming to do.
"I guess if it's passed, tomorrow we won't have to worry about sodomy any more. People will just give it up and change their ways... just like they've done with illegal drugs, alcohol during prohibition, abortion and every other time we've tried to legislate morality."
Oh, come on, Jonathan. :)
"Legislate" morality? What a worn phase. All laws legislate and reflect someone's morality. The question is whether they will reflect the morality of the well-organized 2% of Americans who are homosexual -- or whether they will reflect the morality of the majority of Americans.
More from e-mail conversations:
On 6/12/06, Jonathan Blundell (jonathan@one21media.com) wrote:
Why don't we pass an amendment against divorce to REALLY protect the sanctity of marriage?
--
The difference is that there is widespread public support for the Marriage Amendment.
Obviously, there would not be widespread public support for outlawing divorce. "Covenant Marriage" initiatives (Louisiana) have passed as an option in some places.
I think "no fault divorce" has lead to an increase in divorces. Bail out for any reason -- including "incompatibility." Try it and if it doesn't work, then bail with "no consequences."
Baloney.
--
On 6/13/06, Jonathan Blundell (jonathan@one21media.com) wrote:
There was also widespread support for slavery and denying blacks and women the right to vote.
Just because there's widespread support doesn't make it right.
Sometimes things that don't have widespread support are the right thing to do.
--
Methinks you are playing devil's advocate.
Of course I do agree with your point. There are some things that are right and somethings that are wrong -- regardless of what the majority thinks.
Back to the issue of marriage. Whether recognized by a majority or not, there is good reason to believe that homosexual conduct is immoral and government endorsement of homosexual conduct is also immoral.
In response to some of the items above.
I just don't think that in America you can legislate your morality over another person.
If we do that, what makes us different from Iran or other Muslim ruled countries?
America is the land of the free.
Many of the first Americans came here to escape religious persecution and now "the religious right" is trying to persecute others because they're not "Christian enough" or not following our guidelines for morality.
I still don't agree with people's behavior, but I don't think that gives me the right to limit their access to rights that I have as an American citizen.
Take away state benefits for married couples and you get rid of the 99% of the arguement for same sex marriages.
I believe we can argue for certain laws and legislation without pulling out the moral card (whether its a moral issue or not).
I believe abortion should be illegal because you're stepping on the rights of the unborn child - who doesn't have a say so.
I think school/student-led prayer in school should be illegal because I don't want to give a Wican or an Athiest the right to tell my kids how to pray or who to pray too.
I don't mind a moment of silence, but I think when we start allowing people to lead a prayer we end up opening the opportunity for anyone to lead the prayer (i.e. The Wican led prayer at the Dallas City Council in 2000).
Free speech should be free speech no matter what you're saying, because as soon as you limit what someone else says, they have every right to legislate and limit what you say.
So in the spirit of free speech, keep adding your comments and thoughts to the discussion and feel free to remain anonymous or e-mail me your thoughts and I can post them for you (how'd you like that transition).
More from e-mail:
Man, you have opened up a can of worms....just what you love doing....right!
Do you really believe everything you say, or are you just putting out other thoughts to get people to respond?
I agree with several of your points....but remember, there is nothing wrong with having moral/faith based opinions as your only opinion on an issue. In fact, I think that is the best reason of all to either support or not support a view. I like to try to determine, "What would Christ do? What would He say about this?" can't go wrong there. Of course, different people may interpret how Christ would respond differently, but those using Him as their guide for decision making don't usually differ too much. There is usually always 2 ( or more) sides to everything, and it is great when we can discuss the various issues without being critical of the people who differ from us....just critical of their viewpoint. Personally, I can't support gay marriages because someday I don't what to try to explain that decision to Christ. He calls homosexuality a sin, so who am I to change that viewpoint and support gay marriages? Gays still have all the rights that any single adult has. America is the land of the free....but we are not free to do anything and everything regardless of the consequences.
More from e-mail:
You wrote: "I just don't think that in America you can legislate your morality over another person."
Au contrair, Jonathan-- we can and do legislate morality all the time.
Why do you speak as if laws are morally neutral?
You wrote: "If we do that, what makes us different from Iran or other Muslim ruled countries?"
There's a lot that makes us different. We are founded on a different moral system. We are founded by people who believed the principles in the Scripture and based our system of government on those principles.
"America is the land of the free."
Indeed, it has been rightly said that Christ makes us free indeed.
We enjoy many liberties because of the wisdom and sacrifice of our forebears.
You wrote: "Many of the first Americans came here to escape religious persecution."
Agreed.
You wrote that "now 'the religious right' is trying to persecute others because they're not "Christian enough" or not following our guidelines for morality. "
I strongly disagree.
Webster said to persecute is to "pursue in a manner to injure, vex or afflict; to harass with unjust punishment or penalties for supposed offenses; to inflict pain from hatred or malignity."
Secondarily, Webster said that persecution is "to afflict, harass, or destroy for adherence to a particular creed or system of religious principles, or to a mode of worship. Thus Nero persecuted the Christians by crucifying some, burning others, and condemning others to be worried by dogs."
I don't see any persecution going on. Sure, the law pursues thieves, rapists and others.
Should a thief can complain that he's being persecuted if his moral beliefs say it's okay to do it?
You wrote: "I still don't agree with people's behavior, but I don't think that gives me the right to limit their access to rights that I have as an American citizen."
What rights are you talking about? Are you talking about the inalienable ones our founders believed to be granted by the God of the Bible?
You wrote: "Take away state benefits for married couples and you get rid of the 99% of the arguement for same sex marriages."
Not at all.
The homosexuals want to be declared "legitimate."
They don't just want to be tolerated.
They want endorsement. They want approval.
You wrote:: "I believe we can argue for certain laws and legislation without pulling out the moral card (whether its a moral issue or not)."
Hogwash. :)
You are the one who suggested that laws can be neutral.
The founding of our nation was not neutral. Our constitution is not without a moral basis in a Christian worldview. That's a worldview in which God is respected and people are regarded as having inherent rights because they are created by God.
You wrote: "I believe abortion should be illegal because you're stepping on the rights of the unborn child - who doesn't have a say so."
Doesn't sound morally neutral to me.
"I think school/student-led prayer in school should be illegal because I don't want to give a Wican or an Athiest the right to tell my kids how to pray or who to pray too."
I understand your pragmatism in the current environment where people no longer honor God as we have historically.
Our forebears would not have thought of depriving God of any credit, acknowledgement, or honor that is due him.
The subject of "giving honor to Whom honor is due" is not morally neutral.
"I don't mind a moment of silence, but I think when we start allowing people to lead a prayer we end up opening the opportunity for anyone to lead the prayer (i.e. The Wican led prayer at the Dallas City Council in 2000)."
This is a pragmatic argument.
"Free speech should be free speech no matter what you're saying, because as soon as you limit what someone else says, they have every right to legislate and limit what you say."
I think your generalization doesn't always apply. Sometimes there are adverse consequences for the irresponsible use of the tongue.
Whether its inciting violence, yelling "fire" in a theater, or using words as a corrupting influence around minors, there are limits to "free speech."
Your slippery slope argument is a pragmatic one crafted to deal with the extreme pluralism in our country today.
The Founders of our nation -- the framer's of our republic -- would not have seen it that way
This issue has really gotten under my skin. And I have a few comments.
While marriage is a hot religious topic at the moment a lot of people forget that the current act of marriage is regulated by the state. It offers the ability for loved ones to be on your insurance, it makes buying large items on credit easier and it allows you to see your loved ones in dire situations (ER, Hospital) not to mention make medical decisions in the event of an emergency.
Marriage stopped being holy a very long time ago. Except for those who choose to get married for religious and moral reasons...okay I'll say it:love, procreation and sex. That's why people who are religious get married.
Non religious people get married for love and kids too, but most get married because of the kids, not for them.
Those against "gay marriage" are against giving the same rights to people who love someone based upon who they love.
I agree with Jonathan. Let's just go back to having slavery, no suffrage for women or blacks. The arguments against those items are somewhat the same as those against "gay marriage". Slavery was okay in the biblical times...God didn't say it was against him to have slaves. Women were to be subserviant to their men and not speak until spoken to. While the bible isn't against blacks, I'm sure some Right wing * could come up with an argument against them.
Can I remind you all once again...that you don't have the right to judge. That is for God to do. And the one person who stated they don't want to have to answer to God for supporting gay marriage. You my friend have made the smartest comment I've heard on the subject.
But, if you just look at it as allowing rights for every American Citizen then you won't have to answer to supporting something against God. Every arguement against "gay marriage" is a religious one. Last time I checked...we were a country of religious tolerance. And guess what...there are gay Christians out there. You may not see them as "real" Christians...but who is to say God doesn't.
Have you ever done something against God? Questioned a life event? Cursed? Gotten drunk? Eaten a non-healthy diet? Inhaled? Wanted a buddy's (insert item here)? Until you can say you've never ever ever done something against God, shut up. Period.
Homosexualtiy, damaging one's temple, coveting, gluttony, etc. All of that is against God.
Jon, I don't mean to incite anything, but with my past with the church (everyone I attended mind you) and how I was treated and the double standard I was subjected to it just really irritates me when religious reasons are applied to certain areas of life, and not all.
I keep hearing about the "good ole' days" of America - but can't help but wonder if they were really "good ole' days."
Can we really claim they were good ole days when we had seperate water fountans for race, or people weren't allowed to vote because of their race or gender, or when we had a system of enslaving one group of people because of the color of their skin?
Post a Comment