With all of the gay marriage news and the NC anti-cohabitation statute and subsequent lawsuit, the idea of legislating morality is coming to the forefront of the public debate.
Is is both constitutional and morally right to “legislate morality” and if so how much is too much?
It is ridiculous to take the position that it is either unconstitutional or wrong to legislate some type of morality on to the populace of America. Every law, every statute, every decision made by lawmakers has to do with some person’s or some group of people’s version of morality. You cannot escape legislating morality. The only question is whose morality do we legislate and how much of it do we establish in our law.
I believe the North Carolina law outlawing cohabitation to be silly and outdated. I do not think the morality of cohabitating has changed, but I do think the culture has changed. I believe morality based laws can and should be changed as the morality of the culture changes, but that process is not through the judiciary. The correct and constitutional way to change laws is and always has been through the legislature. This column by a local radio talk show host sums up this position well.
The gay marriage is a tricky issue, even though some may not see it that way. I am leaning more and more to the creation of some type of “civil union” recognition for several reasons.
I do not think gay marriage is possible. Just as dry water and hot cold is an impossibility, so gay marriage is to me. Marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Any other combination outside of those perameters would cease to be marriage. So it is not possible for any government to create gay marriage because the definition of marriage excludes any and all other relationships except for the current situation.
I do feel that those who give constitutional arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage or civil unions have a point. I do not believe that gay marriage is a guaranteed right directly from the Constitution. I’m sure if you wanted to find the right there you could, just like in Roe v. Wade. But by simply reading the Constitution one does find a right to marriage for any person. It is common sense that marriage is something a soceity would want to have to help in stabalizing the populace, but it is not a right afforded to US citizens from the Constitution. The point that those arguing for civil unions or gay marriage have is based on the current interpretation of the Constitution. The way the Constitution has been viewed in the past 50 years or so would in fact deem some type of recognition for gay couples as neccessary.
Finally, the biggest reason I see to allow some type of recogntion is the damage this is causing the Church of Jesus Christ, especially in America. “Gay bashing” is used as a club to continually pound any and all Christians who dare to oppose anything put forth by the liberal gays. The reason the club is there for the taking is because so many Christians fashion it lovingly with their own hands. It is almost as if we enjoy fashioning the crucifixion nails.
Dozens of Christian leaders rail and scream of the dangers of the “homosexual agenda,” but far fewer spend the same amount of energy decrying the present evil of divorce that is ruining marriage currently. We don’t have to wait for some far off gay danger to the sanctity of marriage, Southern Baptist Brittney Spears (ugh I hate to even say that) is doing more harm to marriage than dozens of committed gay couples could ever dream of doing.
Josh at the Conjecturer has made many nice points on this issue. While he may be a farther along the line toward gay marriage than I am, his comments as it pertains to Christians relationships with gay people are often dead on. Here is one of his more potent quotes:
Too many Christians are content to write off gays as evil, as worthless, as abominations, that often I lose hope that the original message of Christ, His grace and the redemption from sin, has been totally lost. Certain kinds of sin, like lying, are fine to talk about and confess, but something “serious,” like being gay, is this Huge Deal. That’s just wrong, it’s a total denial of Christ’s ministry on Earth. Jesus spent his time among the outcasts of society, among the ones deemed irredeemable or untouchable by the religious elites.
Could the Christian community not reach countless more gay people with the message of Christ if they saw us not as their enemies, but people who are only trying to do what they think is best in the long run? If we could explain our actions a little more clearly and a lot more lovingly, how much of a difference would that make?
The catch (as always) is to speak the truth in love. Neither can be sacrificed in favor of the other. The truth of God as given to us in the Bible cannot be trampled over in order to have people like us more. But we also cannot use the truth as a weapon to crush our “enemies.”
Our battle is not against gay people or even the homosexual agenda. Our battle is and has always been a spiritual war. Is it possible the best strategic move in this spritual war is to sacrifice this skirmish in order to let the grace of Christ regin in our lives. Often I wonder if the social or cultural conservative Christian is more interested in winning this political battle than we are with winning souls.
I don’t know the right answer, but I do know that our current strategy is not effective in reaching souls for Christ. Sure we may win a cultural battle here or there, but for all this truth we are speaking where are the fruits, not the political scalps, but the spiritual fruits of lives being won to Christ and changed for His glory?
“The only question is whose morality do we legislate and how much of it do we establish in our law.”
Yes, that’s the rub. Just how do we go about determining whose morality gets on the law books? I think there are some laws which are enacted solely to organize society and avoid chaos (such as laws regarding use of automobiles, land use, bandwidth use, etc.). However, as you point out, there are laws which govern personal behavior, choices and interpersonal relationships, which seem to be covered by the term “morality.” Some things are pretty much agreed upon by all (ie, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.), while others have various – sometimes contradictory – viewpoints behind them (ie, sexual practices, abortion, drug use, censorship & freedom of expression, etc.), and still others involve penalties (ie, the death penalty).
“I believe morality based laws can and should be changed as the morality of the culture changes, but that process is not through the judiciary. The correct and constitutional way to change laws is and always has been through the legislature.”
There are two issues here: the first is rather surprising coming from you, Aaron – an Evangelical who believes that the Bible is inerrant and literal: that “morality based laws can and should be changed as the morality of the culture changes.” One would think that you would believe that morality is fixed and immutable, and applies to all people regardless of culture and time, and thus laws based on it can not change (eg, abortion law). Rather relativistic, no? Just prior to this you claim that the morality of cohabitation hasn’t changed but then admit that the morality of the culture has changed so the law should follow. Is it your view that morality is a mutable concept, subject to change as the culture changes (much my view)? And that we should change our laws to fit the times? Most of the voices I hear from the socially conservative right (including evangelicals and the Roman Catholics) is that we can’t change the laws just because society has changed. Instead, they castigate society for changing and demand that the law should not be changed as well. Have you become more liberal in your thinking? (This will become important in your reasoning about marriage later.)
The other matter is this idea that laws can only be changed through the legislature. This idea always puzzles me because one of the primary reasons we have a judiciary is to review the constitutionality of laws emanating from the legislative and executive branches. Law must pass constitutional muster before they can be considered valid and legal. Who would do this except for the judiciary? And what about the rights of the minority? Without judicial review minorities would be at the mercy of majorities intent on legislating their views on everyone – surely a form of tyranny. This the Founders recognized, thus creating the judicial branch with its broad powers to check executive and legislative power. It seems to me that people who attack judicial review are just displaying sour grapes because they don’t get their own way.
“I do not think gay marriage is possible. Just as dry water and hot cold is an impossibility, so gay marriage is to me. Marriage is defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Any other combination outside of those perameters [sic] would cease to be marriage. So it is not possible for any government to create gay marriage because the definition of marriage excludes any and all other relationships except for the current situation”
Your reasoning is very strange here. You analogize marriage to laws of physics, as if it were part of the demonstrable natural order or rules of logic and not a creation of mankind, subject to change and revision. And then you use the passive voice (“Marriage is defined…”) to assert the definition of marriage. But who defined it? I suppose you will answer, “God,” being a conservative xtian. But whose god, I would reply – and then point to your discussion regarding morality and its changability concerning enacting it into law. If society’s laws can change when its view of morality changes, then its laws concerning marriage can also change. We could just change the definition of marrage (as has been done before – remember when interracial marriage was illegal?). Your assertions here are arbitrary to the max (of course that’s religion all over). Of course, as you yourself have admitted, whose morality (ie, definitions of personal and social conduct) are we legislating? Social conservatives or social progressives? And who are you to decide for me? I see my morality as just as valid as yours. What right have you to determine what my morality should be? You could, of course, turn to such utilitarian arguments as the effects gay marriage would have on society, but this would turn into a slippery slope for you. You would be abandoning your adherence to a biblical-based morality and absolute values, and be embracing a scientific one which would open you up to devastating attack (has gay marriage destroyed marriage in Mass., for instance, or Europe? Can you prove it based on fact and not religious and moral assumptions?). You are on thin ice here.
I agree with your constitutional argument so I’ll pass over that part in favor of your comments to xtians concerning gays.
“Finally, the biggest reason I see to allow some type of recognition is the damage this is causing the Church of Jesus Christ, especially in America. “Gay bashing” is used as a club to continually pound any and all Christians who dare to oppose anything put forth by the liberal gays. The reason the club is there for the taking is because so many Christians fashion it lovingly with their own hands. It is almost as if we enjoy fashioning the crucifixion nails.”
You should turn your image around: it’s true that xtians are fashioning a club, but you’re using it against gays to intimidate us back into the closet. From my vantage as a moderate (not “liberal” or “radical”) gay, most monotheistic religions are, and have always been, my deadly enemy. Their agenda has always been the persecution of gay people, including social oppression, imprisonment, torture and execution (look at what’s happening in the Muslim world today). Gay people didn’t achieve any level of dignity or worth or freedom from the slavery imposed by the hetero dictatorship until the influence of religion began to fall in the West. Indeed, xtians and their allies continue to fashion the nails to continue the crucifixion of gays, and the only protection we have from you is that of a secular society and gov’t. This is why I view with fear and disgust the increased influence of xtians on our gov’t.
“Could the Christian community not reach countless more gay people with the message of Christ if they saw us not as their enemies, but people who are only trying to do what they think is best in the long run? If we could explain our actions a little more clearly and a lot more lovingly, how much of a difference would that make?”
To answer: no and none. You are merely advocating a sort of fancy window dressing to cover what is still a very evil and destructive message. You can’t just tart up your contention that homosexuality is “wrong,” against God’s will/law/whim, a deadly sin and/or a pathology with a little slapped on “love.” They would still only be maintaining “what they think is best in the long run.” Who are they/you to impose on us what you think is best? How do you know what is best for me? What gives you the right to judge? Again, it’s just your opinion, your morality, and I don’t acknowledge it. No matter how lovingly you say it, it’s still a deadly insult, a dagger buried in the heart of my being. You may not have the power to put me on a rack or burn me at the stake, but the impulse is still there.
As you know, I used to be a fairly steady xtian, but that foundered on the implacable bigotry that emanates from the heart of xtianity. Face it, your religion is patriarchal and hetero-centric to the core, as proven by millenia of persecution of any who dissent as sexual heretics. The way I see it, I didn’t reject xtianity, it rejected me. I still haven’t decided if that’s the opinon of Jesus, but the religion established in his name is rife with it.
Okay so much to answer here. First, I don't think morality changes, I think societies opinion of morality changes. Therefore society adjusts morally founded laws and statutes. I think cohabitation is just as wrong now as it was in the 40's, but the time has come and gone for a law that forbids it. The morality is constant, but society may change their views on it. I may be a conservative Christian and I may believe that living together before marriage is wrong, but the majority of people don't feel that way any more and I have no right to tell them they can't. There is nothing in the Constitution to give us an answer, so we turn to the standards of society.
As to the judiciary, they are there to decide whether law is constitutional or not, nothing else. Laws can be struck down or upheld, not made up by Judges. Again, i am a strict constructionists, so I view the Constitution as a hard contract, not a living document. If the nation had progressed to the point where we found abortion as acceptable, then we should have went through the legislative process and done that. We should not go to judges and have them fish through the Constitution to see if they can basically make up and all new right.
The judiciary is there to help ensure minority rights. Laws passed against minorities are usually unconstitutional to start with. All the courts have to do is overturn them based on the Constitution. The courts should not use the "evolving standards of morality" argument. That does not concern them. All that concerns them is the constitutionality of something.
I don't know the long term impact of gay marriage. In some studies it seems to have been a factor in the slide in marriage in Europe (but many other factors are in play including a declining morality, lower religious involvement, etc.) The definition of marriage should be fairly simple. It is the one that has been the norm for thousands of years. (Yes, there have been variations occassionally, but those are minor and did not last nearly as long as the one man, one woman ideal. After a period of minor change, the norm has came back and continued to be established.) As to interracial marriage, which is brought up often in this debate, there was no-redefining of marriage in that cause. Simply, people allowed that one man and one woman was the only basic requirement. In fact, that goes back to my argument that despite attempts by some to add new things to marriage, it always ends up back at one man and one woman.
As to the relationship between Christian and gays, I totally understand that some Christians have been very vocal (and harmful to both our communities) during this debate. i acknowledge (and have acknowledged countless times) the sins of those on my side. But even when I do that, it is never enough. For the most part, you lump me in with Fred Phelps and whoever else because I do not come completely to your side of the debate. Just as I do not put you in with the radicals on "your side" (you are your own person and vary in many ways from the stereotypical politically active gay person), I do not wish to be put with those on "my side" who do not know how to show love and have only shown hatred.
When I said "what they think is best in the long run" I was refering not to Christians telling gays what they can do, but rather specifically to the marriage debate. Many of those (if not most) only are trying to protect an institution that they hold dear. They fear change because they do not want harm to come to something they love. Many would be doing the same thing regardless of the change to something they love and respect. It has little if nothing to do with gay people and most if not all to do with their feelings toward the marriage institution.
What I propose is not "a little slapped on love," but a treatment of gay people as everyone else. If you knew me in real life, you would know that I constantly challenge people in regards to their attitude to gay people. The only categories that need to be made are people who know Jesus and people who don't. Those are the only distinction Christians should make. Too often (and I am sure you know it all too well) Christians have placed gay people in some "super evil" category, when that is so far from the Bible. I have no impulse to "put you on the rack" or harm you in anyway. My desire is to see you find the peace that is available in Christ.
I am sorry you feel that Christianity (and possible Jesus) is your enemy, just know that we are not and He definitely is not. You don't have to "become straight" to be a Christian. You simply have to acknowledge you are a sinner (of any type) and that you need Him and you accept Him as Savior and Lord. Once someone becomes a Christian, the Holy Spirit works on our life in the sanctification process to make us more like Christ. It is his job to convict of sin, not mine or anyone else's. I will leave that work to Him.
Aaron – I'm aware that you aren't in the extremist camp. I concede that there are individual xtians who are not bigots or homophobes (Josh is another). My quarrel, however, lies with xtianity itself, not with individuals. I base my view on the Bible, the long history of xtian persecution, and present-day actions by xtians (and other monotheists) against gay people. I maintain that anti-gay ideology is at the very heart of xtianity. I base this on the aforementioned survey of xtian beliefs. Even moderates, such as yourself and Josh, draw the line at full gay equality (ie, you feel that gay sex is "sin" and Josh won't allow gay religious marriage and wants gays to be "nice,normal people"-ie, straight-acting). As such, xtianity, to me, is not a religion of "peace" at all: I felt nothing but turmoil, anxiety, depression, and unhappiness during the years that I tried practicing xtianity. I feel much better, more peaceful, since I left active participation and belief in your religion. I still maintain that xtianity is the enemy of gay people. There are some good things within it, I'm not condemning it whole. I respect most of what Jesus had to say. There are some good parts of the Bible. I still believe in God (deisism, not theism). But xtianity is not my bag.
P.S. – I'm aware that this is a blog for evangelical xtians. If you want me to leave and refrain from commenting, I will understand and comply.
Louis, first off, we exist for people like you who engage us in meaningful (most of the time ;) dialogue (that slight applies to us all). I believe I speak for all of us here when I say, "please stay and voice your opinions, even if they are contrary." Who wants to hear us just talk to ourselves? Boring.
I think you probably like me the least of the posters on this site, since I am the most vocal about gay recovery and the like. However, I am also a fan of asking the hard questions, rocking the boat, and reformulating a more mature stance on issues. I mean, during the Terry Schiavo thing, I was openly critical of the conservative (and liberal) positions, and even proposed a pro-life stance on abortion that included abortion as ok to the 8th week of pregnancy.
So stick around and be a gadfly. It can be fun if we stick to issues and not stoop to personal attacks (which I sense you want to avoid as well).
Ok, on to some comments regarding xianity and gays…
1. Being nicer to gays while still calling it a sin is just a whitewash.
As I have said previously, you can care for someone while disagreeing with them. It is possible to even "judge" someone (in the right and wrong sense, not the "I am better than you" sense), like an alcoholic relative, while loving them. Even an intervention can (and should) be done in love.
This perspective can be taken when dealing with gays, even though many (most)gays are offended by the idea that someone would characterize them as having a "disorder." But for those whom this idea rings true, the xians bearing the message of change are not attackers or fear/hate mongers in sheep's clothing, they are saviors, doctors for the soul, bearers of good news.
You said As such, xtianity, to me, is not a religion of "peace" at all: I felt nothing but turmoil, anxiety, depression, and unhappiness during the years that I tried practicing xtianity. I feel much better, more peaceful, since I left active participation and belief in your religion. I still maintain that xtianity is the enemy of gay people.
Xianity is the enemy of sin, but not of people. And now you have me wondering – what kind of Christianity were you involved with?
I am truly sorry that you suffered in that way – as a recovered (recovering) member of a xian cult, I know the damage that religious zealots and pharisees can do to the soul and the self. I also believe that many churches are equipped to condemn gays but not to offer any kind of compassionate truth that can help them change (if that is possible ;). I think it is unfortunate that the often belligerent and public nature of the politics of sexuality are often all that is seen in the church's interaction w/ the gay community.
There are a couple of guys in my church who are riding in the gay bike rally from SF to LA – I think it's a gay awareness thing (not sure). They went last year, and all they did was make friends. This year, they are going again, with the hope of sharing their own faith in a kind way. Now, you may see this as disingenous, but these guys seem to exhibit real concern, even if they have the view that homosexuality is sin. They see themselves as offering hope, and want to do that – they're not out there to win any kudos, or to make themselves feel superior, nor to condemn. This kind of thing seems to me to be less offensive than the "god hates gays" signs held by idiots on tv.
I wish I had something constructive to say about what you have written. However, we have gone over all this before, and I see little different here. The bottom line for you is that homosexuality is "sin," or "pathology," and your goal is turning gays into straights. Am I correct?
May I present my view of xtian doctrine concerning gays? I see it as just more of the same: straights imposing their ideology-their assumptions-upon gay people. We are, somehow, "broken heterosexuals." Our condition is, in psychological terms, pathological – in theological terms, "broken" or "sinful." There is no effort to see us a whole and complete human beings, altogether normal in our sexual orientation. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, how "lovingly" you present it: that's your bottom line. How else can I respond but by rejection in return? When you violate my very being, denigrating what I am in my most intimate relations, what recourse have I?
I see no difference whatsoever in approaches between those who proclaim publicly how sinful homosexuality is and those who hide their judgment. Thus, your friends are dishonest, sly, and, essentially, liars. If such were to happen to me, I would reject them in disgust. Hypocrites!
I'm sorry, but I see little reason to continue in this vein. You've only proven to me that interaction with xtians regarding this topic is pointless. How can I honestly engage with someone who condemns me as pathologically impaired as well as "broken" because of something so intregal to my very existence. This is a perfect example of why I reject your religion.
"You've only proven to me that interaction with xtians regarding this topic is pointless."
I think you came into this thread having already decided that, and you're seeing exactly what you want to see.
Thus proving my point.
Perhaps that's the lesson to be had. After all, it's also enlightening to realize that an impass has been encountered, and why.
btw: My point about engaging xtians is not entirely accurate (after all, I'm sort of a xtian). I know many xtians who don't regard homosexuality as "sin" or pathology. It's just the conservative, mainly fundamentalist & evangelical, kind who do – those who take the Bible way too literally. So-called "liberal" xtians don't and are much more understanding. Perhaps people like Aaron and seeker should ponder that next time they talk about engaging us with "love" etc. Re-think your interpretation of the Bible (topic for new thread).
Louis, of course we want you to stay around. I love having divergent opinions. Why else do you think I always bring up topics like this and always discuss things with you? Why else would I work to have a dialogue with Stewart and Sam from Insulted? I enjoy the discussions and enjoy having people challenge my belief system.
As far as the position of a literal Bible, it is one that I re-think and contemplate, but it also one that I find the most evidence for. I see no reason to change the interpretation of Scripture, except for the hope of having others (yourself included) raise their opinion of Christianity. But if I have changed what is truth, what good have I done. If my old position was truth and I compromised on that, in order to make people feel better about my belief system is that a good thing?
All of us should be slaves to the truth, not feelings. If I had more evidence that my belief system was the wrong one, then I would drop it. I want to discover God and His truth that is my reason for being – to know Him more. If something is truth then I want to follow that. All I see and know leads me to my current position.
I can only say that I am glad you are here. I am glad that you choose to discuss things with us, even though they may be personally hurtful to you. I admire your bravery (coming someone where you are significantly outnumbered). But regardless of anything else, I cannot abandon what I have come to discover is the truth for anyone or anything even if it would benefit me personally or make me come across as a "more loving" person.
I have long promised a post on the Jesus Seminar and that train of Biblical interpretation, so maybe this week would be a good time to do that.
I actually have a couple books by Borg – he is very authentic, and is one of the writers who left a more orthodox/evangelical view for a more liberal one.
His books are interesting and heartfelt (for an academic), but I don't think his conclusions have any more merit than the evangelical positions.
A very good read in a similar vein is Fowler's Dance of a Fallen Monk. Great book on leaving your initial orthodoxy to find a more authentic faith – again, he ended up in a much more liberal place, but as a person who was seriously devoted to God in a cultlike organization, I found a lot of comfort in Fowler's journey.
I'll be glad to chime in on a review of the Jesus Seminar approach and conclusions. I seriously left Xianity before my recent return. However, while I have "liberal" sympathies, I don't find it to be intellectually or practically as satisfying as a more "literal" evangelical approach. For me, and I think in truth, it lacks the salvific power of the authentic message of repentance, regeneration, and faith in Jesus as Son of God and God.
Changing your mind about what you think is "truth" isn't compromising yourself; it's being honest; it's respecting truth. To think otherwise is to be rigid, doctrannaire, dogmatic and intellectually dishonest. If we seek Truth, then being open to new ways of thinking and changing our minds about what we previously thought is required.
Different strokes, etc. I feel the exact opposite of the way seeker sees it: I find that I cannot think of the Bible as "literally" true and inerrant. I do NOT see such a stance as intellectually or practically satisfying – the opposite, in fact. I see the Bible as, more or less, the product of its time and should be understood as such. Certainly, there are truths to be found there, both moral and spiritual, but trying to take every bit of it as literally true and the literal "word" of God is just too much for me – like putting on a straight-jacket. That's just one interpretation of the text among others – one that I find not very credible (especially when its advocates try to treat the Bible as a science text). I see no proof for it. Basically, it's a matter of a certain kind of faith that I can't connect with.
As I said, different strokes.