“For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” [Rick] Warren wrote [in an e-mail to church members]. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called ‘gay marriage.’ Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC oppose watering down the definition of marriage.
“Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue.”
Warren concluded: “This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to VOTE YES on Proposition 8 — to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don’t forget to vote!”
My wife and I have already voted YES on 8 by absentee ballot.
Marriage between a man and a woman is not culturally defined: It is a metaphysically distinct category of nature that demands a name. Outlawing our ability to name it and distinguish it from various human behaviors is totalitarian and bizarre.
Given a chance, Obama and Biden would change the legal definition of marriage.
Rick Warren is right about Obama. I voted early here in AZ and voted both for Obama and for a similar marriage amendment on our ballot.
This is unfortunate. So Mr. Warren believes it’s ok to discriminate if it’s “only 2%” of the population. He also may want to review his Bible (not to mention text books) – history hasn’t always viewed marriage as between one man and one woman.
Mark Johnson,
As Kendall says, read carefully. Pastor Warren said: “For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women”.
Now you might say, “So Mr. Warren would support a constitutional amendment supporting polygamy?”. And the answer to that again is no. And we should not change our definition of marriage for the fraction of a percent of the population that are polygamists, either.
Marriage will always be between one woman and one man no matter how votes go. That’s not discrimination, that’s reality.
physician without health, Obama has said that he’s against redefining marriage while at the same time saying he’s against Proposition 8. It’s nice to live in world where you can have both ways.
If it’s going to be, it ought to be done through a democratic vote, not imposed by judges.
I am dead set against “redefining” marriage, but am a tad uncomfortable with the idea that the *biblical* definition of anything is what should determine American public policy. Does Rick Warren really want to make that argument?
As for the cultural/historical argument – it is difficult to see how it might not include polygamy. My doctoral studies were in languages/culture of Ancient West Asia (aka the Middle East) and while the ancients would not have understood “gay marriage” neither would they have entirely understood strict *mono*gamy.
“If it’s going to be, it ought to be done through a democratic vote, not imposed by judges.”
So it ought to be imposed on the dissenting minority by a mob called the majority rather than dictators called judges. I get it now. How Jeffersonian.
Has anyone considered the possibility of being anti homosexuality and using persuasion to change hearts and minds (aka evangelism) rather than using the guns and jails of Caesar to impose morality on the dissenters?
As for the arguments of Historicity and religion…
Warren’s words can easily be applied to slavery. Because it has a fine, stuffy tradition does not make it right.
Homosexuality is sin because God says it is sin. And we are to convince people of their sins not by jailing them as the State has done to our forebears for millenia, but by persuading, serving, and loving our enemies.
Should the biblical definiton of anything determine public policy? Yes, with two caveats. First , the policy must not be unconstitutionally enacted and second, it must not be unconstitutional in enforcement.
[blockquote]So it ought to be imposed on the dissenting minority by a mob called the majority rather than dictators called judges. I get it now. How Jeffersonian. [/blockquote]
That “mob” is also called “the people.” Deferring to the people is, indeed, Jeffersonian. I’m personally in favor of recognition of gay civil unions, but I’m not interested in it being handed down by ukase.
Furthermore, we are not talking about jailing anyone, but extending a public benefit. Surely the public ought to be consulted?
Jeffersonian, when you say that you’re in favor of gay civil unions are you saying that two persons of the same sex should have a union recognized by the state with the same benefits and duties as a married couple? So, the relationships would have the same rights and duties only one would be called marriage and the other civil union? If so, then I think you’re making a distinction without a difference.
Since you refer to gay civil unions I suppose you think that persons of the same sex or opposite sex couples who don’t engage in sex with one another should not be allowed to enter into a civil union. Is that correct?
[blockquote]That “mob†[the majority] is also called “the people.†[/blockquote]
Or, more accurately, the majority should be called “some of the people.” The minority on the other hand are being exploited, jailed, fined, or otherwise harassed by the “real” “the people.” Take for example the “People’s” Republic of China populated by some million or so Christian non-People.
I agree that you are not “talking” about jailing anyone. It’s an unstated consequence of this legislation. Gay people must pay taxes which will be used to provide married people with benefits for which gays will never be eligible. If gays conscientiously refuse to pay that portion of the taxes from which they will never derive benefit, they will be fined and then jailed for disagreeing with The People.
Since when was the will of The People sacrosanct? Wherever we (christians) are a minority we oppose mob action, democratic or otherwise. But so long as we are a majority we will do unto others as we damned well wouldn’t have them do to us.
justinmartyr, many people who will never be married must pay those same taxes. As a single person, who is unlikely ever to marry, should I start lobbying for my relationship with myself to be called a “marriage”? If I find a man and move in with him, can I get the law changed to call that “marriage”? Aren’t people who must wait before achieving “common law” status also being discriminated against? Can I claim the children whose education is supported by my taxes as dependents on my tax return? Sometimes we are not eligible for things because that they simply don’t apply to us – and that is not a victimization.
For Christians and other religious groups, the nature of marriage is a matter of faith. For society at large it is a matter of what kind of society the community wants to have – and it is that society at large, in which Christians, Christians who are gay and gays who are not Christian all take part, that rightly decides these issues, with some redress for the “tyranny of the majority.” But there can be a “tyranny of the minority” too.
Personally, I can’t vote to take away someone else’s right to do something that I get to do. Especially not on the “won’t someone please think of the childruuuun” rationale that they’re using here in CA.
My kid will play with kids with gay parents or kids with single parents, and at some point when he asks why there’s no mom or dad or there are two of one and none of the other, we’ll talk about families and choosing the person you want to be with forever. And then we’ll tell him that we love him and that his parents love each other very much and that’s why he’s here. He’ll go to weddings at church and to secular weddings and we’ll talk about the difference and what we believe about marriage. I don’t think my friends’ same-sex marriages prevent any of that. Also, it’s not like they’re going to break up and send the children to foster care if Prop 8 passes and their marriages are (maybe) eventually declared invalid. Same-sex couples are part of our reality either way. The ones I know are really, really normal and boring and I can’t get too worried about them destroying society, since they also have small children and are tired most of the time.
Some good questions, Sherri. Why should you, or a poor elderly single person, or a gay parent be forced to pay for someone else’s life choices (good or bad)? If benevolence and charity are what we are trying to achieve, government violence won’t reach it. Charity can never be forced.
I believe that this proposition has very little to do with genuine concern for the children (as clayton so effectively argued), and much more to do with Christian spite and revenge. We can’t persuade our gay neighbors to turn to Christ, and so we will tax and regulate them for it instead.
I’d love to hear how preventing gay people from getting married keeps children from turning gay or heterosexual marriages from dissolving. Or do you really think their forced taxes provide enough money to make a difference in the lives of heterosexual parents?
One must also consider the stumbling block we place in their path when we implement laws like this. Surely it doesn’t bring them any closer to Christ?
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, when you say that you’re in favor of gay civil unions are you saying that two persons of the same sex should have a union recognized by the state with the same benefits and duties as a married couple? So, the relationships would have the same rights and duties only one would be called marriage and the other civil union? If so, then I think you’re making a distinction without a difference. [/blockquote]
I’ll grant you, it’s mostly a semantic difference. For the purposes of government action, recognition, etc., there would be no difference.
[blockquote]Since you refer to gay civil unions I suppose you think that persons of the same sex or opposite sex couples who don’t engage in sex with one another should not be allowed to enter into a civil union. Is that correct? [/blockquote]
I hadn’t thought about it, but at first glance I’d say no just because it would be impossible to police, even if one were of a mind to do so.
Well count me out on the spite and I actually agree with much of what Clay says. I wouldn’t be one to say that keeping gay people from getting married would help keep children from becoming gay. I do think we live in an era of sexual confusion and even addiction that puts children and young men and women at greater risk. I don’t think Christians have the right to impose their faith on others through the government – but I do think society has the right to define, from amongst the people who make it up, its acceptable norms. And I think that Christians have the right to witness to their faith, hopefully exhibiting profound charity and humility – and I know I often lack in those qualities myself.
[blockquote]Or, more accurately, the majority should be called “some of the people.†The minority on the other hand are being exploited, jailed, fined, or otherwise harassed by the “real†“the people.†Take for example the “People’s†Republic of China populated by some million or so Christian non-People. [/blockquote]
I think the number is a lot higher than that. But again, your analogy is inapt. No one is being rounded up, no one is being interrogated, jailed, beaten, tortured, executed. I don’t know what California taxes are collected for the purposes of showering them onto married couples, but I’m certain they are infinitesimal (I’d still be against them in principle), if even existent.
But again, this isn’t a debate, at least for me, about putting gays on the same footing as hetero couples. It’s about how it’s done. (And BTW, did you know the very definition of a tax assumes the payer will receive no direct benefit? Welcome to the party, amigo.)
Which gets us to the last paragraph of your post:
[blockquote]Since when was the will of The People sacrosanct? Wherever we (christians) are a minority we oppose mob action, democratic or otherwise. But so long as we are a majority we will do unto others as we damned well wouldn’t have them do to us. [/blockquote]
It’s been sacrosanct pretty much since the founding of the republic. We even had votes, at one time, on things like freedom of religion and speech. Don’t get lazy.
[blockquote] I don’t think Christians have the right to impose their faith on others through the government – but I do think society has the right to define, from amongst the people who make it up, its acceptable norms.[/blockquote]
Sherri, that statement sounds generous and moderate, but I don’t think you believe it. And here’s why…
Do you really believe that society *right* to define acceptable norms? Can society choose to outlaw Christians, or feed them to the lions, or tell gays they can marry. Is that its right? Does it make it right? And if society does not have these “rights,” then I wonder who gave them to Christians in particular? Definitely not the individuals who make up society.
“It’s been sacrosanct pretty much since the founding of the republic. We even had votes, at one time, on things like freedom of religion and speech. Don’t get lazy.”
I thought that freedom was a God-given right, not one acquired by majority vote? (Read the Declaration.) Otherwise we are still to have that big vote on whether or not to liberate slaves. No, I think they should just go ahead and break the law.
Voting makes something sacrosanct? Sacro (sacred) sanct (holy)? My foot!
[blockquote]I thought that freedom was a God-given right, not one acquired by majority vote? (Read the Declaration.) Otherwise we are still to have that big vote on whether or not to liberate slaves. No, I think they should just go ahead and break the law.
Voting makes something sacrosanct? Sacro (sacred) sanct (holy)? My foot! [/blockquote]
I really don’t think you want to drag this discussion into theological territory. As it so happens, we did have a vote on abolishing slavery and, happily, it went the right way.
Are you really more comfortable with rights being imposed by a small group of unaccountable people?
justinmartyr, I will do you the courtesy of not telling you what you think, and hope you will do likewise by me.
I did include a proviso in the message prior to the one you last responded to – there must be protections from the “tyranny of the majority”. As a Christian, no, I don’t think a society should feed Christians – or *anyone* – to the lions. Were I living in such a society, I would try my best to change it, as Christians have done and do and as gays are presently trying to do in the U.S.
As a Christian, I prefer to live in a society whose government is informed by Christian morality in its large precepts – charity, compassion, loving one’s neighbor as oneself – precepts I strive to live by, though I often fall for short. Historically, I think people living under such governments, however flawed, have been better off than under any other form of government. Like Jeffersonian, I would support civil unions that would provide whatever benefits go to married people. I do not, however, see that this can only be accomplished by shattering the concept of marriage, which is a sacrament to me. Frankly, neither do my dearest relative and his equally dear partner, with whom he has had a stable relationship of many years.
I struggle with these issues. I don’t assert rights over society as a whole – but I will contend for what I believe is right, just as everyone else does. Or do you deny that Christians have that right?
Jeffersonian, since you concede that sex would not be a condition for a civil union then there would be no reason to prohibit fathers and sons, fathers and daughters, etc., from entering into civil unions.
Is sex (by which I assume you mean consummation) a legal condition for marriage currently? I don’t actually know the answer to that, but I can’t remember anyone getting their tax deduction challenged because they haven’t been getting any. Two completely paralyzed people could legally marry, right? I don’t see why civil unions would be treated differently. And the same consanguinity rules apply, so your examples are ridiculous.
Could civil unions of convenience (for insurance benefits/green cards/etc) happen? Sure. At a rate greater than that of heterosexual marriages of convenence? Probably not. Outside of sitcoms, most people don’t want to remove their chance of marrying for love by marrying for pragmatic reasons.