Marriage Amendment
Response to David K. Bernard article
Bernard: Why Texans should not support homosexual marriage
God created one man and one woman to inhabit the Garden of Eden, and He created them as companions who were suitable for each other. We must uphold that ideal for marriage today, but how should we do so in modern society?
You should do so in a manner that includes peaceful coexistence with those who would make different choices for themselves. In a free society, upholding your own “ideal for marriage” should not equate to getting laws passed to restrict the options of anyone who prefers a different ideal.
Let us briefly consider the biblical teaching on this subject.
Let’s not. We’re talking about rules that everyone must live by. Biblical assertions have no place in such a discussion. If a strong case cannot be made for something independently of what the Bible has to say about it, then citizens in a free society should not be bound to it by law.
The Genesis account, as reiterated by Jesus, establishes that God’s plan for marriage is for a man and a woman to form a new, exclusive, permanent and public partnership for life in which they are joined together physically, emotionally and spiritually. (See Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:3-4.)
Actually, it only does that if you first establish the reliability of that account as a matter of fact rather than faith. You haven’t, and that’s considerably more than a minor oversight.
God has made it abundantly clear that homosexual activity is sinful and cannot fulfill His intention for marriage. (See Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; I Kings 15:11-12; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; I Timothy 1:10; Jude 7.)
Nonsense. The most you can credibly establish is that you’re talking about human beings claiming to speak for God. Overlooking this important point doesn’t reflect well on your objectivity. Relying on poorly founded assertions about what God thinks is a weak substitute for arguments based on logic and reason.
Of course, not everyone accepts biblical morality. We live in a pluralistic society — one in which people have many different religious and moral beliefs. In such a society, the government cannot and should not try to impose morality in people’s private lives.
That’s certainly a reasonable position. It’s too bad the rest of your commentary suggests you didn’t really mean it.
Nevertheless, it is simply wrong to say that we cannot base our laws upon moral values.
True, but pointless. What matters is that we should not. The concept of “moral values” is far too vague and subjective to be used for determining rules that everyone must live by.
We do it all the time.
As the leader of a church, would you like to go on record clearly stating that “we do it all the time” has always been a reliable barometer of right and wrong?
Specifically, when moral wrongs hurt other people, or when moral issues negatively affect society as a whole, we have a right and responsibility to implement moral values.
Vague language is often used to mask weak arguments, so let’s get a little more specific. People can reasonably disagree - and disagree significantly - on what qualifies as a “moral wrong”, so the expression is of little use. And it isn’t clear what you mean by “implement moral values”, but if you’re talking about passing laws that everyone must live by, then it’s only appropriate to do so if the “hurt” you’re talking about violates someone’s freedom, property, or safety. There is no right to impose rules on your fellow human beings based on something as vague as “moral values”, and certainly no “responsibility” to do so.
And your characterization “negatively affect society as a whole” is also too subjective to be of much help. For some people, this could simply refer to any behavior that is in conflict with their own religious views - or more specifically, with their own speculation about what God thinks. The mere fact that you’ve used it in this context suggests you think there’s something about same sex marriage that would “negatively affect society as a whole”, but you don’t even come close to credibly identifying any actual harm. For some reason, this always seems to present a challenge to those who oppose it.
For instance, most people agree that stealing and killing are wrong. This is a moral position, not a scientific one.
When discussing rules that everyone must live by, that’s not a distinction that matters. Stealing is clearly a violation of someone’s property, and killing is clearly a violation of someone else’s liberty. And those factors are far more appropriate for consideration in making laws than whether something is “moral” or “scientific”.
Moreover, some people believe that stealing and killing are acceptable under certain circumstances. For instance, the followers of Osama bin Laden kill “infidels,” and Marxists such as Lenin, Stalin and Mao made stealing and killing part of their social order. Regardless of people’s private beliefs, however, the law of the land prohibits these actions, and it does so because of a Judeo-Christian (that is, a biblical) understanding of right and wrong.
Then it simply does the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law of the land should prohibit these behaviors to protect individual sovereignty and property rights, not out of respect for anyone’s religious beliefs, and certainly not because of an “understanding of right and wrong” coming from a book that contains accounts of talking animals, or people walking on water, rising from the dead, turning into salt, etc. Merely describing the status quo does not qualify as a sound argument for the status quo.
As another example, most people seem to think that lying is acceptable under certain circumstances, or at least a minor wrong that should not be punished. Nevertheless, when lying hurts other people economically or undermines the social order, we have laws against it. If individuals cheat on their income tax, or if executives lie about the assets of their company, they can go to jail. In short, our society recognizes that the government has the right and responsibility to pass and enforce laws based on moral values.
That last conclusion does not follow from the statements that preceded it. First of all, “our society” doesn’t agree with unanimity on much of anything, so at best, you’re simply talking about majority opinion. Moreover, individuals cheating on their income tax and executives lying about company assets both involve the element of fraud. And unlike the vague concept of “moral values”, punishing fraud is a much clearer and more appropriate function of government. Your examples truly need a lot of work.
It is also absurd to keep asserting that there is any kind of “right” or “responsibility” to either pass or enforce laws based on something as vague and subjective as “moral values”. Once again, when talking about rules that everyone must live by, you need a better reason than that. Your neighbor’s “moral values” are none of your business, as long as he isn’t committing fraud, or violating anyone else’s liberty, property, or safety in the pursuit of those values. And it is those violations that laws should be concerned with, not such things as restricting marital choices among consenting adults.
And by the way, if you’re going to cite such things as “hurts other people economically” and “undermines the social order” as justifications for passing laws, it might be helpful to explain how these things have anything to do with same sex marriage. This is another glaring oversight in the case you seem to be trying to make.
Some say that sexual morality is completely different, claiming that personal choices in this area do not affect the rest of society. Our pluralistic society has decided not to regulate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of a home, because their action does not seem to affect anyone else directly. Therefore, we no longer have laws against fornication, adultery or homosexual behavior (even though these actions can drastically affect a family).
Now, however, some homosexuals are asking for a legal right to marry. It is important to recognize that such a change in our laws would affect society significantly.
The most significant effect is that more people would be able to have legal protection in relationships of their choice, rather than having their choices restricted by the poorly founded biases of the majority.
Recognizing homosexual marriage would mean social endorsement of homosexuality, and that is really what gay activists want.
Nope. It’s an endorsement of letting adults make their own decisions about consensual relationships. Beyond that, it’s completely neutral with regard to the merits of any particular type of relationship. Only people who seem to have an innate need to bully others fail to grasp the distinction between allowing something and endorsing it.
They already have the freedom to have consenting relationships, but they want the rest of society to state that these relationships are acceptable — that is, morally good.
It isn’t asking anyone in society to “state” anything. Once again, it is the government taking a neutral position, and letting individuals decide for themselves, as it should. If government is going to be involved in marriage, particularly with regard to providing benefits, it has no business engaging in unwarranted discrimination in the distribution of those benefits, not even to satisfy the silly biases of the majority.
In effect, they are trying to legislate their own version of morality and impose it on the majority who disagree.
Unless you’ve discovered a movement to outlaw traditional marriages, this may be the most ridiculous claim you’ve made yet. It blurs the distinction between two very different behaviors - bullying, and defending against bullying. And it’s typical of the kind of hyperbole and rhetorical manipulation coming from the real morality bullies, in their desperation to spin their position as the reasonable one. So let’s clear this up once and for all. Same sex couples getting married does not equate to imposing their version of morality on anyone, any more than people in traditional marriages are imposing their version of morality on anyone with their relationship choices. Imposing morality is characterized by limiting options, not expanding them.
They incorrectly claim that opponents are homophobic and that homosexual marriage is a matter of civil rights.
First, apparently at least some opponents are homophobic, as conveniently demonstrated by some of the hysterical predictions in your own comments. And second, in order to be consistent, if homosexual marriage is not a matter of civil rights, would you agree that traditional marriage isn’t either? Or is your version of civil rights based on whatever the majority wants?
This is the language of morality. The choice is not whether to legislate morality or not, because either way a certain version of morality will be enshrined in the law.
There’s a third option, and a fairly obvious one at that. Keep government out of the absurdly broad business of policing morality, and focused on the much more reasonable functions of protecting individual freedom and property rights. As I said earlier, it doesn’t look like you’ve given this much objective thought.
The real issue is what moral view will prevail. What moral statement will we make as a nation and as a society?
In the interest of a free society, how about the “moral statement” that allows people to make their own choices for their own lives? Which side of this issue comes closer to that, and which comes closer to imposing the same option on everyone? And if that still doesn’t clear things up for you, then let’s put it in this context - the only “moral view” that people in a free society should want to prevail is one that focuses on protecting life, liberty, and property, and leaves the rest for individuals to decide for themselves.
This issue becomes clear when we look at the ultimate source of human rights. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
You have some amusing ideas about what makes an issue “clear”. Reasonable people can disagree on what “rights” human beings actually have, as well as the “source” of those rights, or whether they must even have a “source” for that matter. Merely quoting a document reflecting the opinions of men who are no longer around to participate in the debate, or answer for their conclusions, falls far short of settling those questions.
In the final analysis, any appeal for civil rights is an appeal to an understanding of morality and theology.
Not necessarily. Some of us are capable of recognizing the concept of appealing for civil rights on the basis of such principles as respect for individual sovereignty, and freedom of association, without any regard whatsoever for theology.
The issue of whose morality will become the law of the land is not abstract.
Abstract or not, when you’re talking about the law of the land in a free society, why should any morality prevail over one that is focused on protecting freedom and property, and otherwise letting people make their own choices about their own lives and relationships?
Creating something known as homosexual marriage would affect everyone in several significant ways.
No, not quite everyone - certainly not those of us who are capable of minding our own business. And beyond some offended sensibilities, you’d be hard pressed to make a case for much of anyone being affected, let alone significantly. But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your affinity for over-the-top assertions.
First, it would mean social endorsement of homosexuality and in effect would promote this lifestyle.
Wrong again. The only thing it would endorse is the perfectly reasonable concept of people making their own choices for their own lives, rather than limiting everyone to the preferences of the majority. (This confusion over neutrality seems to be a recurring theme in your comments.) And along similar lines, it would “promote” homosexuality no more than allowing people to choose between Pepsi and Coke has the effect of promoting Pepsi.
And by the way, the last time I checked, the “lifestyle” of most gays and lesbians was to get up in the morning, go to work, come home at the end of the day, and spend time with friends or family members, like most of the rest of us.
It would send a powerful and negative message to children, youth, people struggling with their identity and people striving to fulfill God’s plan.
To anyone who isn’t a victim of religious indoctrination, the prevailing message is just as likely to be one of tolerance, and of having enough humility to let people make their own choices about their own lives. It is a message that, astonishingly, is still needed in this day and age, as demonstrated by your own commentary. If anything, the truly negative messages are those coming from the silly biases reflected in sentiments like yours. How many young people do you suppose have committed suicide as a result of the “message” that homosexuality is immoral? Do you suppose any have ever committed suicide as a result of the “message” that it is not?
When a sin is generally recognized as sin, some still practice it, but many receive strength to rise above temptation.
That’s nice, but you’re not in church, and preaching about “sin” has no place in a meaningful debate about public policy.
In our day, many children have been raised in dysfunctional families, and many teenagers have had unfortunate experiences of abuse or manipulation. In a society that actively promotes homosexuality, some of them will experiment with behavior that otherwise they would not have chosen, and some will proceed into a lifestyle that otherwise would not have been an option. The resulting spiritual devastation will be incalculable.
Is there some reason you don’t feel it necessary to offer any support for such hyperbole? From what I’ve seen, it just means more of them will end up living a “lifestyle” they’re comfortable with, rather than trying to live a lie. And by the way, where did you find a society that “actively promotes homosexuality”? Or are you really just demonstrating yet more confusion about the concept of neutrality?
Second, it would create significant legal and financial benefits for homosexual couples, to the detriment of society as a whole.
Actually, it would create legal and financial benefits for certain taxpayers who have, for no good reason, been deprived of those benefits, and who also happen to be part of society, by the way. So how is correcting such an injustice detrimental to society?
Our legal structure recognizes the uniqueness of marriage in a host of areas, including income taxes, insurance, retirement, death benefits, medical decisions, inheritance, child custody and other spousal and parental rights. If we recognize homosexual marriage, then we will make a decision to apply these special provisions to homosexual relationships and to spend money to support them.
Once again, gays and lesbians pay taxes too. If government is going to provide such goodies, it shouldn’t play favorites. You’re essentially just arguing for continuing to cheat them out of their share of the benefits their taxes are helping to pay for, and trying to claim the moral high ground in doing so.
Government agencies, charitable organizations and private businesses will be forced to extend all marital provisions to homosexual couples.
If government is forcing charitable organizations or private businesses to extend any benefits to traditional married couples, then it’s already sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. It’s not the place of government to either reward or punish consenting adults based on the types of relationships they have with each other, or to tell other institutions that they must do so.
For millennia, humans have recognized that heterosexual unions are the basis for families and that families are the building blocks of society. This truth is rooted in two biological and social realities. First, it takes a man and a woman to bring children into existence. Second, men and women are physically and mentally different and thus make unique contributions to the nurturing and training of children. They are complementary partners in building marriages, homes, families and society in a way that two men or two women cannot be.
That’s all nice, but it has no relevance unless you’re prepared to take the clear, consistent position that marriage should not be an option for any couple not intending to have children, or at the very least, that marriage cannot possibly serve any valid purpose for anyone if it does not include raising children. If you can’t even do that much, your observations come across as nothing more than rationalizations for a poorly founded prejudice.
Consequently, human society has always deemed that the family is uniquely deserving of support.
There is nothing about the presence of same sex marriages in society that would diminish the ability of anyone who thinks the family is “uniquely deserving of support” to support it.
Strong families based upon the committed marriage of a husband and a wife provide the best means of raising children who are physically, mentally and spiritually healthy and who become stable, productive citizens.
How could you possibly know that such traditional families are any better at this than strong families that are based on the committed marriage of two men, or two women? For most of the “always” you’re referring to, the latter type of marriage has been nonexistent. And regarding the gay/lesbian families that have existed, can you credibly establish that anything negative showing up in any data that’s been put together isn’t just a result of societal intolerance anyway?
While we offer support to people who find themselves in less than ideal circumstances through death or divorce, we recognize that it is in the best interests of society as a whole to promote strong families based on the union of a man and a woman.
It’s not clear who you keep referring to by “we”, but again, you certainly don’t speak for everyone. Some of us (who just might be part of the “we” you’re talking about) recognize that what is in the best interest of society is keeping such biases out of government policy, and letting people make their own choices for their own lives. You really do just seem to be using words like “society” and “we” to try to pass off some rather weak arguments based on popular opinion as something more substantial.
As a practical example, if homosexual marriage becomes legal, then homosexual activists will demand that public schools endorse their moral views in classes, counseling and public activities. They will insist that the public school system uphold the law by teaching children that homosexual marriage is morally correct.
Spoken to all of them, have you? In any case, a big “so what?” comes to mind. If you have valid objections to those agendas, the reasonable thing to do is raise those objections when someone is arguing for those agendas. It is particularly childish to support laws or amendments that would restrict relationship choices among consenting adults because of what someone might try to get public schools to do. Besides, given the hostility toward homosexuality that is often expressed in this country, who could blame anyone for wanting to inject a little balance?
And by the way, would you agree that it is not the role of the public school system to teach children which types of marriage are “morally correct” and which are not? Or do you just want them affirming the morality of the ones your religion approves of?
Already, some high school counselors advocate homosexuality as an option for confused teens and promote acceptance of homosexuality generally.
Again, so what? You have yet to put forth any credible argument that it should not be an option, or that it should not be accepted.
Last year, a high school student in Austin was required to review stories of romance for an English class, and he was specifically instructed to include homosexual romance and treat it favorably in his report.
The proper, reasonable response to tyranny is to challenge anyone responsible for it, not use it to justify your own.
If homosexual marriage were to become legal, students and parents would no longer have the right to protest such practices. Christians would no longer have the right to present another view.
Good luck connecting the dots on those claims.
Third, biblical marriage would be devalued.
It seems highly unlikely that people who rely heavily on biblical principles would value biblical marriage any less than they do now. For that matter, it seems just as unlikely that people who do not rely heavily on biblical principles would value biblical marriage any less than they currently do. So who are you talking about? You don’t seem to have much of a point here, just more hollow rhetoric to motivate shallow minds.
More and more, people would cease to regard heterosexual marriage as uniquely deserving of full moral, social, legal and economic support.
Better late than never, at least with regard to legal support. There is no justification whatsoever for government to be anything other than completely neutral on the subject. If you disagree, then you should be able to clearly explain why. And unless you’re prepared to go on record clearly stating that the majority is always right, you should be able to cite at least one good reason that is not dependent on popularity, tradition, or precedent.
We are already seeing this effect in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, which offer legal unions for homosexuals. In these countries, there has been a significant decline in marriage and a significant increase in children being born and raised out of wedlock.
I’ll grant you one thing. Of all the absurdities I’ve heard opponents of same sex marriage try to pass off as an argument, blaming same sex marriages for children born out of wedlock is truly one of the more amusing.
Fourth, homosexual marriage would set a legal precedent for further changes in the definition of marriage.
That’s far better than perpetuating the ridiculous precedent of using religious views as a basis for making rules that everyone must live by.
It would assist people who want public, legal endorsement of other moral choices such as polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex with minors (statutory rape). Groups have already formed to promote such practices, one example being the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Such groups could employ the same legal arguments as homosexuals, asserting rights to privacy, personal choice, and social approval for all sexual practices.
Wrong again. When you’re talking about sex with minors, or NAMBLA specifically, you completely lose the “consenting adults” argument. It’s a significant one, and once again, it reflects poorly on how much thought you’ve put into this issue that you would either overlook or dismiss such an important and obvious distinction. As for the other choices you mentioned, as long as the participants are consenting adults, you don’t really have a valid objection. It’s still none of your business.
Fifth, we could expect attempts to curtail freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion.
Your continued affinity for unsupported, over-the-top claims is hereby noted.
The reason is that the conflict is not over private practices but over public endorsement.
“Public endorsement” is kind of a silly term to apply to anything over which there is significant disagreement. If all you’re talking about is majority approval, then why not just say so? And if you’re really just referring to government endorsement, then once again, that just gets us back to your confusion over neutrality.
Therefore, homosexual activists will not be content until they are successful in suppressing opposing views.
With no sound arguments to support your position, it can certainly be tempting to pull out all the stops to try and demonize your opposition, even if it means accusing them of motives or objectives there is no good reason to believe they have. But doesn’t the Bible say something about bearing false witness?
They will use social ridicule, ostracism and, if possible, legal persecution to marginalize and silence Christians.
Good grief. Does the hyperbole never end? Pay close attention to the following. Challenging Christian authoritarians does not equate to persecution (legal or otherwise), silencing anyone, or “suppressing opposing views”. And if it turns out that religious bullies are met with social ridicule or ostracism, or are marginalized in any way, the expression “a taste of your own medicine” comes to mind. These things are what gays and lesbians have been facing throughout history as a result of the childish prejudices irresponsibly fostered by people such as yourself.
For example, in Sweden a minister was arrested for preaching against homosexuality. In Canada, someone was fined for placing Scripture references against homosexuality in a newspaper advertisement. There have already been threats that if ministers refuse to endorse homosexual marriage, the government could take away their right to perform legal marriages
In Pennsylvania, people who protested publicly against homosexuality were arrested for hate speech.
As with the Austin case you mentioned, the reasonable response to such tyranny is to challenge it, not use it as an excuse for your own. The fact that somebody, somewhere, has successfully censored criticism of something does not qualify as a reason to ban whatever it is that would have been criticized. Such convoluted reasoning is certainly typical of the kind of manipulation necessary to justify the position you’ve taken. But if you’re claiming to have God on your side, it doesn’t exactly reflect well on that claim that He didn’t arm you with better arguments, so you wouldn’t have to rely so much on some of the tactics you’ve been using.
However, it is possible that activist judges could reinterpret the First Amendment contrary to the intention of the framers, just as they are attempting to redefine the concept of marriage itself contrary to biblical, social, and legal precedent.
In the first place, “the intention of the framers” is irrelevant. They are not around to participate in the discussion, or to account for their conclusions. If “activist judges” rule in a way that suppresses freedom of expression, it would be worthy of concern whether the framers thought so or not.
Moreover, precedent is a particularly flimsy justification for continuing something, and often used to cover for weak arguments. No doubt it was also heavily used to defend the status quo when the prevailing sentiments were in opposition to interracial relationships. Bad precedent should be challenged, not used as an excuse for more of the same. Biblical precedent in particular has absolutely no valid role in determining laws in a free society. And all laws based on it should be re-examined to see whether there are any good reasons to keep them on the books. If anything, a far better precedent would be one that metaphorically pokes the eye of religious authoritarians, in the hope of eventually marginalizing them, and driving them to the irrelevance they deserve. And same sex marriage is a good place to start.
As Christians, we must treat all people with dignity and respect, and we should acknowledge that many homosexuals are productive citizens, albeit deceived by sin.
Given the embarrassingly bad arguments you’ve been using to justify your bullying, you might want to seriously consider the possibility that it is you who have been deceived - by religious indoctrination. (Take it from someone who’s been there.)
At the same time, we must stand for truth.
When all else fails, I guess you have to start relying on words like “truth” to try to inject some credibility into your litany of unfounded assertions, right?
We need to offer the hope of a new life with power to overcome sin and its destructive consequences.
Once again, that’s rhetoric for a sermon, not political discourse. In a free society, the concept of “sin” has no place in determining rules that everyone must live by.
We must take a clear stand against fornication, adultery and homosexuality and a clear stand for biblical marriage.
Your tone of confident righteousness notwithstanding, taking a clear stand against religious authoritarianism would be far more honorable than using the government to bully everyone into compliance with your puritanical nonsense.
We need to exert a positive moral influence upon our society and make our voice heard with regard to political decisions that affect the moral values of society.
One way to exert a truly positive moral influence is to challenge those who think political decisions should dictate moral values, or vice versa.
Individuals have the right to choose their own lifestyle, but collectively we have the right to choose what moral views our society should endorse.
Like they do in the Middle East? It’s interesting to observe the benign language you choose when trying to put a positive spin on abusing the legal process to impose your religious doctrine on those you cannot persuade. Once again, there is no right, “collectively” or otherwise, to bully others into compliance with stupidity - even when doing so is supported by the majority, tradition, or precedent, or is cloaked in the rhetoric of “moral values”. In a free society, peaceful individuals can peacefully “endorse” whatever morality they choose without involving government.
Most of all, we should seek to win the hearts of people one at a time as they respond to the gospel and are changed by the power of God.
Such rhetoric will certainly resonate with a room full of indoctrinated morons, but again, it doesn’t exactly reflect the true agenda, now does it? You’ve spent most of your commentary trying to justify using the legal process. So what does winning the “hearts” of people (which usually involves persuasion), and in particular, doing so “one at a time”, have to do with that process?
As the church, we are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
Then you should save such assertions for church, and leave them out of a discussion of public policy. There are people in this country who have no interest in being part of “the church” (especially as you seem to view it), and they should not be bound by its tenets. If you want to be “the salt of the earth and the light of the world”, legislative bullying isn’t exactly taking the high road to get there.