Marriage is a Christian institution, the blueprint for marriage has been laid out through scripture. Dating back to the middle ages, as early as the 1400’s, marriage licenses were sought by many, some wishing to marry quickly, marry away from their home church, or since even then marriage licenses cost money some wanted it as a status symbol showing that they could afford it. However the most important point regarding this history is the party issuing the licenses was the church leadership. Bishops, Archbishops, or Archdeacons were responsible for these items; no government was involved in the process. Those wishing to be married would seek, through the church, an avenue to do so. This is significant because it shows a direct relationship between marriage and God/religion. However it has not remained that way, government involvement in issuance of “marriage licenses”which were granted by the state courts started here in colonial America around the turn of the 17th century, with the intent of placing restrictions or requirements on the type of marriages that would be “permitted.” At the time, multicultural marriages were the target for exclusion by racist and it continued to be practiced that way through the early 20th century in some parts of the United States. To provide a tiny glimpse at the extent to which racism impacted legal marriages at that time I provided below a quote from a trail judge who initially sentenced two individuals in 1958 for an illegal marriage before it was eventually appealed. U.S. Supreme Court Case: Loving v. Virginia (1967).
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
However progress was eventually made and racist views regarding marriage have since been placed in the rear view mirror. Thankfully America has made great strides in overcoming such bigotry and discrimination over the last 50 + year. I provide this history as an example of the continuing struggle for America to reevaluate its law and commitment to equality.
Now for many religious people and groups marriage will always be a sacred commitment before God acknowledging a union of body and spirit. However, in more recent history, marriages have been moving away from a biblical blueprint and marriages are becoming increasingly secular. A lot of Christians would argue that allowing homosexually marriage would erode the “moral fabric” of marriage in our country. I feel that heterosexual marriages are eroding that “moral fabric” all by itself; Marriages for legal status, marriages with prearranged marriage separation settlements, and rising divorce rates, increasing acceptance of infidelity, drunken middle of the night shotgun weddings in Vegas are just a few examples of how God/religion are being slowly removed from the picture in American marriages. In a country that holds the principle of separation of church and state, if marriage is not going to be by definition a religious institution in America but rather a legal status that provides tax credits, allows property sharing, visitation rights etc, there is no basis for denying marriage rights to homosexual couples who desire those same legal benefits. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate what standards we as Americans not Christians apply to marriage. Perhaps no “marriage certificates” should be issued by the state, and everyone gay or straight should receive civil union paperwork; however no matter what the resolution, if America is truly going to promote equality it must be equal for all, even those who lifestyles we may not agree with.
UPDATED 5-10-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localchi/20110509/ts_yblog_localchi/30-couples-to-be-joined-in-civil-unions-in-millennium-park?bouchon=602,il
"Gov. Pat Quinn and Cook County Clerk David Orr will be among those in attendance for a historic ceremony next month, in which 30 gay and lesbian couples will be joined in civil unions in Millennium Park."
UPDATED 6-1-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localchi/20110601/ts_yblog_localchi/same-sex-couples-line-up-for-civil-union-licenses?bouchon=602,il
UPDATED 5-10-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localchi/20110509/ts_yblog_localchi/30-couples-to-be-joined-in-civil-unions-in-millennium-park?bouchon=602,il
"Gov. Pat Quinn and Cook County Clerk David Orr will be among those in attendance for a historic ceremony next month, in which 30 gay and lesbian couples will be joined in civil unions in Millennium Park."
UPDATED 6-1-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localchi/20110601/ts_yblog_localchi/same-sex-couples-line-up-for-civil-union-licenses?bouchon=602,il
As of 6-1-11 Civil Unions are being issued to gay couples, civil unions give same sex and opposite sex couples the same rights as married couples when it comes to parenting, hospital rights, inheritances and more. But lawmakers have pointed out that legalizing civil unions does not change the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, which currently is spelled out in Illinois state law.
It's interesting to see you land on the same side as the libertarians on this issue, Broc. Except for a "liberal" reason: you want everyone to be equal... equal in their lack of marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between a libertarian and conservative, in this area (and in a lot of areas) is that libertarians fall even further right along the continuum of freedom vs. equality, in saying that the government should "get out of the business of marriage altogether."
I think you run into problems here. First, you have to institute something LIKE marriage in order to get rid of government marriage (i.e. you have to institute civil unions for everyone). You're not calling it marriage, but that's what it is. Why have anything at all? That's easy to answer. We want to institute some protections for the partners in the marriage. We want there to be legal arms around children who are born inside of a marriage--and consequences if one of the partners steps out of that marriage. I don't think that you can discount this.
Second, you have to answer the question, "How far does government reign in morality?" There is a famous British anthropoligist that chronicled the historical decline of eighty-six different cultures and found that "strict marital monogamy" was central to social energy and growth. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. If something is central to our society's growth and energy,
You say that heterosexual marriage is also eroding the moral fabric of our society. You issue this statement like, "Since marriage isn't really working for our society, let's just get rid of it altogether." I don't think that's right thinking. Heterosexual marriage is falling short; that doesn't mean that Christians should advocate that we revise the standard so that we can somehow feel better about ourselves.
On this issue do you not see the importance of equality? In America which is supposed to be based on freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of idea, do you not see how having equal “marriage” rights is important?
ReplyDeleteYes this idea would remove the government’s involvement in “marriage” and replace it will “civil union” but this is not simply of difference terminology. This is a fundamental difference in separation of church and state. For those who would like to be “married” it would still be possible to accomplish this through their church. As you know for Christians marriage is not the documents you get from city hall it is the commitment you make before God. Civil Unions would only be a legal document that would allow property sharing, tax benefits and other partner related benefits. Words are important and so are labels that we put on things. So for everyone Christian and non-Christians who would want to formally and legal commit to a relationship the civil union paperwork would be available to them.
As far as "strict marital monogamy" goes and its study, I am not aware of any valid study which documents that homosexual “life partners”/marriages/whatever, have a higher separation/divorce/whatever rate that heterosexual couples. My point being that homosexual couples do not cheat more than heterosexual couples already do, so the "strict marital monogamy" might not be affected. However I am sure there are those on both sides of that debate that issue and I will look to find some numbers for us.
No I am not saying that we should revise the standard I am saying that marriage should be for the church. “Marriage” should not be apart of our government. There would be ZERO marriages with the influence of Christianity. There are ways of allowing the legal protections that currently are attributed to marriage however “marriage” would be a relationship left for those who God designed it for.
For continued debate check out http://brevis.me/role-of-government
ReplyDeleteI have cut/paste the debate below:
ReplyDeleteBroc, I feel like I've not started at the foundations. I've started
somewhere down the issue without addressing the fundamental arguments. The
foundations of this issue are these:
1. Is homosexuality immoral? Does the Bible say that homosexuality is
wrong?
2. If homosexuality is immoral, should the government actively DISCOURAGE it
(i.e. punish people who are homosexual).
3. If homosexuality is moral or immoral, should the government actively
ENCOURAGE it. This is the question that sparks this debate.
If you answer that homosexuality is immoral, then you can say that there
should NOT be equality on this issue. If homosexuality is immoral, then we
should not say that an immoral act (so-called homosexual marriage) is
"equal" to a moral act (heterosexual marriage).
If you answer that homosexuality is MORAL, then I would ask that you provide
evidence from Scripture that supports this, instead of offering a post that
advocates for homosexual marriage/unions without addressing this issue.
Broc 1 day ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
1. Your line of questions is wrong; America can not govern as a free society based off the morality of one religion (even if you and I know it to be true). To govern a free society the rights of ALL must be upheld. Some speech is immoral, and TV and movies…morality can not be the law of a free nation.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
At what point do you draw the line? Should then other religions be outlawed because scripture teaches they are false gods? What type of nation would that be?
2. The question is not about our beliefs on morality, the question is, does allowing the LGBT communities the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on their freedoms or does not allowing the same legal rights to the LGBT community infringe on freedom. This does not create new rights it is allowing the same rights to all. It is sometime difficult to juggle being a Christian and an American, but I thank God every day that I live in a nation that provides a free society that I can practice my religion without persecution. I don’t have to morally agree with a position to think it is right for America.
Robert Ewoldt 1 day ago in reply to Broc
My questioning was not wrong. You didn't read all of my questions. My
questioning was correct. First, is it moral? Second, should the government
act on that morality.
You say, "To govern a free society the rights of ALL must be upheld." I
agree fundamentally with this statement, but not in the context in which you
use it. In the context in which you're using it, you're saying that
marriage is a RIGHT. Or, if you hold that homosexuality is a sin, then you
are saying that the ability to sin is a RIGHT. I don't agree with either
statement. One does not have the right to marry, or the right to sin.
Secondly, you frame the debate as one of one religion, Christianity, forcing
its own morals on the entire society, and you say that this is wrong. I
take issue with you in this: all laws make moral judgments. If you do not
derive your laws from religion, then where? Where do your moral foundations
come from, if not from religion? I would contend that you CANNOT make laws
apart from a religious morality.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Disqus <
Broc 1 day ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
ReplyDeleteOf course our morality is the basis for our law but it is to what extent to we allow morality to influence our law. All law is rooted in religion because religion was the original law. However, if we live in a society that is free, then our moral code should not stop others from practices THIER beliefs when they do not infringe on another’s freedom. That is the line America has established morality of murder, stealing, rape, etc. these are laws not just because they are moral but because to do these things removes the rights or freedoms from others without choice, by not allowing homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples we are removing their freedom. How does a homosexual couple getting the same legal protections for their relationship infringe on your own? At what point to stop following religious beliefs to ensure freedom in our society?
Robert Ewoldt 1 day ago in reply to Broc
How far do we go to protect freedom? That's the fundamental question. And
it's what separates conservatives from libertarians, frankly. I think that
it depends on what issue you're dealing with. On this particular issue, the
line of questioning becomes:
1. Is the institution of marriage fundamental enough to the success of a
society to garner it special status in our society? Are the benefits of
marriage to a society worth the government protecting it?
2. Is marriage something that is a "right" to everyone, regardless of sexual
orientation? Is equality in this matter more important than morality in
this matter?
You can say, "No, marriage shouldn't be afforded a special status in
society," as you're advocating in your post. I would argue that marriage is
foundational to our society, and should be afforded a special status in the
law, as it has been in every society in history. The government SHOULD be
involved in marriage. In this area, I am different from a libertarian.
Also, as a Christian, while I value equality in society, I do believe that
this is an area in which morality trumps equality.
How would you answer the above two questions?
Broc 1 day ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
The question you are asking is about marriage, what of civil unions, should homosexual couples not be afforded legal protections because they are not the same morally. That is a very interesting stance to take in a society that was founded on religious freedom. “I do believe that this is an area in which morality trumps equality.” Morality should never freedom, to do so changes the very core of what America is and has struggled to be.
1. The difference between what is going on now and other historical situations is marriage licenses were dealt with by the church, it was the church and not the government that provided marriage status. That distinction showed a direct link between marriage and God. That is not the situation now. If our government, which is supposed to be apart from religion, is built on the principal of religious freedom then that must trump our individual morality. Your own video post speak to how a republic is ruled by law, our laws do not prohibit homosexual marriage….what was the phrase you used when speaking about landlords….tyranny of the many?
2. No marriage is not a “right” to everyone because marriage is a religious institution, however our government has chosen to provide additional legal protections and benefits for people who chose to commit to each other, and it is those same legal rights that must be extended to all..NOT the title of marriage.
Robert Ewoldt 1 day ago in reply to Broc
ReplyDelete1. Morality DOES restrict freedom. Every moral law that the government
makes restricts freedom. You're saying that I advocate for unbridled
freedom, which I don't. Yes, conservatives advocate for freedom, but not
unbridled freedom.
2. There is a difference between religious freedom and what we're talking
about. Religious freedom is the freedom to practice your religion freely.
This does NOT imply that there will never be an instance in which morality
trumps freedom, or where laws will be based upon a moral standard.
3. You state that, in the United States, there is a separation of church and
state. The healthy separation of church and state is only in the sense that
the heads of both institutions are not the same. We don't separate our
religious convictions from our political convictions. When you do, you're
saying that it's OK for there to be a double standard in morality. When it
comes to something as foundational to our society as marriage, I think
that's very dangerous.
Broc 1 day ago in reply to Broc
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Why draw the morality line here? What about hate groups like the KKK and others, should they not be allowed because they are morality repugnant and violate what Christ has taught as the 2nd most important law to love your neighbor as yourself? I again reference “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Perhaps an example that closely parallels the topic at hand is, should the legal benefits and tax exempt status of other religious institutions be removed because they profess idol gods not the True God, instructing and leading others to violate what Christ taught as the most important law to love the lord our God.
Robert Ewoldt 1 day ago in reply to Broc
Hear me clearly: I'm not saying that we should outlaw homosexuality. If
people want to be homosexual, then that's fine. We allow people to sin in
homosexuality just as we allow people to sin by being a part of a hate
group. There's a difference between "live and let live" and actively
encouraging an immoral lifestyle by codifying it into law. While we let
them choose whether or not to live the homosexual lifestyle, we do not
encourage that lifestyle by giving them the same societal benefits as we
give to those who are married.
Broc 1 day ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
ReplyDeleteYour position seems to be a rather random line in the sand, what about example that closely parallels the topic at hand is, should the legal benefits and tax exempt status of other religious institutions be removed because they profess idol gods not the True God, instructing and leading others to violate what Christ taught as the most important law to love the lord our God.
By allowing these legal rights to only one part of the population, which by the way is in NO way related to or connected to what makes a Christian marriage; you are establishing a hierarchy of religious beliefs in a supposedly “free” country. How does that obvious contradiction not cause problems? Is that not tyranny of the many?
Robert Ewoldt 21 hours ago in reply to Broc
In any government (that is not run by religious leaders), you necessarily
have a hierarchy of religious beliefs in a supposedly "free" country. You
have to decide which of your moral beliefs are morals that the whole country
should live by, and which ones are ones that really aren't that necessary to
a good society.
As a Christian, then, you have to decide which is more foundational to you:
your Christian beliefs or your political beliefs.
I would highly recommend you read a book by Wayne Grudem called "Politic
According to the Bible." I think that you would benefit from it.
Broc
I believe the difference that you are I are having on this issues really relates to whether we advocate for our own moral beliefs or do we advocate for what America’s are or should be. These two things do not and will not always parallel each other. For example I personally morally detest the protest and speech being poured out of Westboro Baptist Church however I would advocate for there right to do so. In that same fold I morally do not agree with homosexuality however to withhold equal legal protections on basis of only my own personal morality flies in the face of what America is. By allowing legal protections, it does not infringe on anyone else’s freedoms nor does it send of message of acceptance, its sends a message of equality. It says to everyone though we may disagree, this is America and you will be given the same opportunities and protections.
On issues where America's values and your own values do not agree, how do you vote?
Robert Ewoldt 3 hours ago in reply to Broc
ReplyDeleteBroc, I agree with you that there are some things that I would morally find
wrong, but I wouldn't make laws about them. However, there are other things
that I find morally wrong that I WOULD make laws about. And, while it may
seem arbitrary at times, I think the deciding factor for me is, how
foundational to our society is this issue?
I think Grudem has a good matrix by which to judge these things. He says
that a government that's talked about in the Bible is one that (a) restrains
evil, (b) brings good to society, and (c) brings order to society.
I think that marriage laws are fundamental to the success of a society, and
having a "traditional" definition of marriage does all three of the above
things, while not promoting a lifestyle that is morally wrong. Also,
defining marriage in a traditional sense does NOT remove the rights of
homosexual people to live their lives in the way that they want.
To deal with issues that are brought up by the homosexual community--i.e.
hospital visitation rights, wills, etc.--these issues can be resolved
without changing the definition of marriage in our society, and without the
government condoning their lifestyle.
Broc 2 hours ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
I disagree with you that creating laws for legal protections is “promoting” or “condoning” lifestyles, all it would be doing is acknowledging the current inequality that does exist and correcting it, but to use your words, how could you create equality without “condoning their lifestyles?”
Robert Ewoldt 1 hour ago in reply to Broc
You don't create equality in this area. You allow homosexuals to be free to
live their lives how they want, but don't allow them to marry. The
government, in this area, promotes societal good by remaining in the
"business of marriage," and by defining marriage in the traditional sense.
Because marriage is foundational to any society, the government SHOULD be
involved.
Broc 20 minutes ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
Well I am disappointed with your view, your argument while holding to your own moral code, does not hold water when put into the light of what America’s values are. You support the belief that one group’s morality should supersede the belief system of another. This injustice is the exact type of thing America was founded to fight against.
Final Thought: If marriage is a Christian institution then why does the government, whose own law states a separation of church and state, issue marriage licenses? This contraction is why marriage NEEDS to be redefined, either it is a religious institution based on a lifetime commitment or its a legal status…since it is currently both this debate will continue in society.
Robert Ewoldt 11 minutes ago in reply to Broc
You say this is one group's morality superceding another's. I guess that's
true. Though the same thing could be said for laws against murder and rape,
and you don't have any problem with those laws. I think that you're having
a problem seeing that all laws are moral, and all laws are one group's
morality over another.
You also have a bad view of the separation of church and state... and the
Christian's role in government. You're saying that Christian's shouldn't
advocate for their own moral views as a part of law... because that would be
imposing our own moral code on others. But the fact is, EVERYONE who
advocates for ANYTHING involving government is advocating it from their own
moral code, WHEREVER that comes from. People who advocate for universal
health care, are advocating for this because they believe that it's a moral
imperative that everyone has health care.
But that's a debate for another time...
Broc 0 minutes ago in reply to Robert Ewoldt
ReplyDeleteI agree that the second part is a debate for another time..lol
“ Though the same thing could be said for laws against murder and rape, and you don't have any problem with those laws.” No those are not the same thing…as I stated in a early comment
”… if we live in a society that is free, then our moral code should not stop others from practices THIER beliefs when they do not infringe on another’s freedom. That is the line America has established morality of murder, stealing, rape, etc. these are laws not just because they are moral but because to do these things removes the rights or freedoms from others without choice, by not allowing homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples we are removing their freedom….”