www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage

Here is another news item on the issue of homosexual marriages:

- - - - - - -

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush says Americans should respect homosexuals, but he wants to make sure marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman.

Government lawyers are exploring measures to enshrine that definition in the law, the president said Wednesday.

"I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other," he said.

Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays.

"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.

...

- - - - - - -

The entire text can be read here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...sh_gay_marriage&cid=544&ncid=716

Theologically speaking, is marriage something that can only be "between a man and a woman?" What is the Church's tradition on this?

Comments?

Joe

It blows my mind how some think it's even possible that Christianity hasn't always considered marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman.

Logos Teen

Logos Teen,
There's a certain book by John Boswell that might broaden your perspective, then. It hasn't been well received, but it's an interesting discussion / analysis nonetheless. Some will dismiss it out of hand because they don't agree with the conclusions. But there it is.

But, Lemko, where is the faith in the infallibility of the Church on these matters?

Does the unquestionable Teaching of the Church mean nothing nowadays?

If the Church tells us definitively that marriage only exists between a man and woman under terms of X, Y, and Z, who are we to question the Truth into which the Church has led us?

If we question the Church's position on these types of things, soon we will be reconsidering the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc.

If the Church infallibly taught that the sky was really orange, but everyday in my life I've been seeing it as blue, I would cast off my worthless opinion in a millisecond and adopt the Church's position, since she is infallible and I, most certainly, am not.

This whole thing just could not seem clearer to me.

Logos Teen

Dear All:

If the President has a specific public policy objective in mind for opposing gay mariage (federalism issues notwithstanding), then I wish the White House would clearly set them out for the American people to hear.

Of course, as someone said on another thread, what is the government doing in the "marriage business" anyway? Other than making money at the state and local level for marriage licenses, that is. A civil marriage? What's that? But, I digress.

Having said that, if the President's opposition is solely based upon religious beliefs, I cannot help but think that this could legitimately be seen as a small step towards a fundamentalist theocracy.

Now, before you jump down my throat, I am not saying that homosexual behavior is right.

However, when one talks of government legislating morality, I get nervous becasue someday, that same goverment may wish to impose a moral standard upon us that we do NOT happen to agree with.

Yours,

kl

John Boswell constructs a revisionist view of history. For some helpful links:

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/debunking.john.boswell

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage7.html

http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/articles/adelphopoiesis.html

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Teen:

The pursuasiveness of your arguments are far beyond your years. I hope I never see you accross the aisle in a courtroom.

Still, I wonder from where you get your premise that ALL of the "Church's" (whatever you mean by that) teachings are infallible? Is it not itself a teaching of the Church that it is itself infallible.

And isn't it wise to think that an institution that would describe itself as infallible obviously doesn't want you to question anything they say - and, therefore, should make you question their motives all along?

Heck, there was plenty of questioning going on during the Ecumenical Coucils. Why didn't they just say back then that a small group of people are infallible and just forego the whole discussion?

Yours,

kl

Teen, bless you for having the faith of a child, which Our Lord commanded all of His followers to strive for!

You are right, and don't let anyone talk you out of it either. Christ founded His Church to proclaim His truth to all generations - not just to generate "opinions" to be accepted or rejected as we please.

Hang onto the gift of Faith He has given you!

That book by Boswell (now dead of AIDS) was nothing more than the most transparently tendentious tract ever written on the topic. EVERY single historical and scholarly journal that reviewed it said it was pure propaganda in the worst sort of way--twisted facts, invented some *ex nihilo*, wildly misinterpreted even basic data, and generally showed gross ignorance behind a facade of pseudo-scholarship. Even his fans and supporters conceded it was a book with great weaknesses. Nobody who is serious would recommend or read it.

Thanks, Adam, for showing where you're coming from.

I've also been told that Boswell was a Catholic.

Lemko,

The fact remains that Boswell's work has great flaws.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Unless you are accusing the past generations of Americans of living in a fundamentalist theocracy (since they created all the laws that are now being challenged) you have no case to accuse the President of seeking to establish a fundamentalist theocracy. He is seeking only to codify in law something that the founders of our country believed and built our society upon.

All law is legislated morality.

L-R,

There's a certain book inspired by God and written by His Church that might broaden your perspective. It hasn't been well received, but it gives us the laws He expects those who call themselves His followers to live by. It is true nevertheless and trumps every other book. Some will dismiss it out of hand because they don't agree with what it teaches. But there it is.

Admin

Dear Admin:

What the Founding Fathers may have or may not believed in as part of their own theological beliefs is not the issue. If it was, then our grandparents would have become Episcopalians at the moment they set foot on American soil.

Rather, the Foudning Fathers created a Federal Government of limited powers under the Consitution and, a few years later gave us the First Amendment that, through interpretation by our Supreme Court, has come to be commonly understood as not only requiring freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion.

In other words, the Consitution of the United States of America, I submit to you sir, contemplates the situation that someone may not share your religious beliefs as to what is or is not acceptable sexual conduct.

This brings me back to my original point. Where there is a legitimate state interest in regulating certain behavior, fine - no problem. That's what "the law" is designed to do.

However, where there is none - and I don't hear anything coming from the White House that would suggest one - I as a lawyer and as a citizen must raise a proverbial eyebrow to such an exercise of Federal power.

Bottom line - laws that are rooted in theoligical beliefs of our forefathers are fine, as long as they are a legitimate exericse of government power under our consitutional system.

However, saying the civil law should be so just becasue someone's idea of God said it should be so is, I once again submit, a slippery slope.

Yours,

kl

Why does there seem to be so much confusion regarding this topic ? Why is it such a vast gray area of misunderstanding ?(It isn't with God) The most charitable thing we can tell the unrepentent homosexual, is that there life style is an abomination before God. To do otherwise would be to send dangerous mixed signals.

Why does the homosexual merit special consideration anyway ?(in some peoples estimation) Why not special consideration for the promiscuous heterosexual, or the adulterer, or paedophile ? Sadly in our society today, if one speaks out against the gay agenda from a Biblical standpoint, they quite often end up defending themselves against charges that they support violence against gays.

This was never an issue in our parents or grandparents day. It shouldn't be one now either.