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

KL,
Just for the record, the argument re burning animals wasn't me!

Justin

Legally I think that the Court got it right on the sodomy case. I agree with Justice O'Connor in that these laws were unconstitutional because they were not equally enforced against gays and non-gays (sodomy can, and is, committed by some non-gays as well, as we all know). You just can't have that kind of disparate treatment under the Constitution.

I think the issue of gay marriage is more complex. I think that many people are not offended at all by what the Court did in the sodomy case, but would be troubled by gay marriage. I think that sense of troubledness could influence what the Court does, if and when the issue comes before it. The Court tends to follow societal trends in its decisions, and this hasn't always been a bad thing (consider Brown v. Board of Education).

My guess is that some states will adopt laws permitting it (Massachusetts appears on the brink of doing so). If a federal law is passed banning gay marriages, it would be interesting to see what the court would do about this under the supremacy clause of the constitution, and whether the court would use this as an instance to claw-back the power of the federal government in this area (quite possible). I think that a Constitutional amendment relating to this is unlikely .. it would be too politically costly for the right to do so, and I don't think Bush and the GOP have the political stomach for that right now.

Someone has posted that "My unmarried cousin is going on her tenth child thanks to the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers." Surely the pregnant cousin has had the more direct "assistance" of as few as one, or as many as ten, or some number in between, of men who knew her - at least in passing - rather more intimately than the US government and/or the US taxpayers?! I do not often defend the US government, but it seems a bit harsh to blame the government and appear to overlook the responsibility of the more closely involved. Or can it be (yes, it can, although it probably isn't the case) that the pregnant cousin and her, ah, paramour(s) do not grasp the relationship between intercourse and birth? Incognitus

Dear Administrator,

Actually I am certifiable in several states!
Certifiable to teach history that is.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the influence of the deist movement on the early founding fathers and its enshrining in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. I am also familiar with the movement toward a desacralization of the government over the years. (I'm sure that the lawyers among us can address that even better).

I am addressing things as they are now, with the understanding that they have indeed changed since the founding of the Republic. It is within that context that I find reason to fear the President or others in government using religious determination of sin solely as a basis for criminalization of behavior. Of course, the other reasons that I shared for my concern are germaine to my concern, I believe.

Frankly though, the misuse of religion by the government in the past is not extremely comforting. Miscegination was considered sinful and proscribed by the law, for example. People were arrested for adultery. I believe that we could find quite a few examples that should lead Americans to be concerned over this issue if we had the time to do so. I think that I've just touched the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

I realize that there are those who disagree. That is to be expected.

Thanks again for your kind comments about my participation in this thread, and thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Krylos Leader,

Thanks for your kind words. I do indeed understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. The danger to Church and state is real in my view when.....

It seems that at least some Justices on the Supreme Court in the recent decision on the criminalizaion of homosexual behavior are seeing things in that light, too.

The discussion here is good because it is about issues. Many times when this kind of exchange of ideas happens about religion and government, especially when it realtes to the emotionally charged issue of homosexuality, some one will inevitably suggest that one is protecting sin, in that case homosexuality. It even happened here in living memory. That is not so.

Sorry to ramble. I am greatly appreciative of your comments and your position. I look forward to reading what you have to say.

Thank you.

Steve

Dear Brendan:

The Federalism issue is one that was raised in passing erlier and dropped, but I humbly agree it's a very important one.

The Federal Government does not directly regulate marriage. The States do. When the Federal Government says that it considers the only legitimate marriage is a monogomous man-woman arrangement, it is saying that it will not consider a "gay marriage" to be one that is entitled of the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act and similar laws.

(Remember the "mandatory" 55 mile per hour speed limit - it's kinda like that).

Of course, as mentioned above, a blanket pronouncement by the Feds such as the one described would also mean that the Feds would have no basis upon which to insist that "married" gay couples file thier tax returns as anything other than "single."

Yours,

kl

Dear Justin:

Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!

Yours,

kl

Dear Steve:

I love your point about the mis-use and ab-use of religion by governments.

I believe that the Catholic Chruch has an episode or two that might fit into that description as well.

(Take THAT Mr. Administrator). :p

Yours,

kl

Lemko Rusyn wrote:

Just noticed on his site Sullivan cited emails from gays that have left the Catholic Church saying:

So, Andrew Sullivan may not profess to be Catholic much longer...

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

If you are familiar with history then why does is shock you when someone like President Bush approaches his job from the perspective of someone with religious faith? Are you equally shocked when you read some of the speeches of the Founding Fathers or the earlier presidents?

BTW, please let me know if you have read the documents I linked and asked about earlier. I am interested in your thoughts on what they present.

--

K-L & Steve,

I have not ever suggested that a particular Church be the arbiter of morality. I have only suggested that Judeo-Christian ethics be the foundation of our morality. It is a difficult undertaking which our American Forefathers undertook, to be sure. And it is abundantly clear that we are now abandoning it.

If (as it seems) you reject any and all specifically religiously based morality as the foundation of societal morality what then do you wish to utilize as the standard of morality in our society?

On what basis do you defend human dignity? Is there to be such a thing as human dignity?

The ability to see evil clearly, to identify it and to understand that it must be opposed is the only way for freedom to exist in a society. In a totally secular society there is no way to make any distinctions between good and evil, except consensus. And it is impossible to gain consensus on any issue. Consensus is often wrong as every choice is relative.

How does one decide that murder is wrong? Once abortion was wrong. Now it is a constitutional right from a woman to kill the child in her womb. Once euthanasia was wrong. Now it is not so wrong and already occurs in our country. Once homosexual activity was wrong. Not it is a constitutional right. How do you justly legislate against group marriages, adult-child sexual activity, incest and adultery? Do you? Can you legislate against these things which destroy the family (and they do indeed destroy the family)? Do you even want to? But not legislating against them effectively attacks and erodes marriage. After all, the current prohibitions against these activities are all religiously based.

How do you make a distinction between right and wrong?

In Islamic countries Muslims kill apostates from that religion. They believe that it is the natural and correct thing to do. On what basis � other then a hoped for consensus � do you tell them that they can�t do such a thing? If you do, by what right can you deny them their freedom of religious expression? You cannot say that human life is sacred and use that basis because that idea comes from either a religious viewpoint or a religiously influenced understanding of natural law (and Muslims have a vastly different understanding of natural law then we do).

Admin

Andrew Sullivan�s column runs in my local paper. He recently stated as much in a recent column. He, like the people of Dignity and other homosexual activist groups challenging God�s teaching, either puts personal choice above God�s Law or he redefines God�s Laws to pretend that it does not really prohibit deviant behavior.

I can understand how unbelievers can be fooled into thinking that homosexual activity is acceptable and not damaging to society but I cannot imagine how someone who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ can so casually dismiss his clear and consistent Teachings. It is very sad when people who call themselves by Christ�s name appeal to people who disagree with Christ to back up their immoral positions rather than to appeal to Christ and His Teachings for moral guidance.

Admin

The Administrator asks (this was not directed to me, but that's ok) "why does it shock you when someone like President Bush approaches his job from the perspective of someone with religious faith?". It doesn't shock me in the least; if a man has religious faith I would expect him to approach life and work with such a perspective. Obviously, Bush and I do not have the same religious faith.
What does shock me, however, is Bush's patent illiteracy and sheer ignorance of the world in general. But I shouldn't complain - I suppose that for someone who lost the election, he's not doing too badly. Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

You bring up a very good point. The problems with the 2000 election, abortion, and the re-definition of marriage is fundamentally the same. Decisions in a "democracy" or a "republic" made not by the elected representatives of the people, but via the Diktat of unelected Judges imposed upon us for life.

As for illiteracy and ignorance, President Bush is the first to hold degrees from both Yale and Harvard. His "illiteracy" and "ignorance" clearly displays the true value of a Liberal American education.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

That George W. Bush holds those degrees is indisputable. Whether he earned them is more open to question. On the matter of morals, one could also discuss his arrest record - and his public denial of that arrest record. On the matter of his lack of literacy, one need only look at - or, heaven help us, listen to - his public utterances. He makes Dan Quayle look like a postive master of grammar, spelling, syntax and English literature. Incognitus

I think that his illiteracy and ignorance cannot be blamed on Harvard and Yale, or taken as a display of the value a Liberal American education. I am reminded of Dorothy Parker's famous sentence with "horticulture".

Both could, however, be criticized for their admission policies which favor marginally qualified applicants with connections, and their tradition of the "gentlemen's C" which allows all those students to graduate. (The SAT's were created with impetus from Harvard's President Conant,who was working to break the Brahmin lock on Harvard admissions, by demonstrating through testing that common folk also had the aptitude for college education).

Bush went, incidentally, to Harvard Business School, not Harvard University; while the latter provides a traditional, Liberal education, the former certainly does not! JFK, btw, had degrees from Harvard and Yale; the degree from Yale was an honorary one.