My purpose in posting this is not to promote debate, or even discussion (although I'm open to it). I'm not asking you to tell me what you think. (I already know how most of my friends think about this issue--funny how I have friends who really love God on both sides of this issue). I'm just encouraging you to listen. and think. and pray.
4 comments:
The last part of his comment was very illuminating. In quoting a Clarence Darrow legal proceeding, in essence he said (and I am paraphrasing), "Take my name out of the book above, I'd rather it be in the book of love." In other words, rather than be in right relationship with God, I'd rather be in right relationship (self-defined, of course) with man. That is the height of idolatry. Personally, whether Prop 8 passed or failed, it wouldn't change how I wake up every morning or operate my life. Some of the question that needs to be answered is, is marriage a legal contract, a social contract, or a spiritual contract? The answer to that question notwhithstanding, his conclusions once again place man in the position of God. (Rom. 1:25)
p.s. Lest anyone be deceived, I spent the weekend before the election in the heart of Prop 8 country enjoying dinner and fellowship celebrating a friend's birthday with at least 6-10 gay couples. We had a wonderful time.
Todd -
This is Evan Moore, from the old Crosspoint contingent. Congrats on the win, and hope you're doing well with the new kids.
I'll set aside the arguements of gay marriage on the merits - as you and I clearly do not agree, there - and make a point on the process of what went down.
Four justices of the California Supreme Court decided to overturn a law (which passed with 61% of the public's support) which was in line with prevailing federal legislation on the matter passed 4 years earlier. At considerable effort and expense, the people of California then had to organize a ballot initiative completely on the fly so as to ammend their constitution, and reverse the decision made by 4 men, and restore the status quo ante-May 15.
Just to restate: 4 men decided that their interpretation of the law overrode an overwhelming majority of the people whom they serve, and played very fast-and-loose with the law in order to do so. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a law student, but I think it's reasonably clear to the lay-observer as to what the court did, here - and it should be deeply troubling to people who believe that we are a country of laws, and not of men. The notion that people with very little accountability to the people can overturn a clearly-voiced decision of the people by discovering new meaning in law places enormous power in a very few individuals. The American federal system is designed to do precisely the opposite.
So, the people of California then ammended their constitution through the democratic process (which their state Supreme Court so neatly side-stepped), and firmly established in the text of the state's supreme law a provision keeping the definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman. Now, gay marriage supporters in the state are left with the rather absurd arguement that a constitutional ammendment is, itself, unconstitutional.
There're a few key lessons to be seen, here. First, supporters of measures like these have consistently gone through the court system to plead their case, rather than persuading majority-coalitions of the public that they are right. Again, this is a run-around the democratic process of resolving complex social issues, and underlying it is an assumption that the American people do not know how to govern themselves.
Second, if memory serves, only two states - Mass. and Vermont - have legal provisions for homosexual marriage while 30 states have ammended their constitutions so as to prohibit an activist court or official from arbitrarily creating such an institution (as San Franscisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and former Vt. Governor Howard Dean did a few years ago.) This indicates that the American people are only willing to go so far in allowing a radical redefinition of a cornerstone social institution. Civil Unions seem to be an emerging middle ground in this debate (and Prop 8, if I recall correctly, didn't affect that bit of legal territory), but Homosexual Marriage is a threshold which not a lot of Americans are willing to cross. The number of states that have girded their constitutions against a judicial insurrection in this field, as well as the fact that the largest and one of the most-liberal states in the country is one of them should give the men and women that are effectively trying to shove this down the throats of the American people should give supporters of homosexual marriaqe pause before they try this again in another state.
Third, the behavior of some supporters of this measure is, frankly, disgusting, and not at all likely to win converts to the cause. Running a television commercial depicting Mormon missionaries as modern-day gestapo agents is beyond the pale (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE), even in the silly-season of the final days of a heated campaign. Their behavior since e-day has been somewhat less than a classy acceptance of electoral defeat, and moving straight on into vandalism (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/11/tshirt_intolerance_and_prop_8.asp), and the attitude emanating from many of these groups has been "This won because you're all bigots." I realize that emotions run very high on this issue, I realize that these people are nowhere near reflective of the people who champion this cause, and I realize that in the two weeks before and after election day, you're not really going to find a lot of calm and reason out in the electorate, but this kind of stuff is rather ridiculous, and should be decried by everyone. However, it does serve to illustrate the aforementioned contempt that I think a great many of the activists for homosexual marriage have for the perspective of those who oppose them. I've seen this contempt a great many times in VA's own experience on this issue a couple of years ago, and I can testify that it's not a pretty sight to see.
There's a right way and a wrong way to try to affect a wholesale, radical redefinition of a cornerstone social institution which has existed in its most basic form across every civilization on the planet for all of recorded history (which I believe is what's going on here in this debate). One way is to persuade people through public communication, and establish coalitions of support across the country to pass or overturn laws. This is generally how things work in a federal republic such as ours. The second is to skip that entire process, and go to the courts so as to achieve dramatic changes in our society, effectively, overnight. In pursuing this, you may or may not get what you want, but you will get your result quick. Advocates and supporters of homosexual marriage chose the latter, and now, I believe, don't like it when a majority of their peers clearly and vocally disagrees with them.
As to Olberman's special comment - it's unpersuasive rhetorical fluff that buys-in to a very-flawed understanding of the law which has since been discarded.
The second link didn't go through, there, but it's a recent post by Mary Katharine Ham on the Weekly Standard's online blog, and has a few links in it to incidents of vandalism and assault of pro-Prop 8 people and facilities by anti-Prop 8 folks.
Thanks for posting the link, the transcript was very moving. One day this will not be a subject we even discuss and if some choose to then they will be looked at funny.
Post a Comment