What’s the Vote About? And What Difference Does It Make?
At this moment, six states plus the District of Columbia recognize what they call marriages between partners of the same sex. Three more states will be voting on legislation or citizens’ initiatives that will also recognize same-sex marriage. On the other hand, nine states have statues specifically prohibiting same sex marriages, and another thirty prohibit the practice in their constitutions. This Tuesday, the citizens of Minnesota (my state) will vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Opponents of the amendment have tried to challenge it as a civil rights issue. For them, homosexuality should be treated as a minority status. People are born with their “sexual orientation” and it is unreasonable (they say) to discriminate against them. Persons of the same sex don’t harm anybody else if they cohabit or marry, so any law that prevents them from marrying is discriminatory. Their slogan goes, “Everyone should have the right to marry.”
The debate, however, is not about the rights of same-sex couples. It is about power, force, and, ultimately, about the use of violence against citizens who will not cooperate in the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior. If you think this is an overstatement, think again.
We are not really deliberating the definition of marriage. Marriage is simply marriage, and it is always between a man and a woman. This is not opinion; it is fact. You can claim to be married to a car. You can claim to be married to a building. You can claim to be married to a microbe. But you won’t be. Ever.
Two people of the same sex will never be married to each other either, whatever they claim. Their relationship may be a lot of things, but cannot be marriage. When they say that they are married, they are engaging in a game of “let’s pretend.” The question is whether anybody else should be made to pretend along with them.
Pretend games can be fun. When I was a child, my friends and I used to pretend to be cops and robbers. Sometimes we would pretend to be cowboys and Indians (we hadn’t heard of Native Americans in those days). My sisters would play house and pretend to be hostesses inviting guests to dinner parties. But nobody ever mistook us for real police officers, criminals, buckaroos, indigenous peoples, or (in the case of my sisters) home economists. If we had tried to assert our game in the real world, we would have been laughed at, dismissed, or, if we were persistent enough, punished. Real cops get pretty upset about people pretending to be police officers in the real world.
A man can pretend that his handkerchief is a hundred-dollar bill. If he can convince somebody else to pretend along with him, the two of them might actually transact some kind of business. Nobody else, however, is obligated to accept the handkerchief in trade.
Things are different when the government pretends that scraps of paper constitute wealth. Then people do have to use it. The law declares bits of scrip to be legal tender, so everybody has to pretend. Granted, under some circumstances two people might resort to barter, but you won’t be allowed to pay your tax bill with sides of beef or bushels of grain. The government insists upon receiving the money that it recognizes, and it backs up its demands with force. If you refuse to pay, the state will send armed people to expropriate your property and perhaps to incarcerate you. If you resist, they will commit violence against your person.
That is what same-sex marriage is about. The people who are pushing same-sex marriage are not content simply to let the happy couple play their game of “let’s pretend.” They insist that all of us should play along. If we won’t, then they want the state to send armed officers to force us into the game. Ultimately, if we do not play, these officials will deprive us of our property and perhaps of our liberty, all with the threat of violence. That is how governments work.
This is not simply speculation—it is already happening in states that have recognized same-sex marriage. Just talk to Robert and Cynthia Gifford, owners of the Liberty Ridge Farms in Rensselaer County, New York. The farm, which hosts weddings, declined to accommodate the wedding of a same-sex couple. In response, the couple has filed a human rights complaint with the state of New York. At minimum, Robert and Cynthia will now have to bear the expense and aggravation of defending themselves with the legal system. There is a very real possibility that fines and other sanctions will follow.
To be clear, I am not complaining that governments recognize marriages. States ought to be able to stipulate when marriages will be recognized, for at least two reasons. One is to avoid social chaos. For example, individual citizens do not want to have to adjudicate for themselves whether a couple is just shacking up or whether the partners should actually receive spousal benefits. The other reason is that the state has an interest in fostering the kind of relationships that make for stable civilizations, and marriage is one of the most important of those relationships. Marriage is supposed to be a public act and not a private arrangement, so few of us would question the right of the state to specify procedures and circumstances under which marriages are recognized.
The problem arises when the coercive power of the state is placed behind a game of social make-believe. Once the state decides to recognize a marriage, private citizens no longer have the latitude to refuse to recognize it. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, but whether we think that such a thing is moral or even possible, we will be forced to act as if it is a legitimate social institution. The force comes with the threat of violence, since those who do not treat same-sex couples as if they were married will sooner or later have to face those armed officials who bring the threat of financial loss, incarceration, or even bodily harm. If we refuse to play “let’s pretend,” then sooner or later we will have to face violence.
So far, in no state have the people actually voted to institute such a frightening and repressive regime upon their fellow-citizens. In the nine states that recognize same-sex marriages, the decision was made by legislative or judicial bodies. What the Minnesota amendment will do is to take away any possibility of this decision being made by state courts or legislatures. It will guarantee that ordinary people do not have to fear the coercive power of the state should they refuse to play the game.
If same-sex relationships can be called marriage, then the word marriage no longer has any meaning. The boundaries are down and almost any relationship can be defined as a marriage. So a man wants to have his Harley in his hospital room? Marry it. A spinster wants her Siamese to get Social Security spousal benefits? Marry it.
Think I’m making it up? Ask Chadil Deffy, whose fiancée, Anne Kamsook, died in an accident. Chadil turned the funeral into a wedding ceremony, placing a ring on the dead woman’s finger. Of course, Chadil was playing a game of “let’s pretend.” In this case no one was forced to play along. But who knows how broadly marriage will be defined once the barriers are down?
It’s not just that same-sex couples want to pretend that they are married. They want the rest of us to pretend along with them. In fact, they want the rest of us to be made to play along. Maybe you think you can live with it, and maybe you can. But you ought to be asking yourself—what will they want to marry next?
Raise Thee, My Soul
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
Raise thee, my soul, fly up, and run
Through every heav’nly street,
And say, there’s naught below the sun
That’s worthy of thy feet.
Thus will we mount on sacred wings,
And tread the courts above;
Nor earth, nor all her mightiest things,
Shall tempt our meanest love.
There on a high majestic throne
Th’ Almighty Father reigns,
And sheds his glorious goodness down
On all the blissful plains.
Bright like a sun the Savior sits,
And spreads eternal noon;
No evenings there, nor gloomy nights,
To want the feeble moon.
Amidst those ever-shining skies,
Behold the sacred Dove!
While banished sin and sorrow flies
From all the realms of love.
The glorious tenants of the place
Stand bending round the throne;
And saints and seraphs sing and praise
The infinite Three One.
But O! what beams of heav’nly grace
Transport them all the while
Ten thousand smiles from Jesus’ face,
And love in every smile!
Jesus! and when shall that dear day,
That joyful hour, appear,
When I shall leave this house of clay,
To dwell amongst them there?
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 17 views
I agree with Dr. Bauder. Here is my struggle - Romney has taken millions of dollars of campaign support from Peter Singer (5 million dollars from one event in May). Peter Singer is one of the main finance men who helped bring gay marriage to New York State. GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, the 2 major gay agenda groups in the GOP have also endorsed Romney. Do politicians really take support from people and groups like this and then proceed to lead America in rejecting gay marriage?
Joe,
President Obama and the DNC are clearly on record that they support gay marriage and the removal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Romney is on record that he supports traditional marriage only and the DOM act. I realize that one candidate is the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils is to vote for less evil. If it is true as you say that GOP log cabiners have supported Romney, there is concern that he could eventually compromise. For that reason we need to exercise continual vigilance upon Romney and other GOP politicians. At least we have a voice with them. With Obama and the DNC we have no voice. Their position on this issue, like abortion, is firmly in cement.
Pastor Mike Harding
I’m not so sure.
I believe that marriage is what God says it is, period. If we buttress constitutions and laws to define marriage how it really is, then those same constitutions and laws can be overturned or rewritten to define marriage some other way in the future.
In the end, banning gay marriage, or expressly defining marriage as between one man and one woman, seems to be a lost cause. Eventually the courts or public opinion will overturn the ban, and all we’ve succeeded in doing is reinforce the myth that Christians aim to legislate their own version of morality at everyone else’s expense.
Freedom of conscience means something. And even if gay people are wrong -terribly and eternally wrong, they still have as much right as anyone for trying to secure their happiness and equal footing when it comes to visitation rights, property inheritance and other factors.
There may be a gay agenda that is out to get people. But the laws do permit freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. That day may change, religious freedom may be overruled in the court of opinion. And when that day comes, we’ll join the ranks of numerous other Christian believers who have been persecuted for their faith.
I’m not in favor of gay marriage. I don’t think it is marriage. I am concerned their may be a gay agenda that is out to legislate how people think. But I am not so sure that legislating a one man and one woman definition of marriage is the best way to address these problems.
In a pluralistic society with a democratic/republican style of government, shouldn’t the beliefs of everyone be defended? How would we feel about enshrining our particular beliefs about divorce as state law? In fact, why not penalize people for violating any Scriptural command or principle? Where does this logically end?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
In a pluralistic society with a democratic/republican style of government, shouldn’t the beliefs of everyone be defended? How would we feel about enshrining our particular beliefs about divorce as state law? In fact, why not penalize people for violating any Scriptural command or principle? Where does this logically end?
On the first question, it isn’t really possible. How can those who know what a marriage is have their beliefs defended and those who want to pretend it’s something else also have theirs defended? There will be winners and losers.
Given that our culture is adrift, it may well be a losing battle but some battles are right to fight not because we can win but because it is right to fight. (Imagine the civilian who stands up to a rampaging army that wants to rape and murder his wife. He has zero chance of winning, but if he doesn’t fight, what kind of man is he? )
About the second two questions (in the quote), the fact that some things are not worth enshrining into law doesn’t support the conclusion that no things are worth enshrining into law. Compare these two statements …
- Some A are not B
- No A are B
So the question becomes, by what criteria do we decide what things are worth putting the coercive power of the state behind and what things are not?
The answer is complex. But part of Kevin’s argument here is that the pro “gay marriage” folks are trying put the coercive power of the state behind their marriage pretentions. Whatever the criteria are for putting a belief into law, certainly these criteria should exclude “what no civilized society recognized as lawful for thousands of years.” This is a standard that has little chance of becoming oppressive.
A huge part of the pro gay marriage argument rests on framing the whole thing as though humanity popped onto the scene the day before yesterday.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think I’ve been coming around to your point of view on this question, though I do think it won’t solve all the problems.
One way out of this is to get government out of the marriage business entirely — i.e. have no particular benefits enshrined in law for a concept we freely recognize as being religious, since it’s God’s definition in the Bible.
If “marriage” (no matter how it’s defined) conferred no special benefits under law, then we could exercise marriage in the church as believe, and other types of “marriage” could be exercised by those who want to expand the definition. That would prevent my having to recognize anything as marriage that was against my beliefs.
We might think this would open the door to things like polygamy or plural “marriage” or other similar biblically problematic relationships, but the reality is that these already exist — they just don’t have any legitimacy under law. However, if a “marriage” can exist between any two people who profess love for one another, further types of “marriages” are not far off.
Taking the benefits of marriage out of the law still doesn’t solve the problems of a business owner not wanting to serve people who are acting in a way against his conscience. There would have to be special protections for that.
Protections, however, will not completely stop the slide toward Christians again being persecuted for their beliefs, which will likely happen again at some point in our society. This is why “domestic partnerships,” even when given equal benefit under the law, are not considered enough, because those that want the definition of marriage to be changed want everyone to have to recognize their “marriage” as a marriage.
It comes down to the same issue that has always existed since Paul’s time — from the perspective of those outside Christ, Christians simply can’t be allowed to think the way they do.
I will certainly continue to vote (when given the opportunity) for righteousness. However, I wonder how much time I should put into opposing invalid “marriage” vs. being a witness, and allowing Christ to change the minds of those he saves. I’m not trying to make a false dichotomy here — both can be done, but time toward one will necessarily take away from time toward the other.
Dave Barnhart
Alan M. Dershowitz: To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.
Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.
The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.
The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union. In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
@Dave
I agree that adding a ban or not, won’t stop the slide of persecution. In fact that is some of the flak the ads for the pro-marriage amendment is getting. The examples cited proving the gay agenda is out to get people and will harm people, are sometimes taken from cases involving alleged discrimination against a gay/lesbian, rather than specifically directed toward a gay married person.
For instance, the example Dr. Bauder cites isn’t really affected by the gay marriage question per se. A private enterprise would get flak for not allowing a gay couple to have a ceremony celebrating their civil union just as easily as for not allowing them to have a marriage ceremony.
I am not sure if adding a gay marriage ban or a pro-marriage clause in a constitution will really solve anything. I am pretty sure, however, that advocating for a gay marriage ban/pro-marriage clause will send a message that will be interpreted by the wider public like this: Christians are do-gooders who want everyone else to live up to their morality so much that they have to have laws forbidding people from living like they want to. Christians are moralists who care about the law so much they force it on everyone else - and so they’re really after power in society more so than any “gospel” they may hold to.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
It starts with homosexuals trying to define marriage. Then it leads to laws allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Then forcing public schools to teach children that being a homosexual is normal. That then leads to the government forcing employers to hire a certain number of homosexuals, or churches to marry homosexual couples. If we give in at one point, it creates a precedent, and gives the other side momentum to use to make other changes.
[Aaron Blumer]About the second two questions (in the quote), the fact that some things are not worth enshrining into law doesn’t support the conclusion that no things are worth enshrining into law….
So the question becomes, by what criteria do we decide what things are worth putting the coercive power of the state behind and what things are not?
The answer is complex.
I agree that this is the issue. And the central question is what things do we enshrine into law. I fear that most Christians aren’t thinking through this in this way. They are equating this fight (to preserve marriage) with fighting to preserve the Bible and morality in general. But we don’t have laws requiring belief in the Bible, and we don’t have laws forbidding adultery and limiting divorce drastically (as Scripture does).
This is indeed a complex consideration, and I fear it is being simplified too much.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
@Jim intriguing….
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton][Aaron Blumer]About the second two questions (in the quote), the fact that some things are not worth enshrining into law doesn’t support the conclusion that no things are worth enshrining into law….
So the question becomes, by what criteria do we decide what things are worth putting the coercive power of the state behind and what things are not?
The answer is complex.
I agree that this is the issue. And the central question is what things do we enshrine into law. I fear that most Christians aren’t thinking through this in this way. They are equating this fight (to preserve marriage) with fighting to preserve the Bible and morality in general. But we don’t have laws requiring belief in the Bible, and we don’t have laws forbidding adultery and limiting divorce drastically (as Scripture does).
This is indeed a complex consideration, and I fear it is being simplified too much.
Regardless of how people are thinking, there is no need to argue for marriage from the Bible. I’ve always advocated using natural law arguments in the public arena. This is not really a matter of Bible vs. gay agenda. It’s a matter of old and wise vs. new and stupid. That was my point in mentioning that the criteria for ethical questions that are worth putting gov’t coercive power behind should remove from the table any proposal that coerces a view of a basic social institution that no government has coerced in the history of the world until now.
We can’t effectively use biblical arguments for public policy when talking to people who don’t believe the Bible. Wherever there is a shared view of evidence, that’s what you have to use.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer][Bob Hayton][Aaron Blumer]About the second two questions (in the quote), the fact that some things are not worth enshrining into law doesn’t support the conclusion that no things are worth enshrining into law….
So the question becomes, by what criteria do we decide what things are worth putting the coercive power of the state behind and what things are not?
The answer is complex.
I agree that this is the issue. And the central question is what things do we enshrine into law. I fear that most Christians aren’t thinking through this in this way. They are equating this fight (to preserve marriage) with fighting to preserve the Bible and morality in general. But we don’t have laws requiring belief in the Bible, and we don’t have laws forbidding adultery and limiting divorce drastically (as Scripture does).
This is indeed a complex consideration, and I fear it is being simplified too much.
Regardless of how people are thinking, there is no need to argue for marriage from the Bible. I’ve always advocated using natural law arguments in the public arena. This is not really a matter of Bible vs. gay agenda. It’s a matter of old and wise vs. new and stupid. That was my point in mentioning that the criteria for ethical questions that are worth putting gov’t coercive power behind should remove from the table any proposal that coerces a view of a basic social institution that no government has coerced in the history of the world until now.
We can’t effectively use biblical arguments for public policy when talking to people who don’t believe the Bible. Wherever there is a shared view of evidence, that’s what you have to use.
So what happens when, say in 100 years, gay marriage has been legally recognized in most states, and in most countries around the world, and no one remembers living in a time when it was not so. How then would we argue for heterosexual marriage, except through an appeal to the Bible?
Well, based on the election results, we don’t have to wait a hundred years. We’ve apparently already reached a time where a large majority is unaware of the history of civilization. But the fact remains that you can’t persuade people of anything on the basis of premises they don’t accept.
The same is true of the gospel, but we use the Bible anyway. The reason is that in the case of conversion, what’s really happening is not an act of rational persuasion but a divine act of quickening—and the Bible is the means God has chosen to use (Rom.10:17).
We don’t have a parallel in the areas of how we run society and government … so what we have is the means of rational persuasion. But it’s hard to tell at the moment if the country is too deeply delusional to reason well from any premises, however obvious. Maybe in four more years it’ll be desperate enough to consider looking backward to some proven wisdom instead of “Forward” to some imaginary progress.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Dave and Bob,
I believe that you are making the common mistake of viewing legislation as something that can be separated from one’s personal morality. I would make the argument that all legislation is based on someone’s standard of what is right or wrong. I usually read SI and have not ever written anything, but this discussion made me think of a quote form Robert Bork in his Tempting of America (I hope everyone appreciates the irony of quoting from Bork today). Bork is discussing the famous Bowers v Hardwick decision (which is on topic here) and says [emphasis added]:
“Here and elsewhere some Justices have enunciated a position of extreme individualism, which amounts necessarily to an attitude of moral relativism. If all that counts is the gratification of the individual, then morality is completely privatized and society may make no moral judgments that are translated into law. The dissent cannot really mean what it said, and indeed no Justice takes any such position consistently. None could since all law is based upon moral judgments. There is, for example, no basis for worker safety laws other than the moral judgment that it is wrong to endanger workers’ lives and limbs in order to produce goods at lower costs. There is no objection to segregation or slavery other than moral disapproval. No one suggests that the fourteenth amendment, which ended the one, and the thirteenth amendment, which ended the one, and the thirteenth amendment, which ended the other, are based on anything other than morality. … There is no objection to the torturing of puppies for pleasure except that it outrages our morality. There is, indeed, no objection to forcible rape in the home or to sexual abuse of a child there, except a moral objection. But, it will be said, those cases do not involve consent or do not involve a consent the person is mature enough to give intelligently. Those are not objections to the comparison. They are merely statements that the speaker perceives a moral distinction in consent. But the perception of a moral distinction does not affect the point being made that morality, standing alone, is a sufficient rationale to support legislation. In fact, for most people, consent does not solve anything: they would favor laws punishing the torture of a consenting masochist or the provision of cocaine to a willing purchaser”.
We are making a false dichotomy if we believe that we are to focus on evangelism to the exclusion of moral issues. Our ultimate purpose is to bring glory to God - to shine as lights in a “crooked and twisted generation” (Phil. 2:15). No breach of morality is a “victim-less crime” because it is an offense against a Holy Creator God. We may someday as Americans live under an oppressive regime like the NT church (and not have a voice), or in a state characterized by the moral relativism of the Netherlands (and have a voice that is not heard). But for the meantime, we have the privilege of living in a state that is ruled by laws and not by men, and we are the ones who create the laws. Would it have been God-glorying for the American Christians of the mid-1800s to have said, “I believe chattel slavery is wrong, but I don’t want to legislate my morality on others and be viewed as a ‘do-gooder.’”? To some degree, we are responsible for direction of our country and have a duty to participate in steering it in a God glorifying direction to the degree that we are able. To do less would be immoral.
Evangelism is definitely part of our God glorifying mission, but how can we present God’s offer of salvation from sin, while at the same time, neglecting the privilege that we have been given in this country to publicly state what that sin is.
The good news is that we can fulfill our obligation to glorify God in this wicked world today and look forward to an age when the King of Kings will demand total obedience from the nations of the world according to His standard of morality. It is a win-win situation. God will be glorified.
Ryan
Ryan
[Jim] Alan M. Dershowitz: To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business…The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union. In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
I am all for this kind of separation between church and state.
Discussion