Marriage in the Dock—The Supreme Court Considers Same-Sex Marriage

SCALIA: ‘When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?’

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-prop-8-case-supreme-…

Federal and state government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage is the most intimate of personal contracts, and governments should not infringe on our liberties either by promoting marriage through tax policy, or limiting marriage through licensure. Using the force of government to either advocate or prohibit certain forms of marriage turns the issue into a political hot button where ill-informed sound bytes rule, emotions run high, and the Christian mission to win souls through the gospel of Christ is mis-directed into a losing battle to force Christian principles on a secular society.

When you are using the force of government to make your neighbor live within biblical constraints, he will view you as an enemy of his freedom. If you respect his liberty to make his own decisions in life, he will be more willing to hear you as a friend. Whether he has a commitment ceremony or a marriage license makes no difference to his soul, and very little difference to society.

On this issue in particular, I believe Christians should embrace individual liberty. We want to win the hearts of those who sin. We don’t want to impose on their actions. Convert individuals with the gospel. Don’t impose on society with the force of law.

When you are using the force of government to make your neighbor live within biblical constraints, he will view you as an enemy of his freedom. If you respect his liberty to make his own decisions in life, he will be more willing to hear you as a friend….Don’t impose on society with the force of law.

So, Sean, why have any laws at all?

Chip,

I believe the goal of law should be to promote liberty, not to promote righteousness. We need laws that keep people from infringing on other people’s liberties (murder, rape, theft, foreign aggressors, etc.). We need Christianity and the Church to promote righteousness (marriage, sobriety, charity, etc.).

I beleive we should separate the two terms, “sin” and “crime”. All crimes are sin, but not all sins should be considered crime. Government is ill-equiped to prevent people from swearing, committing adultery, getting drunk, etc. Additionally, in a secular or pluralistic society like ours, Government is ill-equiped to define sin. My good LDS friend believes that drinking coffee is a sin. Some of my Democrat friends believe it is a sin for me to teach Christianity to my children. Do we really trust our congressmen or our society to correctly define sin?

Yes, I acknowledge that all sin affects society to some degree, and we cannot neatly categorize all sins into: 1) directly infringes on another’s liberty; or 2) does not directly infringe on another’s liberty. Take the cases of DUI, a mother’s use of alcohol while raising children, or (more germane to the topic at hand) homosexual couples adopting. But I think these two categories can bring clarity to the debate, and they can provide a general framework to reign in our out-of-control nanny state.

Finally, if we use the Constitution as a guide, we can see what arenas of life should be governed by the feds, by the states, and even by the individual. In the case before the Supremes right now, I believe that it is California’s right (though ill-used) to define and regulate marriage. I would vote against Prop 8, but I believe it should be upheld by the SCOTUS.

I’m sorry Alex. I read your second sentence a couple times, but my thick skull is preventing me from understanding what is says. Can you break it down a little more for this simpleton?

And just to clarify one point, I believe that Christianity can thrive under many types of government. I also believe that dictatorship and socialism are valid forms of government according to the Bible. I strongly prefer our Constitutional Republic to the others because I think it works best. In other words, governments have the biblical right to regulate smoking, marriage, dress, and travel. But governments that limit themselves appropriately (our Constitution is a good historical example) do better than those that enforce righteousness by the sword.

Whether you’re a dispensationalist or not, an honest expositor must admit that Gen 9:6 established the principle and foundation of human government. The world had just been destroyed by a flood, God made a covenant with Noah that he would never judge the world in this fashion again, and human government was introduced as a check upon man’s inherent lawlessness - lest he use God’s promise as a license to rampant sin. Now conscious knowledge of good and evil was coupled with human government as dual restraints upon men.

The specific issue at hand was capitol punishment, and the justification was that man has inherent virtue by being made in God’s image. The very principle of human government is a Biblical one, and based on God’s standards.

I am a dispensationalist, so I take this point very seriously. The fact that the world is largely secular, and governments more so, does not do away with this fact. Governments which do not support Biblical values reflect the inherent rebellion of mankind in general (Rom 1:18-32). It is easy to forget about this in our day and age of secularism, but it is important.

Sean:

I believe your position is a dangerous capitulation to pragmaticism. You are correct to say we cannot legislate morality; the Israelites proved this for us! You are wrong, however, to suggest this gives us license to stop advocating for Biblical standards in the public square. Acceptable behavior becomes an acceptable standard, and the damage done to future generations is even harder to undo. The more removed people are from Biblical values, the more difficult it becomes to speak to them about Biblical values.

That being said, I believe proponents of traditional marriage are wasting their time because they are couching their arguments in secular reasoning. Regarding witnessing to homosexuals or really anybody with any sin problem, we must speak the truth in love. I served with homosexuals in the military. I didn’t shirk from shaking their hands or standing watch in the dark hours of the night with them, alone. Folks who are afraid to actually interact with homosexuals, or sinners of any stripe, really, are being downright silly. I know many Christian men who would be literally repulsed by sitting down with a gay man. I wouldn’t be and haven’t been. Not sure why the disgust is so obvious. They’re sinners, like everybody else.

Folks who would be hesitant to speak with homosexuals should watch the video testimony of that lesbian intellectual (forget her name), and how much she appreciated being treated like a human being. This undoubtedly aided her conversion.

Tyler,

Do you believe that governments should enforce the entirety of God’s law in their jurisdictions? What of those issues that are debatable (tithe, Sabbath day, moderate consumption of alcohol, tobacco, modesty in dress, music choices)? If not, how should governments decide which spheres of life to impose upon? In other words, should they limit themselves? If so, how?

This is a dispensational issue, and I just don’t have the time to parse the distinction between the economies of law and grace with you - no offense.

We are coming at this issue from completely opposite paradigms. You are thinking pragmatically. I am thinking of Biblical ideals - which I admit will never come to pass until Christ establishes His own Kingdom. That doesn’t mean we should give up.

[TylerR] Sean:

I believe your position is a dangerous capitulation to pragmaticism. You are correct to say we cannot legislate morality; the Israelites proved this for us! You are wrong, however, to suggest this gives us license to stop advocating for Biblical standards in the public square. Acceptable behavior becomes an acceptable standard, and the damage done to future generations is even harder to undo. The more removed people are from Biblical values, the more difficult it becomes to speak to them about Biblical values.

I think we also agree that society at large will continue to be in conflict with Christianity until the return of our Lord. Maranatha!

[Sean Fericks]

I’m sorry Alex. I read your second sentence a couple times, but my thick skull is preventing me from understanding what is says. Can you break it down a little more for this simpleton?

And just to clarify one point, I believe that Christianity can thrive under many types of government. I also believe that dictatorship and socialism are valid forms of government according to the Bible. I strongly prefer our Constitutional Republic to the others because I think it works best. In other words, governments have the biblical right to regulate smoking, marriage, dress, and travel. But governments that limit themselves appropriately (our Constitution is a good historical example) do better than those that enforce righteousness by the sword.

The state or state of being agreed upon by a group of people including its establishment and continuation is precisely the purpose of God in giving humanity the divine institution of GOVERNMENT, which is to regulate the state through authorized bodies, the policies agreed upon.

Thanks Alex. Then I would pose the same question to you as I did to Tyler: “Do you believe that governments should enforce the entirety of God’s law in their jurisdictions? What of those issues that are debatable (tithe, Sabbath day, moderate consumption of alcohol, tobacco, modesty in dress, music choices)? If not, how should governments decide which spheres of life to impose upon? In other words, should they limit themselves? If so, how?”

Sean:

I understand you’re saying. I just believe we have an obligation to tow the line for Christian morality in the public square. I do not believe, however, that arguments in favor of Biblical morality which refuse to base their objections on the Bible will ever get anywhere.

Regarding your other question - the next theocratic kingdom won’t come until Christ returns! So we certainly shouldn’t regulate church attendance, etc. We should, however, advocate loudly and proudly for Biblical morality. Prohibition didn’t work so well, however, so this is a morass I’m not too anxious to tread into.

People won’t conform to Biblical morality unless they really want to, and they won’t really want to unless somebody takes the time to develop a relationship with them and share the Gospel. You’re right about that. I still believe we should advocate for Biblical morality with our government, however, and it is significant that the first vestiges of human government were founded on God’s values. It shows us how far we’ve drifted from that standard.

I guess my point can be seen as pointless, in the end, but it makes sense to me.

Sean

I would say that a state should have their government limit itself with regard to whom God is speaking, first, as it relates to divine revelation and law. For example, God’s requirements to the Theocracy of Israel were mostly particular for that form of government and that divine institution and that one alone. Thus, these were special commands for only that divine institution and I would and do argue that none of that can apply since it requires a theocracy for it to succeed and we do not have that.

Outside of that the Bible does not give a great deal of direct statements regarding the objectives of government with a few exceptions such as Romans and government’s objective. Most of what we understand non-theocratic government’s objective is by way of observing texts in the Bible and concluding in postulated form various principles of the objective of the divine institution of government.

Thus, it ends up being, in most cases, matters of collective or representative agreement about what state of being the members of a particular group wish to reside.

Now, with that said, if one is going to appeal to the wisdom of Scripture, I would say that they then ought to further consider its treatment of things by degrees. For example, things which are broadly social such as marriage warrant broad social policy, especially when it is presented as dogmatically as it is.

However, things that are personal such as fornication or the consumption of alcohol are just that, personal. Thus regulations on those matters appears to only manifest themselves when the personal consumption affects society more immediately and broadly such as drunk driving.

I do believe there is a misconception for some, however. Namely, that to derive morality via the Bible requires, then, that we see this as an enactment of a state religion. Morality is not religion and religion is not morality though one may be part of the other.

However, if it is a matter of religion such as a Sabbath and it is enforced, the state is dead wrong in my view. It now has become an enforcer of something religious, not to mention something theocratic. Thus, religious matters are out of bounds but moral matters are not.

Maybe that clears things up some but leaves a few more questions.

Tyler, I think we pretty much agree that the society we ultimately desire will not be realized until the return of the King. Maranatha!

Alex, from my recollection of the OT, Sabbath was taught as a broad social policy, and very dogmatically. In fact, the Sabbath principle preceded marriage. Also, the Sabbath is a much clearer doctrine than “one man + one woman for life = marriage” (polygamy?). I think that, in the end, your position leads to simple democracy.