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

Tyler,

I had actually never thought that one through to its logical conclusion. Very good points, and I will give deep consideration to the idea that temptation = sin. Perhaps there is a fine line difference between temptation and lust.

You are still wrong (!) on the role of government, but I agree that the discussion has been fruitful and enlightening.

Alex,

I think that if government were to regulate morality in the sense you are speaking of (greater biblical principles that apply for all time and to all people), you would be having this discussion in a court room rather than on SI. That is exactly my point. No, I don’t observe Sabbath in a technical sense, and I don’t believe it is for today, but many good people do. We must limit the size and scope of government (as our founding fathers did in the Constitution), or else government will overstep its bounds and our society will slip into tyranny.

I’ve wrestled with this for weeks. One day I’m totally against gov’t having anything to do with marriage, then I realize that it must, and not just because of moral implications, but because of legal considerations. Taxes, property, children, etc… so the gov’t has to define marriage for legal purposes.

Then the problem is - where does it end? If marriage is whoever wants to commit to a partnership, then there is no stopping different groups from lobbying the gov’t to redefine marriage about every 5 minutes.

Many studies have shown that kids flourish best in a two-parent, consisting of mom and dad, home. Will the gov’t take that into consideration? I somehow doubt it. As much as they say “It’s all about the children”, it’s NEVER about the children. It’s about power and money and boot polishing.

[Sean Fericks]

Alex, I’m gonna go with Genesis 2:3 for the institution of Sabbath. But my main question is how will we decide what aspects of life to regulate? Liberty allows you to disregard Sabbath while others observe. It also allows you to discuss the topic in a friendly manner and persuade each other. If it were a current political hot button, the defensive walls would go up, and 30 second illiterate sound bytes about Sabbath would rule Fox News while the issue was being debated by a bunch of heathens in Congress.

Sean, Gen 2:3 says that God rested on the 7th day. It doesn’t say anything about a requirement for man to do the same. In fact, the first time anyone is commanded to rest on the 7th day, it was when God was giving a 2x portion of manna on the 6th day during the wilderness journey.

Government does not establish the institution of marriage. God established it and government recognizes it. It is good for government to recognize and regulate proper marriage for the betterment of society.

Tyler, temptation is not sin, or Jesus sinned (Heb. 4:15). A lustful homosexual thought is sin because it is giving in to the temptation to think lustfully. A temptation to have a lustful homosexual thought is not sin if it is not given in to and if it is replaced with righteous thoughts—just the same as with homosexual acts. Homosexual temptation is not sin.

[Aaron Blumer]

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.

Yes, and Christians can thrive as they die of cancer, march to the pyre for martyrdom or see their children taken from them and executed. What we can thrive under and what we ought to pursue are not the same thing.

It’s one thing to accept what is beyond your control—another vehicle smashes into you on the freeway. It’s another thing to park on the railroad tracks and say “Hey, Christians can thrive in auto accidents!”[/QUOTE] Don’t worry. I don’t avocate socialism or dictatorship. My point was merely to clarify that I don’t see libertarian Constitutional Republicanism as the only biblical form of government.

[QUOTE] As for marriage and the government. Here’s one reason why government always has been and should continue to be involved in it:

• The fundamental unit of society is the family. Marriage is a major component in defining what a family is. The family unit cannot define what a family is for itself or for other families. It needs another unit, another institution to do that. Logically, marriage and family must defined by something outside themselves.

Of course, believers have this on God’s authority. But we know that government is necessary because most do not accept God’s authority. (But per Rom. 13, government actually is God’s authority — in a form even unbelievers are forced to recognize)

So there you have it. It makes no sense to say “Every two people who feel like it get to decide what a marriage is.” The effect of that is that there is simply no such thing as marriage. A word that means anything you want means nothing. Of course, in that scenario, believers still have what we know marriage is, but think about this please (and I’m talking all of the this “this doesn’t matter” view): do you really want to live in a society where only Christians know what marriage is? Do you really want your children and grandchildren to grow up in such a world?

Marriage has meant one thing in stable, thriving societies for thousands of years… and it looks like as a culture we’re ready to casually walk away from that as if it were a whim. The height of folly.

The word “Christian”, and its definition, is very important to me. I loathe the way it is perverted by the world and false religion. But I do not appeal to government to defend the true meaning of Christianity. I appeal to the Word of God, to reason, to history, etc. I fear government imposition of its definition (and interference) on Christianity. Just so, I loathe the world’s perversion of the term “marriage”. Government-sanctioned no-fault divorce, celebrity bed-hopping, and children playing musical-daddies are an abomination to the holy institution. But I wish to defend marriage from the Word of God, the Church, reason, history, etc. I hate how government intrusion has already watered down the sanctity of the institution, and I fear that it may do more. Marriage should not be in the domain of government. It should be a private and holy matter between one man and one woman for life before God and His Church.

Just as true Christianity survives as a light in a dark world, true marriage will survive (in spite of sin, celebrities, P.R.I.D.E., and even government imposition).

[Susan R]

I’ve wrestled with this for weeks. One day I’m totally against gov’t having anything to do with marriage, then I realize that it must, and not just because of moral implications, but because of legal considerations. Taxes, property, children, etc… so the gov’t has to define marriage for legal purposes.

Then the problem is - where does it end? If marriage is whoever wants to commit to a partnership, then there is no stopping different groups from lobbying the gov’t to redefine marriage about every 5 minutes.

Many studies have shown that kids flourish best in a two-parent, consisting of mom and dad, home. Will the gov’t take that into consideration? I somehow doubt it. As much as they say “It’s all about the children”, it’s NEVER about the children. It’s about power and money and boot polishing.

Sean,

What you are writing has appeal to me because it is the way I have been thinking for some time. I am 100% opposed to the federal government recognizing gay marriage as legitimate. But I am also opposed to the federal gov. recognizing my marriage as legitimate. I fear that DOMA, while a good and righteous declaration (as far as it could as a gov. act), will be used to elevate the gov. to a godlike position where it defines marriage. I was uncomfortable when Clinton signed it because the precedence of gov. thinking it has the power to define something that God only has the power to define. What keeps them from turning it the other way. My concerns in all of this is not only moral, but a concern that this intrusion of the supreme court into this realm may very well be the beginning of the end of (if has not already begun) of religious freedom in the nation that I call home. I am preparing my family and God’s flock to be lights in a culture that will require our blood or our faith. I pray that we would give up our blood and not our faith.

Well put Matthew. Was it a victory for Christianity when Constantine imposed himself to help the church defeat Arianism? I say it was a Pyrrhic victory. Truth would have prevailed in the end, with or without Constantine’s help, and history proves that Roman marriage to the church was not in Christianity’s best interest.

I would also recommend a reading of the account of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11). The Jewish leaders wanted to defend the sanctity of marriage with the force of law. They wanted to impose righteousness. Christ gave us a better solution. Rather than impose the light of Christianity on sinners, we should let our light shine and provide a stark contrast in a dark world. Christ still called adultery a sin, but he appealed to hearts rather than to the force of law.

Your definition of sin suggests that we can think about evil all we want - it is only when we give in and act that we sin. This is seriously deficient. You are suggesting Christ thought sinfully but simply never acted. How do you explain verses which clearly teach that our thoughts are sinful as well?

Sin in Noah’s day obviously involved acts, but it also involved thoughts of evil:

“But the LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time,” (Gen 6:5).

Note what Jeremiah says about the human heart - NET Bible actually translates “heart” as “human mind!”

“The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9).

Solomon’s remark about the human heart is a key text in Biblical counseling training:

“Guard your heart with all vigilance, for from it are the sources of life,” (Proverbs 4:23). Our sinful actions flow from a sinful heart.

This is part of Paul’s explanation of being dead in trespasses and sin:

“… all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest…” (Eph 2:3).

Taking a step back even further - we probably agree that Adam and Eve were in a state of untested innocence in the garden. They had no sinful thoughts or desires. Isn’t the whole Biblical plotline moving toward a restoration of this very ideal in the Millennial Kingdom and eternity beyond.

Moving even further back, your suggestion that Christ actually had sinful thoughts means that we will all still have such thoughts in eternity - we just won’t act on them. Your position on Heb 4:15 denies that sinful thoughts which spring from a sinful nature are actually sin!

I believe the real issue to study is how, precisely, Christ was tempted like as we are and was still without sin in thought or deed. That’s a tough one, but the weight of Scripture suggests He certainly did not sin in thought. Such actions would betray a sinful heart as well.

ADDENDUM:

This was bothering me, so I took a look at some of my commentaries. This is indeed a very tricky issue. One commentator expressed the problem very well:

There can, we conceive, be no real temptation where there is no liability to the sin suggested by temptation, still less where there is no possibility of sinning. But can we imagine any such liability, or even possibility, in the case of the Divine and Sinless One? If not, wherein did the temptation consist? How could it be at all like ours, or one through his own experience of which he can sympathize with us?

This really goes back to Christology. We are both on solid ground on this issue. Your position allows for Christ to fully experience human temptation and still not sin. Mine emphasizes the sinfulness of our hearts and denies Christ even thought of sin. None of which really solve the problem.

That Christ, in his human nature, partook of all the original affections of humanity—hope, fear, desire, joy, grief, indignation, shrinking from suffering, and the like—is apparent, not only from his life, but also from the fact that his assumption of our humanity would have otherwise been incomplete. Such affections are not in themselves sinful; they only are so when, under temptation, any of them become inordinate, and serve as motives to transgression of duty. He, in virtue of his Divine personality, could not through them be seduced into sin; but it does not follow that he could not, in his human nature, feel their power to seduce, or rather the power of the tempter to seduce through them, and thus have personal experience of man’s temptation.

This is a good verse to ponder. Time to get espresso …

On the question of where does it stop…..

“Kissing cousins” will be able to argue for their own class. If SCOTUS or the Legislatures permit the gay community to create it’s own protected class, that opens up an entire realm of possible classes including kissing cousins:

*Parent marrying their daughter or son. I mean after all, if “love” is the barometer by which a relationship is judged, and if a parent truly “eros” his/her daughter/son, what’s to stop the government from legitimizing a marriage between them?

*Muslims are permitted more than one wife. The doors will be open for them to argue for it to be recognized in America, and then if Muslims can do it, Mormons will cry “unfair”.

*Bestiality . What about those are truly love their animals? Some are already getting tax breaks by claiming animals as a dependent. Next step will LITERALLY be steers and queers.

I am curious though how a talking parakeet would hold up under interrogation about her human spouse, or would it be smart enough to exercise marital privilege. Furthermore, if they get divorced, does the parakeet get half?

Recently a dust up in the geometry world occurred. You see, for quite some time circles were unique and of course their unique status was something which excluded other geometric shapes. The squares have always wanted to have equal access to the status of being a circle but the geometric community and particularly the circles have been insensitive and squaraphobic, denying the squares their right to be called circles.

In other news, lips and hands are at odds with each other in the anthropological community. You see, when a pair of lips come together it is called a kiss and when a pair of hands come together it is called a clap. The lips are satisfied with these realities but the hands are demanding to be called a kiss when they come together.