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

but i just want to poke in here that i really doubt govt could ever get out of the marriage business. i’m in an international marriage, and boy howdy, getting birth certificates, child passports, airplane tickets, train travel, trying to stem all the s^x trafficking, abductions, getting child support from deadbeat dads, etc. Govt does have, I think, moral obligations to form protective systems for women and children, and for men, in some cases, too! I also understand that in a sinful world, marriage laws can also be used against the very people they should be protecting

Govt needs to have moral guidance, which Biblical principles provide. But that’s kind of disintigrating….

I’m just saying, if I were the govt, I sure see some moral reasons to make men legally obligated to women/children, for example.

Dr. Ach,

Mr. Boisson is Canadian, and the ruling was overturned as unconstitutional.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2009/12/04/calgary-court-ga…

Ms. Dixon should have resigned. Her job specifically included the duty to ensure the University’s policy of inclusion of homosexuals. Why would she want to keep her job if she was against the policy? If one of my employees wrote an editorial about how rotten my company is and how awesome our competition is, I would fire him in a heartbeat.

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2012/12/19/university-of-toled…

I don’t have time to go through every case, but I addressed the first two, and they don’t really hold up as examples of persecution in America. Besides, your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating homosexual marriage. I am advocating an exit by federal and state government from the marriage issue. It will never happen, but one can dream.

Regarding the Sabbath, my goal was not to defend Sabbath as a universal principle for all time. I do not observe a Sabbath day. Sometimes, I even go fishing after church. My goal was to point out that if we ask the federal government to enforce biblical principles that apply to all people for all time, a majority may arise that wants the government to enforce Sabbath day because they think (contrary to what you and I think) that Sabbath day is intended for all dispensations. Personally, I don’t want to go there. I’d rather go fishing.

Finally, my main point is spiritual, and we keep getting distracted from it: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” We cannot restore morality to our nation through force of government. We must reach the hearts of men. I think that this homosexual marriage debate is a distraction from the real heart issues. It is an unnecessary roadblock to evangelism.

[QUOTE=pvawter] Sean, In Romans 13 Paul explains that the government bears the sword for the purpose of rewarding good and punishing evil. I’m curious how your view of government non-intervention is consistent with the biblical role of government? It seems that for any government to reward good it must know what is good, and to punish evil it must know what is evil. How will our government know good from evil if believers do not speak truth about these issues to our elected representatives?[/QUOTE]

When Paul wrote Romans 13, who was in charge? Did Caesar reward good and punish evil? Did Paul attempt to enlist the government in his mission?

Later, the Roman government did become “Christian”. How did that work out? Did they reward good and punish evil (in general), or did they pervert good in order to promote their own selfish evil gain? Could it be that God’s intent for government is not generally followed? Perhaps, the main point of Romans 13 is to instruct Christians to respect our rulers, even when we know they are doing evil.

If our goal is for the U.S. government to promote good and punish evil, we need to throw out the Constitution and push for a new, stronger form of government. The Bill of Rights certainly needs to go.

[Anne Sokol]

but i just want to poke in here that i really doubt govt could ever get out of the marriage business. i’m in an international marriage, and boy howdy, getting birth certificates, child passports, airplane tickets, train travel, trying to stem all the s^x trafficking, abductions, getting child support from deadbeat dads, etc. Govt does have, I think, moral obligations to form protective systems for women and children, and for men, in some cases, too! I also understand that in a sinful world, marriage laws can also be used against the very people they should be protecting

Govt needs to have moral guidance, which Biblical principles provide. But that’s kind of disintigrating….

I’m just saying, if I were the govt, I sure see some moral reasons to make men legally obligated to women/children, for example.

• Birth Certificates could be the property of each parent severably until the child turns 18. Then the child would become the owner.
• Child passports? What do single parents do now? Some single mothers don’t even know who the father is.
• Sex trafficking and abductions? Again, what do we do for single parents now?
• Moral obligation of fathers? My understanding is that many deadbeat dads never married the mother anyway.
• Protection from abuse? Same question: what do we do now for unmarried couples?

[Sean Fericks]

When Paul wrote Romans 13, who was in charge? Did Caesar reward good and punish evil? Did Paul attempt to enlist the government in his mission?

Later, the Roman government did become “Christian”. How did that work out? Did they reward good and punish evil (in general), or did they pervert good in order to promote their own selfish evil gain? Could it be that God’s intent for government is not generally followed? Perhaps, the main point of Romans 13 is to instruct Christians to respect our rulers, even when we know they are doing evil.

If our goal is for the U.S. government to promote good and punish evil, we need to throw out the Constitution and push for a new, stronger form of government. The Bill of Rights certainly needs to go.

Sean,

You are probably correct that every form of human government will get it wrong to one degree or another. It is most likely true that God’s intent for government is not generally followed, but I think you are missing the point of Romans 13. Paul was not a sheep who refused to stand against the abuses of the Roman government. Did he not try to convert Felix, Agrippa, even Caesar? As believers, are we so callous to the judgment that our fellowman is rushing headlong into that we write off those whom we deem beyond redemption?

Our government is made up of men and women who have a God-given responsibility to use their authority for good, and we ought to do everything in our power to help them understand what that good is, and to see men and women elected to office who know the difference between good and evil.

I suppose though, if we apply those same libertarian principles to the family we might conclude that since many (most?) families completely fail to raise their children in accordance with Biblical truth, we should take parents out of the child-rearing equation. Or we could work even harder to teach parents to honor and obey Biblical principles in their home.

Paul

I think the main thrust of Romans 13 is a directive to Believers to obey and respect governmental authority. It is not primarily a directive to government, although we learn God’s original purpose for government. Fortunately for us, the Constitution (highest law in the land) constrains the federal government jurisdiction to a limited set of powers. Marriage is not among these.

Libertarians are not against law (antinomians or anarchists). Rather we, for the most part, believe in strong governance in the appropriate jurisdiction. Libertarians are against unjust usurpation of power (the federal government getting involved in abortion, drug laws, or marriage for instance). The state of Texas had a right to make a law against murder, and under the Constitution (supreme law of the land), the Supreme Court was wrong to impose itself outside its jurisdiction (Roe v. Wade). California, Colorado, and Washington have the right (9th and 10th Amendment) to make their own drug policies without interference from the federal government. In light of the 9th and 10th Amendment, federal interference in the institution of marriage is illegal. Although states have the legal right to regulate marriage (depending on their own Constitutions), I believe that Christians are unwise to use government imposition to fight homosexual marriage. We have poured millions of dollars into Washington D.C. and state capitols to impose our will on our homosexual neighbors (and we are losing). But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. When we impose on them, they harden their hearts on the issue and see us as intolerant religious police. This is a stumbling block to the gospel. If we would grant them liberty, and place our efforts into convincing our neighbors of the gospel through lives and words of truth and love, I think we would do far better, winning souls, and redeeming our society.

I, as a libertarian, do apply these principles to my family. Since I have the jurisdiction (biblically and legally) over my children, I exercise strong authority over them. As they grow in grace and stature, I try to turn over more and more authority to them. I think this the the biblical model. So no, libertarianism doesn’t negate good parenting. That is a (unintended on your part) straw man.

Sean, much thoughtful study and writing has gone into the question of how societies benefit from government vs. anarchy, and of course, much as well on liberal government (liberal in the old sense, 17th century or so) vs. more autocratic approaches.

One good place to gain a lot of insight into how even the worst of governments promotes good and punishes evil (to the benefit of citizens) would be the Federalist Papers. John Adams is brilliant on this subject as well.

Though it’s hard to beat Hobbes’ summary in Leviathan. The “condition” he describes is one in which there is no government.

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

As to whether Rom 13 is written “to” Christians or to governments, the distinction doesn’t end up being important when you think through the implications.

For example, if God tells Christians the purpose of government is A, then A must be the best and highest pursuit of any government. If A is the best and highest pursuit of any government, it behooves sensible people everywhere to encourage their government to focus on A as its central task. It also follows that for government to focus on A is in the best interest not only of the citizens but of those doing the governing. In short, we cannot possibly have a better idea than God what government ought to do, and once He has revealed that “ought,” the cat’s out of the bag, no matter who He specifically reveals that information to.

Great quote on anarchy. I fear many people view Constitutional Republicans or Libertarians as anarchists. Quite the contrary.

I see your point on Romans 13. I agree that the role of government is to punish evil and promote good. My question to you is, “Are there any limits on the government promoting good and punishing evil?” Are there some arenas in which government should promote good and punish evil (murder, free and healthy markets, a strong defense, a reliable postal system), while there are other arenas which are reserved for individuals (medicine, religion, food choices, marriage)? I think we would all agree that government’s God-given role to promote good an punish evil has its limits. The Constitution defines these limits for our current system of government, and we have gone far afield.

Additionally, is it wise for Christians to realize that some laws that seem to promote good can cause more harm than good (nationalized health care, prohibition, food stamps, etc.)? If our ultimate goal is to live peaceably with all men and win them to Christ, is it profitable (in living peaceably with all men and winning them to Christ) to use secular government to force a Christian view of marriage on unbelievers? I think it would be more profitable to win their hearts with the gospel, and then watch God change their ways.

Limits… definitely. One of the worst of ideas of our times is the notion that everything that is in the moral category of “wrong” ought to be in the legal category of “prohibited” or “prevented.”

We don’t have Holy Writ on where the outer limits of gov’t pursuit of good and opposition to evil ought to be. But historical context helps. Rome, for example, was no welfare state. And Rom. 13 strongly emphasizes justice. Add in the OT context where calls to justice involve honest weights, refraining from oppressing the powerless (which is has clear meaning in the OT: it has to do with stealing their property, physically harming them, or making false testimony against them, etc…. it is never merely the presence of unequal—even vastly unequal—amounts of wealth).

So I think the punishing of evil, rewarding of good has to do protecting life and property. With that understood as government’s main reason for being, much folly is prevented.

Not a libertarian, myself, but I do certainly believe the founders intended to constrain govt’s purpose a great deal—and leave much in the hands of individuals, families, and local communities.

Also, yes… unintended consequences = always a problem. Historically, conservatives understood that good intentions were really not the issue in public policy. What matters is what sort of behavior is truly encouraged or not encouraged… though of course some matters are not about results at all, really. Some things are just wrong in themselves.

Aaron,

You said it better in one post than I did in twenty. Though we may disagree on the particular of government involvement in marriage, you have demonstrated that you understand my point. You have also helped others to better understand my point. Thank you.