On Tuesday February 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Walker’s mysterious discovery of the right to same sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Some people who have read the Constitution wonder about this since marriage is nowhere discussed there any more than privacy, abortion, sodomy or the right of local governments to take private property to deliver it to other private parties. Such people may have missed the news that we no longer have a written Constitution, but rather a “living” one, which is to say an imaginary one that exists only in the minds of a committee of nine lawyers called the Supreme Court. This situation has been going on for decades because the U.S. Constitution is dead in the hearts of an overwhelming majority of Americans. When asked about the Constitutionality of Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi replied “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?” This is a reasonable response from her point of view since no one has cared about the Constitution for a very long time. That is what also makes the question of Obama;s eligibility seem farcical. Why do you care about the Constitution now? Must be racism since you haven’t cared about it forever.
This same sex marriage ruling comes at the same time as a large number of other brazen assaults on the Christian community which is finally showing some signs of realizing their peril, albeit possibly too late. Secretary Sebelius has issued orders for Catholic institutions to participate in what they consider to be mortal sin. General Boykinis not allowed to speak at a West Point prayer breakfast because the U.S. arm of the Muslim Brotherhood calls him names. The federal courts uphold New York’s policy of not renting school space to churches while renting them to everyone else. The Supreme Court refuses to take up the case. It all reminds me of a Tee Shirt I saw a pro-abortion demonstrator wearing at an Operation Rescue event in 1989: “Christians Are Asswipes.”
This morning’s OC Register covered the Ninth Circuit Ruling with a picture of a typical pastor looking shocked, but still unsure of his position. “I don’t want to see people discriminated against, but this goes against Biblical morality.” No Scat Sherlock. Here we have Christian leadership on display. “I never took a stand against abortion, gay civil unions, gay sex clubs in schools or any of those violations of God’s Law, but now I want to take a half-hearted stand against this one.” Is it any wonder we are losing?
Still, one must hope. Faith, hope, and Charity are, after all, what always remain. Perhaps the devil’s disciples are going too far too fast. Perhaps a few segments of the sleeping Church will wake up.
If nothing else, this is good timing for me. I just bought my first ad for EMPIRE on the Christian Examiner online edition. It should go up in a few days. Maybe some frustrated Christians will buy a copy and start thinking about these things before they are thinking about them in a gulag somewhere.
At this point it seems like a “log vs speck” issue.
Many, perhaps most, possibly all, in the church accept gossip, slander, and pride in our government, our media, and society in general. Pretty much ditto for extra marital sex – unless it’s gay.
We’re more concerned about the few gays that want to get married than the ~50% of sexually active young people who don’t.
Russ,
Here’s a thought for blog consideration:
Do sinners deserve protection from their government?
Here are some scenarios:
Husband cheats on his wife. She sues for divorce and wants to take everything. The law protects the sinning husband by limiting the vengeance of the wife.
Thief gets convicted. Victim wants the thief’s hand cut off. The law protects the thief from cruel and unusual punishment.
Swindler gets convicted. Victim wants all his money back. Bankruptcy court protects him by limiting his liability to all that he has (i.e., protecting future earnings) and protecting some of his assets (like retirement).
The point:
Gay couple wants tax advantages, medical access, and retirement benefits accorded to a married couple. Should the law protect their interests to an equivalent standard? (Note, according to a gay friend of mine at work, the California domestic partner law does not accord them equivalent protections and rights).
Thanks,
Jacques
To your first posting: The collapse of the moral order in society and the Church has been going on for a long time. The current battle over redefining marriage is just the next step in this process and is the current battle. Our failure to resist the past steps does not excuse failing to resist this one. Nor does the fact that we have not cleaned up our own act mean that we are disqualified from working for what is right at this time. In fact our emphasis on non-judgmental grace without law in the Church is responsible for the collapse in both the Church and society.
Legalizing same sex “marriage” constitutes crossing an important psychological bridge. It constitutes a final severing of our national laws from any reference to God’s moral law and is an open denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. A Church that is afraid to confess Jesus as Lord before men will quickly have its candle put out.
Marriage is a title of honor. We hold it up as the ideal we want unmarried couples to move toward by calling their unmarried relationships “shaking up,” “living together” or some such less honorable state. By taking people who are engaged in an even more dishonorable sexual relationship and giving them society’s honorific title of marriage, we devalue the title in the eyes of the straight couples we are trying to influence toward marriage. It’s like giving the few F students A’s so they feel better about themselves. We remove all incentive for other students tp try and earn A’s.
I’ll tackle your second posting later.
Homosexuals are not interested in gaining the rights of marriage, if they were, they would go to a state where it’s legal and get married. All they have to do, is to get married en-mass and force the issue..but they won’t do that that. This is all about political gain. They want to use this issue to sue churches and businesses of faith for discrimination. You have Christian churches and groups that put on weekend events for married couples. They could now be force to accept gay couples or be shut down. They don’t mind having a exemption for not marrying gays in the church, the idea is to shut done any other events churches have for married couples and limiting the church’s outreach.
Jacques -
Life isn’t fair – even the law isn’t fair (though it tries it’s best to be)
1. Wife sues for divorce – while she won’t be granted EVERYTHING, she is entitled and does receive 1/2 of the marital assets. – this is FAIR.
2. Thief gets convicted – cutting off his arm IS cruel and unusual punishment, but the victim is entitled to receiving re-reimbursement for his loss & the court will gladly oblige. – this is FAIR.
3. Swindler gets convicted – Bankruptcy laws do not apply to criminal cases. See “Thief” – this is FAIR.
(By the way, is the “victim” in this case in any way responsible in trying “to get something for nothing”? – ie: greed is a sin)
4. Gay couple wants tax advantages – they receive EVERY advantage allowed under California state law that they qualify for, the same as any hetero married couple.
They DO NOT get Federal tax advantages. Yes, this is FAIR – there is no “right” to be married.
I no longer have any children in public school, but I’m still required to pay my property taxes – is this fair? Yes, it is FAIR – because it’s for the greater good of the future of the State of California.
To your second post: Yes. Sinners deserve protection of government in terms of God’s Law. We are all sinners of course, but Biblical Law differentiates between sins which require governmental sanction and those left to God. Murder, theft, and adultery are to be punished by human government; hating, coveting and lust are not.
A cheating husband if found guilty of adultery to the standards of criminal law would be subject to criminal sanctions. If divorce ensues at a civil trial level then the principle of restitution, of trying to make the injury as whole as can be done, would apply.
Punishment for a thief in Biblical Law is again both required and limited. Even capital punishment for murder is limited as to method. Corporal punishment is limited to forty lashes “lest your brother seem vile to thee.” The eye for an eye principle is a limitation on punishment as well as a requirement for enough punishment.
Biblical Law would probably be harsher on the swindler than we are today and include loss of all property and slavery until the debt was paid.
Since Biblical Law treats male homosexual conduct as criminal it could hardly sanction sex based unions of two men in any form. Female homosexual conduct is not mentioned in Mosaic Law although it is condemned by Paul in Romans 1.
IMHO, we are not bound to follow every part of Mosaic Law. This law was given to Israel by God and involves His special relationship and purpose for them. On the other hand, all men and nations are bound to conform their law and practice to God’s ultimate moral law in heaven. This law is ultimately His own mind, character and heart and can never be fully contained in any written code. We study the Bible from end to end and seek the guidance of the Spirit in the context of the Church so as to know Him and have our own thoughts conformed to His.
“IMHO” – yup. You, me and everyone else. When it is all said and done it’s all about authority (answering the age old question “by whose authority do you determine this?”). Studying the Bible is all nice and well but certainly does not resolve that question. Nor does the Law stand on its own -as you say “we are not bound to follow every part”, indicating there is something or someone above the Law interpreting and appropriating it.
At my last check our country still has a motto, “In God we trust”. IMHO, as Jack Nickelson once said, This is as good as it gets!” It’s not about the law as it can or could be written in some code book, but it is the Spirit of God giving wisdom and understanding to those who ask for it. That’s why we have to trust in God. And that is why the current acts of violence on the only moral constraint, the church, is so insidious. The ramifications of cutting ties with the God of our founding fathers and the creator of all is serious business. The sad part is why!
Some people study the Word and are still not sure what it says about this or that issue. Other people don’t want to know what it says about this or that and so claim that it’s all a matter of interpretation. God knows the difference.
We all have an obligation to God, both as individuals and as a society, to seek to know His will and conform our laws and practices to that will. This requires diligent and honest seeking on our part. Saying it is all a matter of interpretation is the same thing as saying He has not revealed His will and so we are free to do as we please. This is the danger of faux humility about not knowing His will absolutely.
As i understand it, your position Russ appears to be self-defeating. Everyone has to search, understand and interpret the Scriptures for themselves, and conform to and apply the “law of God”. Uniformity and agreement about this conformity and correct understanding of God’s will is somehow reached. But how? God’s will is absolutely known, but what would be the need to search if we knew God’s will absolutely? And by what, or whose authority is your opinion, or absolute knowledge as you would call it, any more valid than any other?
My point is not that it is all about interpretation, neither that God hasn’t revealed Himself, nor that there aren’t consequences to what we freely choose to do or omit, but rather my point is that it is primarily a matter of authority.
Just my two cents worth, and I hope my comments inspires you, i don’t mean to antagonize.
The question of authority (as opposed to mere power or force) itself is a question of revelation. Paul preaches authoritatively to the Bereans and they search the scriptures to see if what he says is true. There is a human process here as we collectively come to understand just what God has revealed. This takes place in Churches and in whatever political process exists in any country. We do not exist as either atomistic individuals or as passive subjects of some human authority or another. We exist as both individuals and as members of various communities before God. Authority in human society does not just come from the top down but from the bottom up as well. Hitler was given authority by the German people. Pastors are given authority by their Church members. So we are all involved in the process of understanding and implementing the will of God (or not) and all will be held accountable.
This “human process” is precisely to what I am referring. It is what affords people time and space to make up their minds, to accept or reject according to their choosing. Some reject revelation altogether, others accept it partially, or in some manner they see fit. Others still accept revelation but based on non-Christian sources. And even within Christian circles what precisely revelation entails, or means, or how and when and who should apply it, is far from agreed upon. To say that interpretations, opinions and positions vary greatly borders on a gross understatement. So when you appeal to God’s Law as if it is clear as to what that means and how it is to be applied etc., you are getting way ahead of yourself.
If the moral Law of God is not clear, i.e., knowable to those who want to know it and diligently seek Him, then (1) there is no knowable morality since reason and experience are insufficient (2) moral relativism is the state of affairs (3) might makes right, and, (4) Man is God.
I can agree to that, by and large. However it is besides my point, namely that as a matter of fact most people (even those who are seeking God undergo a process, denoting development and stages of knowledge) don’t agree what is precisely this moral law and how it should be applied (let alone submit to it) and it makes therefore little sense to appeal to it as if people do.
It is still not clear to me how you envision that this uniformity, conformity, and correct understanding of God’s will is reached in the various churches and through the political process. What makes you think that will happen, and how?
I think that process goes on all the time. Right now there is a moral consensus in the Church that we should more or less conform to Biblical morality as Christians but that we cannot impose biblical morality through the state. Thus, the only actors in the political discussion are the anti-Christains and the results are self evident. by writing, talking and changing my associations, I try and move the consensus to where I think it should be. So does everyone else who is active. God superintends the whole process as his plan for history unfolds.
“JohnB says: Homosexuals are not interested in gaining the rights of marriage”
John, do you have any data support this?
I have a friend at work that’s gay, and know others as acquaintances. They truly want the same rights as hetero married folks – medical access to a partner who is sick, same tax treatment, same rights of inheritance. No more. No less.
Russ,
It seems like you’re saying “We’ve failed in the past. This is the latest assault on our values. Make a stand right here.”
That seems like saying, “My house is falling apart, this window is broken, let’s fix it.” Rather, I would say, “My house is falling apart, let’s fix the foundation and work our way up from there.”
If we can’t get the church to live righteously, the issue of gay marriage is really moot.
Jacques – I like my analogy better
To me the foundational issues are doctrinal, namely the continuing applicability of God’s moral law and the comprehensive present Lordship of Jesus Christ, including over civil government.