My personal take on gay "marriage"

[DeusExMachina]

I know most of you probably don’t share my views on this matter, but nonetheless, I hope you don’t mind my voicing my opinion. Let me start off by saying I am a libertarian, so that influences my view quite a bit. Because I’m libertarian, I believe in government acting strictly within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. The idea of the First amendment is that religious belief, or lack thereof, should not be allowed to influence secular legislation. Therefore, I welcome all attempts to undercut religious freedom loopholes for non-discrimination against LGBT people. It is NOT, in my view, the government’s place to legislate morality.

However, as Christians, we have a duty to obey God. And he has made it very clear that marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE woman. To pretend otherwise is both foolish and impious. Thus, it pains me whenever an ordained clergy figure, regardless of which church they belong to, brushes aside their commitment to obey the words of the bible. Likewise, its important to understand that the First Amendment works both ways, and any attempt to FORCE churches to accept gay "marriage should be vigorously opposed. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I say.

 

[Thorolfr]

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The idea of the First amendment is that religious belief, or lack thereof, should not be allowed to influence secular legislation.

You have this backwards. The first Amendment is intended to prevent the state from interfering in the free exercise and practice of Religion. The only place the “separation of Church and state” is ever mentioned isn’t in the Constitution, it’s in a single letter written between Thomas Jefferson and one of his friends. The Founding Fathers actually stressed the necessity of a prayerful culture to the proper exercise of a democratic republic, and for the flourishing of a nation.

 

[ialsop]

Interesting.

I am not a libertarian, because I believe libertarianism opens the door to all sorts of harmful nonsense(like this) even if the founders of the country were totally pure of heart.

SO take my response with a grain of salt.

I believe that it it totally within the government’s rights to protect NATURAL LAW. True, they cannot legislate religion. BUT they CAN legislate natural law. Now, I THINK that this view is unconstitutional, but I am okay with that.

A government should work to protect a country, and natural history shows that tribes who rebel against natural law die out. So, even if all Americans want to embrace gay marriage, the fact that it would eventually destroy them is reason enough(IMHO) for the government to take a slightly authoritarian stance and ban it. Even against people’s will.

What is your take on that, OP? I am curious what you think of what I said.

OH and an important point. While I am not a libertarian, I make myself allied to them in this culture war. Because this government seems to not have any care for natural law, making it MORE authoritarian would be a VERY VERY bad idea. So I am fond of the libertarian philosophy now, but I don’t think it is IDEAL.
PAX

 

[Usige]

You have this backwards. The first Amendment is intended to prevent the state from interfering in the free exercise and practice of Religion. The only place the “separation of Church and state” is ever mentioned isn’t in the Constitution, it’s in a single letter written between Thomas Jefferson and one of his friends. The Founding Fathers actually stressed the necessity of a prayerful culture to the proper exercise of a democratic republic, and for the flourishing of a nation.

Yep. Many people seem to forget that the Deceleration of Independence itself speak of God and man’s creator (“the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” and “endowed by their (all men’s) Creator with certain unalienable Rights”). I have never seen anything where the founding fathers have said that they intended to banish religion from the public square. In fact the intent was to prohibit the government from suppressing certain religious expression. Not once was there a fight to allow gay marriage on religious grounds, while there were certainly many that argued that it impinged on their free exercise of religion to be forced to accept two homosexuals as married.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Founding Fathers actually stressed the necessity of a prayerful culture to the proper exercise of a democratic republic, and for the flourishing of a nation.

Can you give some quotes from the Founding Fathers on the proper place of religion in a democratic republic? I doubt that many modern conservative Christians would have approved, for example, of the religious views of Thomas Jefferson:

He considered the teachings of Jesus as having “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man,”[5] yet he held that the pure teachings of Jesus appeared to have been appropriated by some of Jesus’ early followers, resulting in a Bible that contained both “diamonds” of wisdom and the “dung” of ancient political agendas.

In later years, Jefferson refused to serve as a godparent for infants being baptized, because he did not believe in the dogma of the Trinity.[17] Despite testimony of Jefferson’s church attendance, there is no evidence that he was ever confirmed or was a communicant.

For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious tyranny whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished.

Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Can you give some quotes from the Founding Fathers on the proper place of religion in a democratic republic? I doubt that many modern conservative Christians would have approved, for example, of the religious views of Thomas Jefferson:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson

This page deals with the history of prayer in the U.S. Presidency. It cites sources for all quotes. There are far more there than I can do justice.

cfaith.com/index.php/blog/34-articles/independence-day/15500-founding-fathers-on-prayer

There is another quote that comes up on Catholic Answers Live fairly often when the topic is being discussed. I can’t recall what it is off hand, sorry; but it deals specifically with the necessity of a prayerful and moral people for the proper functioning of the American Government, and that without God the american experiment is destined for failure. I really wish I could remember the specifics, it is an excellent quote…

 

[phil19034]

Can you give some quotes from the Founding Fathers on the proper place of religion in a democratic republic? I doubt that many modern conservative Christians would have approved, for example, of the religious views of Thomas Jefferson:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson

while many modern conservative Christians may not have approved of Thomas Jefferson’s religious views, the Founders were trying to emphasize that Government could not squash religion.

For example, both George Washington and John Adams both attended a Catholic Mass while in Philadelphia.

The founders wanted all people to practice their Religious freely without fear from the government. We have to remember that all the non-Anglicans from England were fearful of the Church of England because it was the State Church.

So the goal was not to eliminate religion, it was to protect the minority religions (org Quakers, Puritans, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc – plus in a way Catholics, as there were a few signers who were practicing Catholics) against the Anglicans (which is also one reason why the Episcopalians broke from the Church of England).

The protestant signers wanted to be protected from being forced to follow one religion, they wanted to be able to practice their religion openly without fear of the state.

That is what the Founding Fathers created. However, today, we have the opposite.

The founders would have NEVER expected representatives to check their religion at the door. They would have expected the voters to take the representative’s religions views into account when they voted for them; but not expect someone to leave their religion at home.

The current situation we have today, is really a result of the Kennedy Doctrine when he basically declared that he would not allow his Catholicism to impact his political decisions. This set the way for other Catholic Democrats to do the same thing, and then other religious Democrats.

After all, doesn’t Congress still pray before starting each Congress and doesn’t the President still take his Oath upon a Bible? And wasn’t that what used to happen in Court Rooms all over America too?

 

[Cimachol]

Let me start off by saying I am a libertarian, so that influences my view quite a bit. Because I’m libertarian, I believe in government acting strictly within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. The idea of the First amendment is that religious belief, or lack thereof, should not be allowed to influence secular legislation. Therefore, I welcome all attempts to undercut religious freedom loopholes for non-discrimination against LGBT people. It is NOT, in my view, the government’s place to legislate morality.

I considered myself a libertarian at one time, and I do consider myself a strict Constitutionalist. I continue to agree with libertarians that excessive government tends to do more harm than good, and I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that human law is not obliged to oppress all vices.

However, here is where I think I would disagree with you on this matter:

1. Contrary to what many libertarians believe, society does have a moral right to protect itself from immoral influences with reasonable legislation. This aim is not always practical, and society must approach such legislation prudently.
2. No one has a God-given right to do things that are wrong.
3. The First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from trying to control religion, and religions from trying to control the state. It was not intended to eliminate laws based on the need to limit immoral influences in society.
4. While we must always consider the whether restricting a given behavior is a worthwhile or realistic aim, it is not morally permissible to participate in immorality. The concept of homosexual marriage requires the participation of society in the recognition of such marital contracts .

For these reasons, I do not believe we should legally recognize homosexual partnerships as “marriages.” That’s not to say that those who enter into such partnerships should be jailed or subject to abuse, but there is no reason for the government to participate by endorsing such partnerships as legally legitimate.

 

[Barb3]

I don’t know if any of you live in San Francisco but the “gays” have literally taken over one neighborhood – they had to close the Catholic grammar school a/c there were not sufficient children – not sure but think they still have Mass in the Church there. A few years ago I was going downtown on the train and a number of gays were on it also – they literally had taken over the train – they were kissing, hugging, etc., etc. Frankly I wouldn’t approve of that behavior with ordinary people – but that’s San Francisco!!!

 

[EleanorArr]

The current situation we have today, is really a result of the Kennedy Doctrine when he basically declared that he would not allow his Catholicism to impact his political decisions. This set the way for other Catholic Democrats to do the same thing, and then other religious Democrats.

After all, doesn’t Congress still pray before starting each Congress and doesn’t the President still take his Oath upon a Bible? And wasn’t that what used to happen in Court Rooms all over America too?

I agree with a lot of what you write, Phil. Annoyingly the history-graduate all all-around Class-A pedant in me wants to quibble a bit, vis.

Kennedy never stated (or seemingly meant to imply) that his own faith would not influence his decision-making. His famous pre-election speech to the Greater Houston Minsterial Association:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

…is about political leaders (ie himself, were he to be elected President) not taking political instruction from religious leaders, whether that be the Pope, his priest/confessor/bishop/etc in his case as a Catholic, or whoever it might be in anyone else’s case. People were afraid (or supposedly afraid) that the Pope would be ringing up the Oval Office every week demanding legislation, and Kennedy chose to address that (presumably successfully, given he won the election).

Congress does start with a prayer as the first order of business (or at least the House does, I’ve not looked at the Senate ever), but a quorum isn’t required for it - the Speaker does not entertain a motion that the House isn’t quorate until after the prayer; so while it’s the first order of business, no one actually has to be there. Interpret Congressional usage of prayer as you will… Secondly the President only swears on the Bible by convention (she/he isn’t required to, of course) - Teddy Roosevelt declined a Bible in 1901, John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law; Pierce additionally affirmed rather than swore.

The point - apart from the fact that I just love to be really pedantic (I’m sorry!) - is that the apperance of either checking beliefs in (Kennedy’s speech), or of not-checking them in (Congressional prayers, Bibles, etc), is primarily a matter of form, convention, and (dare I cynically suggest, for at least some politicians!), what is politically advantageous with regards their several electorates.

The wider issue of the post - the only constitutional reference to religion NOT being allowed to affect what the federal government in any branch does, is that no religious test can be applied. (Which works hand in hand with the First Amendment, because an established church might apply a test to hold public office, as was the case in Britain when the Constitution was written). The government is free constitutionally to legislate morality per se, though the specifics of it may be constrained by whether a particular proposed provision lies within usual interpretation of the enumerated powers.

I do not think it constitutionally (or morally) allowable for the govt to force any minister of religion to conduct SSMs against his/her will and religious beliefs. It could (however implausibly) be argued however that to deny a service or employment (all other things being equal) to someone based on their sexuality, or marital status, is illegal, or could be made illegal.

Can your priest be forced to marry 2 men to each other? No. Could one argue that he should should not refuse to, say, employ one of them, on the basis of his sexuality or fact of being ‘married’ to another man? That is much more debatable. And presumably at some point a huge raft of cases litigating that very issue is going to end up before 8 men and women in Washington (assuming the Senate has deigned to give a SCOTUS nominee a confirmation hearing before Satan starts wearing ice skates to work).

Some interesting thoughts on this thread

 

[Tweeter123]

Interesting.

I am not a libertarian, because I believe libertarianism opens the door to all sorts of harmful nonsense(like this) even if the founders of the country were totally pure of heart.

SO take my response with a grain of salt.

I believe that it it totally within the government’s rights to protect NATURAL LAW. True, they cannot legislate religion. BUT they CAN legislate natural law. Now, I THINK that this view is unconstitutional, but I am okay with that.

A government should work to protect a country, and natural history shows that tribes who rebel against natural law die out. So, even if all Americans want to embrace gay marriage, the fact that it would eventually destroy them is reason enough(IMHO) for the government to take a slightly authoritarian stance and ban it. Even against people’s will.

What is your take on that, OP? I am curious what you think of what I said.

OH and an important point. While I am not a libertarian, I make myself allied to them in this culture war. Because this government seems to not have any care for natural law, making it MORE authoritarian would be a VERY VERY bad idea. So I am fond of the libertarian philosophy now, but I don’t think it is IDEAL.
PAX

 

[Latinitas]

I know most of you probably don’t share my views on this matter, but nonetheless, I hope you don’t mind my voicing my opinion. Let me start off by saying I am a libertarian, so that influences my view quite a bit. Because I’m libertarian, I believe in government acting strictly within the limits proscribed by the Constitution. The idea of the First amendment is that religious belief, or lack thereof, should not be allowed to influence secular legislation. Therefore, I welcome all attempts to undercut religious freedom loopholes for non-discrimination against LGBT people. It is NOT, in my view, the government’s place to legislate morality.

However, as Christians, we have a duty to obey God. And he has made it very clear that marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE woman. To pretend otherwise is both foolish and impious. Thus, it pains me whenever an ordained clergy figure, regardless of which church they belong to, brushes aside their commitment to obey the words of the bible. Likewise, its important to understand that the First Amendment works both ways, and any attempt to FORCE churches to accept gay "marriage should be vigorously opposed. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I say.

You’re not a Catholic, as I can be more moderate in criticism. I firmly hold, that libertarianism, both politically and economically, is decisively contrary to Christianity, and to natural reason as well. Freedom is indeed a positive good, but not the ultimate positive good, this belongs either to Truth (according to the Thomists) or Goodness (according to Augustinians and Scotists). Faith, that assent of the intellect to dogmatic propositions on the authority of God, is the root of all Christian virtue, and charity, whereby we love God for His own sake is the perfection of it; nothing else counts (cf. Gal. 5:6). Moreover, all men were created for the same end, namely the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. To asser that everyone determines his own happiness is manifesty contrary to sound Christian faith.

As regards the argument from the First Amendment, we ought to put these arguments away; the Constitution is by no means inspired, and it can be justly criticized where need be. Let us establish then arguments based on reason and Divine faith. Should the secular and sacred be kept with their realms? Sure. Should they be wholly separate? No, not in the least. Such a thinking is completely contrary to Christianity, a religion which teaches the God became a man, and lived among men as men do. The Divine and human, supernatural and natural are united intimately. Why should we seek to put asunder to what God has joined? Why should laws not be influenced by faith, which confirms reason and moreover elevates it? Perhaps faith is not absolutely certain? On the contrary, the truths of faith are more certain than anything known by reason, since God Himself reveals them. Part of the reason God has given man revelation is also to guide our reason to those truths which can be known solely with our reason, but because of the difficulty in proving them, would likely be infected with numerous errors. This truth the First Vatican Council declares beautifully:

It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error.

Consequently, there’s no reason to reject the guidance of revelation unless one does not believe in it.

As to religious freedom objections in discrimination, I say that to treat the just and the unjust equally is persecution of the just. It is a duty of the state to give preference to the good over those who do evil. In otherwords, our piety is not equal to your iniquity. The government does have a role in morality. Of the four cardinal virtues, the duty of the state consists primarily in ensuring the virtue of justice is upheld. Thus, I can grant that fornication and masturbation and the like ought not to be punished by the state, since they involve no injustice against any other man, at least not proximately. But to forbid those who wish to maintain a moral enviornment even in their workplace, is a positie injustice to them. We must get rid of the idea that the morally good are equal to the morally wicked.

Obiously, I agree with you that Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, even if it is corrupted (agains the will of God) at times. It is true that after the fall and before Christ God did permit imperfect marriages, but as the text of Genesis 1-3 makes clear, monogamy and indissolubility is the ideal. Again, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the second point, although I would shift the emphasis away from freedom and over to justice. It is an injustice to compel evil, plain and simple. Thus to force the Church to perform such pseudo-marriages is not ony extrinsically unjust, in that it forced the Church to do something against her holy faith, but per se unjust because of the intrinsic perversity of same-sex “marriages”.

These are just my thoughts, influenced by Sacred Scripture, the fathers, the Church and reason.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[phil19034]

I agree with a lot of what you write, Phil. Annoyingly the history-graduate all all-around Class-A pedant in me wants to quibble a bit, vis.

Kennedy never stated (or seemingly meant to imply) that his own faith would not influence his decision-making. His famous pre-election speech to the Greater Houston Minsterial Association:

…is about political leaders (ie himself, were he to be elected President) not taking political instruction from religious leaders, whether that be the Pope, his priest/confessor/bishop/etc in his case as a Catholic, or whoever it might be in anyone else’s case. People were afraid (or supposedly afraid) that the Pope would be ringing up the Oval Office every week demanding legislation, and Kennedy chose to address that (presumably successfully, given he won the election).

Congress does start with a prayer as the first order of business (or at least the House does, I’ve not looked at the Senate ever), but a quorum isn’t required for it - the Speaker does not entertain a motion that the House isn’t quorate until after the prayer; so while it’s the first order of business, no one actually has to be there. Interpret Congressional usage of prayer as you will… Secondly the President only swears on the Bible by convention (she/he isn’t required to, of course) - Teddy Roosevelt declined a Bible in 1901, John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law; Pierce additionally affirmed rather than swore.

The point - apart from the fact that I just love to be really pedantic (I’m sorry!) - is that the apperance of either checking beliefs in (Kennedy’s speech), or of not-checking them in (Congressional prayers, Bibles, etc), is primarily a matter of form, convention, and (dare I cynically suggest, for at least some politicians!), what is politically advantageous with regards their several electorates.

The wider issue of the post - the only constitutional reference to religion NOT being allowed to affect what the federal government in any branch does, is that no religious test can be applied. (Which works hand in hand with the First Amendment, because an established church might apply a test to hold public office, as was the case in Britain when the Constitution was written). The government is free constitutionally to legislate morality per se, though the specifics of it may be constrained by whether a particular proposed provision lies within usual interpretation of the enumerated powers.

I do not think it constitutionally (or morally) allowable for the govt to force any minister of religion to conduct SSMs against his/her will and religious beliefs. It could (however implausibly) be argued however that to deny a service or employment (all other things being equal) to someone based on their sexuality, or marital status, is illegal, or could be made illegal.

Can your priest be forced to marry 2 men to each other? No. Could one argue that he should should not refuse to, say, employ one of them, on the basis of his sexuality or fact of being ‘married’ to another man? That is much more debatable. And presumably at some point a huge raft of cases litigating that very issue is going to end up before 8 men and women in Washington (assuming the Senate has deigned to give a SCOTUS nominee a confirmation hearing before Satan starts wearing ice skates to work).

Some interesting thoughts on this thread

I agree with most of what you wrote here: what Kennedy meant by the so called “Kennedy Doctrine” and what Democrates rolled with are argubly two different things.

Also, I know that the Bible swearing was optional, but the fact that it happened in the first place shows the general attitude of the founding fathers. If they wanted faith to be 100% missing in the public square, they wouldn’t have allowed the prayers or Bible swearing at all. Actually, the fact that it’s optional proves that the goal was to respect the religious beliefs of citizens and even elected officials.

Furthermore, the whole reason that Kennedy made that speech in the first place was due to the issues in the 19th century when lots of Catholics started migrating to the US, Protestant Americans were afraid of Catholics voting based on what their Bishop or Pope said, and since the Pope was the leader of a sovereign nation, their argument was that Catholics needed to swear an oath of disloyalty to the Pope before running for office. While all of those state laws were off the books when Kennedy ran for office, many Southern Democrates were concerned about a Catholic President with loyalties to the Pope.

 

[GEddie]

I’ve come to believe that being moored to the civil state is ultimately damaging to the Church. Consider the results of such relations in Russia, France and Mexico when the civil governments changed. Or in England, where the official church remains to this day but has less and less of an impact on how life is lived.

So we should not grieve too hard over governmental policy that favor actions we disagree with, but concentrate on getting our own message out.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tweeter123]

Regarding the “separation of church and state”, the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 was not to “a friend” but to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it he wrote: “…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Religion can draw such a subjective experience that no real controls can be administered. There would be too much left to interpretation, perhaps leading to arbitrary rulings. Not to mention that these days there are way to many religions to keep up with, and some are incompatible with one another. Muslims have beliefs, too. Unitarians. Jehovah’s Witnesses. The government wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate. We are not technically a Christian country. So I see this separation of church and state as more protective than prohibitive or insulting. In other words, worse things could happen than gay marriage.

Gay marriage is an interesting topic. I’ve never really known what it feels like to be homosexual, but I’ve had many homosexual friends who were some of the kindest and most honest and authentic people I’ve known. I attribute this to almost injured aesthetic, to a humility attained through suffering. No one would ever choose that kind of suffering, in my opinion. They risk their lives, jobs, reputations, etc. It would be far easier to live as a heterosexual. Some do, and probably feel miserable, like they’re living a lie. I can only speculate.

Regarding homosexuality obliterating the human race due to their lack of procreative abilities, I strongly doubt it. Only about 10-20% of the population is homosexual, and not all will marry. Homosexuals would have to outnumber heterosexuals for humans to die out, and even if that were a real threat, I’m fairly certain homosexuals would remedy the situation. No one wants to be obliterated.

So should they marry? Will it hurt the Christian community? Is marriage sacred or merely a social institution?

I know what the Catechism says, but before Biblical records, when there were Neanderthals and the like, did they marry? Were Adam and Eve individuals or are we to take the Hebrew meaning of the names into account? That of “Mankind” and “Bearer of Life”? So when did marriage begin? And what was the custom? How was it officiated? Was love and opening/offering up that love to God enough? I don’t know.

Regarding natural law… In the animal kingdom, sexuality is quite fluid (the Bonobo monkeys are one of many thousands of examples). Sometimes I wonder whether humankind has evolved (or devolved in the opinion of some) and is slowly becoming as much of a sexual spectrum. Everything moves toward a greater state of entropy, so it would make sense, if that were the case. I’ve wondered the same thing about the rising prevalence of autism, whether this is just an unfortunate move toward chaos.

Anyway, back to marriage… I think all people deserve the same legal rights and protections, and if marriage provides rights and protections which are unavailable to homosexuals who by law cannot marry (those can may lose the right), I tend to see this as denying them rights. It no longer becomes a religious topic, but a legal one. Marriage provides rights otherwise denied (to visit a dying spouse or inherit property, etc.). So when I think of denying someone the right to marriage, I first think of what they lose as a result.

I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. Whether or not one acts on these urges might be a choice, but I can empathize, and I feel sad for those who feel they have to deny themselves the opportunity to marry someone they love. Love does indeed happen within homosexual unions. I’ve always wondered what God thinks about that, and why God would allow for such a deep love to arise despite these sexual differences/incompatibilities.

I recently heard Christopher West speak on the Theology of the Body, and something he said really stuck with me. He said, “The Devil has no clay. He can only reshape what God has made.” But if God creates a man or woman who are gay, or a baby with a parasitic head, or a two-headed person, or a baby with Down Syndrome, or a brilliant autistic savant who struggles in life, aren’t these creations His will? Does he have some mysterious plan in mind when these things happen? Is it to test the rest of us?

I realize this sounds like the beginning of multiple threads. I suppose it is and I’m sorry. Just stream of consciousness. I don’t expect an answer or response to so many thoughts/questions. Just sounding off here.

Thanks.

 

[Thorolfr]

After all, doesn’t Congress still pray before starting each Congress and doesn’t the President still take his Oath upon a Bible? And wasn’t that what used to happen in Court Rooms all over America too?

If the President wasn’t a Christian, I don’t think he/she would take the oath upon a Bible. For instance, congressman Keith Ellison who is Muslim took his oath as a congressman upon a copy of the Qur’an that had once belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I considered myself a libertarian at one time, and I do consider myself a strict Constitutionalist. I continue to agree with libertarians that excessive government tends to do more harm than good, and I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that human law is not obliged to oppress all vices.

However, here is where I think I would disagree with you on this matter:

1. Contrary to what many libertarians believe, society does have a moral right to protect itself from immoral influences with reasonable legislation. This aim is not always practical, and society must approach such legislation prudently.
2. No one has a God-given right to do things that are wrong.
3. The First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from trying to control religion, and religions from trying to control the state. It was not intended to eliminate laws based on the need to limit immoral influences in society.
4. While we must always consider the whether restricting a given behavior is a worthwhile or realistic aim, it is not morally permissible to participate in immorality. The concept of homosexual marriage requires the participation of society in the recognition of such marital contracts .

For these reasons, I do not believe we should legally recognize homosexual partnerships as “marriages.” That’s not to say that those who enter into such partnerships should be jailed or subject to abuse, but there is no reason for the government to participate by endorsing such partnerships as legally legitimate.

I think I can see where you’re coming from; but while I am against gay “marriage” I respect people’s right to have the legal benefits that come with a marriage, regardless of whether or not I think they’re a sinner.

 

[Thorolfr]

I considered myself a libertarian at one time, and I do consider myself a strict Constitutionalist. I continue to agree with libertarians that excessive government tends to do more harm than good, and I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that human law is not obliged to oppress all vices.

However, here is where I think I would disagree with you on this matter:

1. Contrary to what many libertarians believe, society does have a moral right to protect itself from** immoral influences** with reasonable legislation. This aim is not always practical, and society must approach such legislation prudently.
2. No one has a God-given right to do things that are wrong.
3. The First Amendment was intended to prevent the state from trying to control religion, and religions from trying to control the state. It was not intended to eliminate laws based on the need to limit immoral influences in society.
4. While we must always consider the whether restricting a given behavior is a worthwhile or realistic aim, it is not morally permissible to participate in immorality. The concept of homosexual marriage requires the participation of society in the recognition of such marital contracts .

For these reasons, I do not believe we should legally recognize homosexual partnerships as “marriages.” That’s not to say that those who enter into such partnerships should be jailed or subject to abuse, but there is no reason for the government to participate by endorsing such partnerships as legally legitimate.

So how should a society, especially a multicultural and multi-religious society, decide what is moral or immoral? Should certain varieties of Christianity be the yardstick for making this determination? A Muslim, for example, would consider polygamy to be perfectly moral since it is explicitly allowed in the Qur’an. So whose standards of morality should be used in deciding whether polygamy is moral in an increasingly multicultural and multi-religious society? There are up to 2.75 million Muslims in the US.

 

[DeusExMachina]

So how should a society, especially a multicultural and multi-religious society, decide what is moral or immoral? Should certain varieties of Christianity be the yardstick for making this determination? A Muslim, for example, would consider polygamy to be perfectly moral since it is explicitly allowed in the Qur’an. So whose standards of morality should be used in deciding whether polygamy is moral in an increasingly multicultural and multi-religious society? There are up to 2.75 million Muslims in the US.

Well said