Thursday, May 12, 2011

Presbyterians wave the white flag on moral principles

The Presbyterian Church, USA has approved the ordination of gays to their clergy. You gotta hand it to them: they sure put a lot of effort into trying to keep their own religious moral rules indexed to those of secular culture. And then there's that problem of explaining to their congregations why they keep doing things that are in direct conflict with the Bible they claim to adhere to.

I don't envy them.

Surely this couldn't have anything to do with the membership decline we hear about every year.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

LoL! I just think its funny how sooo many churches change their doctrine. I mean almost all denominations i can think of have. Of course they all teach the truth of god! *wink wink* Well i didnt realize god changes his mind? He realized he was totally wrong and is just now getting it right. Lol lets hope he doesnt change his mind about a lot of the promises he gave to the faithful!

Singring said...

'And then there's that problem of explaining to their congregations why they keep doing things that are in direct conflict with the Bible they claim to adhere to.'

I think it should be rather easy for the Presbyterians to explain to their congregations why demonizing gay people is not acceptable.

Catholics are having a much harder time explaining why they aid and protect child molesters and rapists - understandably so.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I guess you think laws against polygamy demonize women because they prevent men from marrying multiple numbers of them too?

Singring said...

'I guess you think laws against polygamy demonize women because they prevent men from marrying multiple numbers of them too?'

No. Because laws against polygamy do not imply that women are inherently immoral, evil or otherwise deficient and will be punished for all eternity simply because of who they are.

Denying gay people ordination in the context of a religious community does exactly that: It tells gay people that they can never be a full member of the community simply because of who they are.

Martin Cothran said...

So you can't be a full member of a community unless you are an ordained leader in the community?

If I want to be, say, a Supreme Court justice but don't recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution of the United States am I being demonized by those who don't think I should be a justice?

Anonymous said...

Just not allowing gays to become pastors on the basis of scripture is "Demonizing gays?" Demonizing??? Lol Little bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Its purely based on religion. We are supposed to believe in freedom of religion. So are Muslims Demonizing gays because they do not allow gays to become Imams (pastors)? Are Muslims discriminating? Or is it their religious freedom? As far as priests being child molesters that is a perfect example of Anti-catholicism and stereotypes against priests. Look the official statistics from 1995 is 4 percent of priests up to that time had been accused of sexual abuse. All 4 percent of that isnt from Child abuse alone... Not to mention this is only accounting those priests accused. This doesn't take into account that many are falsely accused. Or accused because someone was seeking a fat pay check. Also thats from 1995. Due to media spotlight a much needed change in the church has occurred over the past 16 years and church leaders take a more stern stance on these incidents. From 2004 to 2010 the number of "accusations" dropped by half. Also 75 percent of the allegations that are reported today occurred before 1984 when all of the accusations first started coming to the surface. Lets keep in mind also that a large portion of these "accusations" are dismissed because lets face it. People will do and say anything to make a buck. Especially 30 million. I mean i know we have all heard of the lady that sued Mcdonalds because she stood up too fast with hot coffee in her lap and burnt herself. We hear these kinds of things all the time. People have no honor anymore. Anyways, just a perfect example why people do these frivolous lawsuits.

Singring said...

Martin:

You example is wholly inappropriate (as usual). Aside from the fact that I don't quite see why someone who denies the constitution would want to become an agent of it, let's clear up your categorical error. Just because someone who is not allowed to become a Supreme Court justice on the grounds that he rejects the constitution is being denied this option because he or she has made a conscious choice to reject the constitution - not becuase of their character, skin colour or gender.

A Presbyterian (or Catholic) who is denied the right to become a priest because of his character, gender or skin colour is not given a choice. They are - by definition lesser human beings within the doctrine of the respective church.

Personally, I don't even see why a gay person would ever want to be a Catholic or an Evangelical, but hey - it takes all kinds.

Singring said...

At anonymous:

Aside from the fact that I find any kind of excuses for what the Catholic Church (and anyone else who has sheltered and aided child molesters and rapists) utterly abhorrent, let me just remind you that you have showed the same knee-jerk reaction that most Catholics show when reminded of the doings of their clerics.

1.) The Catholic Church proclaims itself as the ultimate source of moral authority on earth. Do you honestly think that 'only 4 % of priests were abusers' is going to hold any water at all? Saying 'Catholics were no worse than others' just makes the point that the Catholic Church has no right to lecture anyone on morality.

2.) You are completely missing the point. I clearly stated that I fault the Church for aiding and protecting child rapists. Which has been demonstrated up to the highest levels over and over and over - and over - again. I know you don't like it. I know you ignore it when letters from the Vatican to Irish Bishops flat-out say that child rapist cases should be kept hidden from the police. When Bishops had raped children sign oaths of secrecy. When known child rapists were moved from parish to parish so they could rape again and again. Don't think you can deflect these facts.

Finally, I will just quote this last paragraph of yours:

'Lets keep in mind also that a large portion of these "accusations" are dismissed because lets face it. People will do and say anything to make a buck. Especially 30 million. I mean i know we have all heard of the lady that sued Mcdonalds because she stood up too fast with hot coffee in her lap and burnt herself. We hear these kinds of things all the time. People have no honor anymore. Anyways, just a perfect example why people do these frivolous lawsuits.'

Equating accusations of child rape to McDonald's lawsuits...I can't even comprehend how someone can come to a point where they can say something like this.

Singring said...

Anonymous, if you can stand to look in the mirror, maybe you should listen to how people in Ireland respond to someone saying the same things you are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptVOpbEpn0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSIfuoz5aE

Lee said...

That's why there's a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Theologically sensitive Presbyterians have known there has been a problem with the PC-USA since, well, the Fifties.

And it's easy to explain why their decisions run against the Bible if, as you point out, you lose any remaining members who still believe in the Bible.

But let's be fair. The PC-USA has been nowhere near as cutting edge as the Episcopalians, the United Methodists, or the UCC. The mainstream Presbys have been relative foot-draggers. But they finally arrived. They have achieved irrelevance.

KyCobb said...

The Southern Baptists are losing members as well. Probably because they surrendered on miscegenation. Its too bad that the only way to be relevant religiously is to hate teh gayz.

Our Founding Truth said...

Why call make an issue about a denomination, when they are not Christian anyway.

Lee said...

You're not loving someone if they're doing something wrong and you're indifferent to it. And gays aren't the only folks who have strong urges to misbehave sexually. Gays are in the same sinking ship as the rest of us. We are all fallen and depraved human beings who are doomed without God's intervention and need to repent our sins and do God's will.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. You simply have a theological belief that it violates God's rules. The Presbyterians disagree. Each of the many variations of Christianity has its own unique set of God's rules they think everyone should have to follow. That's why we have religious freedom in this country and why the government shouldn't be in the business of imposing one sect's rules on everyone else.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality.

That's an opinion.

> the government shouldn't be in the business of imposing one sect's rules on everyone else.

If the government is going to get out of the business of imposing morality, it had better quit making laws. And it had better quit confiscating my money for its social goals. But of course, they are not about to do that. All governments impose morality. The only question is, whose?

If tolerance is what they want, they have it. But they want more than that. They want approval.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"That's an opinion."

If you didn't believe God has a rule against homosexuality, would there be any other reason to consider it wrong?

"If the government is going to get out of the business of imposing morality, it had better quit making laws. And it had better quit confiscating my money for its social goals."

The government appropriately provides services for the people and protects their rights. That has to be paid for. What isn't appropriate is to oppress some people for behavior which is noone else's business for theological reasons. The government should not impose one sect's theology on everyone else; a free people have the right to follow their own conscience.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"If tolerance is what they want, they have it. But they want more than that. They want approval."

The government can't force you to approve of homosexuality. But passing laws targeting gays to deny them rights enjoyed by everyone else isn't tolerance.

Lee said...

> The government appropriately provides services for the people and protects their rights.

And that is a moral vision. The concept of "rights" and their protection.

> What isn't appropriate is to oppress some people for behavior which is noone else's business for theological reasons.

Well, at some point, you'll have to explain how a church's refusing to ordain gays, or withholding one's approval of gay marriage, is oppressive behavior.

But are you saying that it is okay to oppress some people for behavior that is no one else's business (another moral proposition) so long as the motivation is not theological in origin?

Lee said...

> The government can't force you to approve of homosexuality. But passing laws targeting gays to deny them rights enjoyed by everyone else isn't tolerance.

Are you saying the institution of marriage as between man and woman was established to target gays?

And, if the government decides gay marriage is legal, then it can indeed force me to approve of the union, and honor it.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"And that is a moral vision. The concept of "rights" and their protection."

Its in the Constitution of the United States. Some states, such as Iran, don't protect rights and do expressly impose theological beliefs. We don't live in a theocracy.

"Well, at some point, you'll have to explain how a church's refusing to ordain gays, or withholding one's approval of gay marriage, is oppressive behavior."

Its not. A Church has a 1st Amendment right to refuse to ordain gays and to disapprove of gay marriage. I'm just saying that the government should not participate.

"But are you saying that it is okay to oppress some people for behavior that is no one else's business (another moral proposition) so long as the motivation is not theological in origin?"

No. If you aren't harming anyone else you should be free to make your own choices.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Are you saying the institution of marriage as between man and woman was established to target gays?"

No. But recent laws passed to prohibit gays from marrying do.

"And, if the government decides gay marriage is legal, then it can indeed force me to approve of the union, and honor it."

To the extent that the law requires you to provide benefits to married couples, you would have to treat all married couples the same, just as racists are required to treat mixed race marriages like any other marriage. But you would still have the 1st Amendment right to speak against it and disapprove it, just as racists can and do denounce miscegenation. Only 11 years ago Bob Jones University still prohibited its students from interracial dating, much less marriage, for theological reasons.

Lee said...

> Its in the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution supports a moral vision of government. Are you trying to contradict that?

> Some states, such as Iran, don't protect rights and do expressly impose theological beliefs. We don't live in a theocracy.

Is it imposing theological beliefs to passively withhold approval of something?

> Its not. A Church has a 1st Amendment right to refuse to ordain gays and to disapprove of gay marriage. I'm just saying that the government should not participate.

If the government okays gay marriage, I will be forced to honor that decision. So the government is participating.

Are you saying that my objections to gay marriage should not find their way into law because they are theological in origin?

But if someone supports gay marriage not for any particular established theological vision, but for a moral vision they just made up about twenty years ago, that's okay? If so, that sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

And how about those who support gay marriage for theological reasons? Should they shut up and let the ones who support it for non-theological reasons do all the talking?

And does that mean we can nullify welfare and food stamps because some people supported it for theological reasons? ("It's what Jesus would want us to do -- feed the poor.")

> No. If you aren't harming anyone else you should be free to make your own choices.

So, we should revoke all laws that address what people should do for their own good? We should outlaw ObamaCare because it takes away our freedom to not buy health insurance? The First Lady should shut up about people's diets? Nobody should get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt? We ought to be able to shoot up on heroin all we like?

I don't necessarily disagree. But by instituting gay marriage, my right to disapprove is gone. Why is their right to be recognized more important than my right to disapprove?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"And the Constitution supports a moral vision of government. Are you trying to contradict that?"

I view the Constitution as an agreement to collectively pursue the enlightened self-interest of the people of the community.

"Is it imposing theological beliefs to passively withhold approval of something?"

When laws are passed to expressly deny benefits to a disfavored group which are enjoyed by the majority, that isn't passive.

"Are you saying that my objections to gay marriage should not find their way into law because they are theological in origin?"

If there is no valid secular reason to deny rights to a disfavored minority which are enjoyed by the majority, then the law is unconstitutional because the US government cannot deny people rights solely for theological reasons.

"But if someone supports gay marriage not for any particular established theological vision, but for a moral vision they just made up about twenty years ago, that's okay? If so, that sounds pretty arbitrary to me."

That is your take. My take is I support the same marriage rights for everyone, and noone should be denied the right to marry without a valid, secular reason to do so.

"And does that mean we can nullify welfare and food stamps because some people supported it for theological reasons? ("It's what Jesus would want us to do -- feed the poor.")"

No, because there are valid secular reasons for providing a social safety net. There is no valid secular purpose for denying gays the right to marry.

"We should outlaw ObamaCare because it takes away our freedom to not buy health insurance?"

Actually the law doesn't require anyone to purchase health insurance. The law provides a penalty to be collected by the IRS, but it also prohibits the IRS from imposing a tax lein or taking legal action to collect. As long as you don't overpay your taxes through withholding, you don't have to pay the penalty.

"The First Lady should shut up about people's diets?"

The First Lady is a private citizen, and she can say anything she wants.

"Nobody should get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt? We ought to be able to shoot up on heroin all we like?"

There is an argument for seat belts that by failing to take an easy and sensible safety measure you harm others by driving up their insurance costs. I personally think that drug addiction should be treated as a health problem, rather than criminal, though if you are a drug pusher you are harming people by taking advantage of their addiction.

"Why is their right to be recognized more important than my right to disapprove?"

Your right to disapprove still exists. You just don't get to use the government to harm them because you disapprove of them. You aren't being denied any right, because you didn't have the right to harm them in the first place.

Lee said...

The reason government exists is to enforce a moral vision. Every law is an intrusion of someone's moral vision into the life of a person who may or may not share it. There are no exceptions.

The impetus that goes into making laws have all kinds of motivations, some secular, some sacred. If you pay people to make laws, they will make laws, even if all the good ones have already been written.

So, sorry, I don't buy the arbitrary rules you set up to allow people with your moral vision to make whatever laws you see as "sensible" and "secular", and to automatically discount and disenfranchise people with my moral vision because it derives from a source that you disapprove.

> But you would still have the 1st Amendment right to speak against it and disapprove it, just as racists can and do denounce miscegenation.

That's an optimistic view. Liberals around the world have a nasty habit of framing opposition to their agenda as "hate speech", and it's only a matter of time before preaching against gay marriage from the pulpit is termed "hate speech." Maybe the Supreme Court would strike it down. Or maybe it won't.

Singring said...

'That's an optimistic view. Liberals around the world have a nasty habit of framing opposition to their agenda as "hate speech", and it's only a matter of time before preaching against gay marriage from the pulpit is termed "hate speech."'

Lee, get real for a moment, please. Can you name one country in the world where opposition to gay marriage is deemed 'hate speech'? Even in European countries where there are strong laws against 'hate speech', Germany for example, nobody is banned from opposing gay marriage. What people are banned from is to call homosexuals subhuman or worthless beings who deserve to be killed, slaughtered or otherwise exterminated. Those are two very idfferent things. And I'm sure you can appreciate why Germany in pareticular has laws prohibiting the advocation of mass murder, genocide and violence against minorities.

Sometimes I wonder how someone as convinced as you that socialists and liberals are out to grab his money and arrest him for opposing gay marriage can even get out of bed in the morning, Lee. It must be hard to be that paranoid.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So, sorry, I don't buy the arbitrary rules you set up to allow people with your moral vision to make whatever laws you see as "sensible" and "secular", and to automatically discount and disenfranchise people with my moral vision because it derives from a source that you disapprove."

Its not my rule, its the Constitution.

" it's only a matter of time before preaching against gay marriage from the pulpit is termed "hate speech." Maybe the Supreme Court would strike it down. Or maybe it won't."

The Supreme Court just affirmed the free speech rights of the most hateful anti-gay sect in the country, Westboro Baptist Church. They engage in about the most obnoxious speech imaginable, celebrating the death and descent into Hell of US soldiers at military funerals. So I don't think there is much danger that the thought police are going to start dragging pastors off their pulpits in handcuffs anytime soon.

KyCobb said...

BTW, in the US Supreme Court case I just mentioned, Snyder v. Phelps, all four liberal justices joined Roberts' opinion that Westboro Baptist Church's hate speech was protected by the 1st Amendment. The only dissenter was Justice Alito, a conservative. So there is zero support on the current court to make sermons denouncing gay marriage a hate crime.

Lee said...

> Its not my rule, its the Constitution.

KyCobb, your copy of the Constitution must have an amendment that states...

> "Congress shall pass no law that is informed by or based on any moral belief that is religious in origin."

Fortunately, the real U.S. Constitution says no such thing.

> So I don't think there is much danger that the thought police are going to start dragging pastors off their pulpits in handcuffs anytime soon.

Hopefully, you are correct.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Even under the very permissive rational basis test, the state must be able to articulate some legitimate reason for treating one group of people differently than others. If the only reason you have to deny gays the right to marry is because you believe homosexuality is a sin, that isn't sufficient grounds under the rational basis test.

Lee said...

Try this: marriage is a very important institution, and is already in trouble. We don't know what effect this trivialization of it will have.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

So your reason is that you think something bad might happen, but you have no idea what it could be, combined with a crass insult thrown at the gays to demonstrate your prejudice? You're making it too easy for the other side.

Lee said...

Perhaps you don't spend much time working on complex systems and have no idea how changing even the slightest variable can result in the entire apparatus crashing down.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Then your second point to the judge is that he is too stupid to understand your argument? If you want to win this case, you have to demonstrate you understand your own argument by explaining how gay marriage is going to cause the entire apparatus to crash down. Vague generalities implying something bad might happen doesn't amount to a winning argument.

Lee said...

> Then your second point to the judge is that he is too stupid to understand your argument?

You could at least try to avoid mischaracterizing my statements. The problem with complex systems is that *nobody* understands how such changes will play out. That includes stupid judges and brilliant judges alike.

The main point is that even judgments made for religious reasons have real-world consequences. So you can't accurately say, "the only reason you have to deny gays the right to marry is because you believe homosexuality is a sin." It doesn't stop there. I believe, as a result of such a decisions, the harms wrought to society may be serious, perhaps even devastating. So my concerns go beyond what you might think of as a "mere" concern about sinning.

Although I can't think of a worse thing to call someone than a sinner. And it's a label the Bible applies to all of us. It's why Paul tells us not to boast.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

All I'm saying is that "I think something bad might happen" isn't a winning argument in a court of law. Judges strike down discriminatory laws when the state is unable to articulate a rational basis for why one group of people should be treated differently than others. If you really think giving gay couples the same bundle of rights heterosexual couples can get could devastate society, you ought to be able to articulate how you think that might happen and what those consequences might be. If you can't do that, then there is no rational basis for denying gays the right to marry.

Singring said...

'Perhaps you don't spend much time working on complex systems and have no idea how changing even the slightest variable can result in the entire apparatus crashing down.'

So you also opposed interracial marriage then?

Lee said...

KyCobb, your problem isn't with "discriminatory laws", but with discriminatory nature. Opposing same-sex marriage is at the very least not arbitrary, unless you are prepared to argue that marriage evolved arbitrarily with respect to sex -- that is, that earlier cultures were just as likely to marry off guys to guys and gals to gals, only at some point those lousy Christians came in and arbitrarily made things otherwise.

But bottom line: my moral vision says it's wrong, your moral vision says it's right, and we will have to settle it in the public arena. In the making of public policy, you arbitrarily tell me I have to leave my religious moral vision at home, while you're free to stamp your secular moral vision on everything. See you at the hustings.

> If you can't do that, then there is no rational basis for denying gays the right to marry.

Your position, then, is that caution is not rational. No surprises. If liberals were concerned about things like the law of unintended consequences, well, then they wouldn't be liberals, would they?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

" If liberals were concerned about things like the law of unintended consequences, well, then they wouldn't be liberals, would they?"

That works both ways. Conservatives insist we can keep pumping vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without consequence.

But my primary point is legal. I have developed hypothetical reasons for laws and got them affirmed by courts under the rational basis test. If I had told a judge that the law must be affirmed because something bad might happen otherwise, but I had no idea what, the judge would look at me like I had walked into his courtroom naked.

Lee said...

If your point is legal, I should think the burden of proof should be on you: to explain to the judge how it is that you can just change the legal meaning of a word that has had the same definition for thousands of years, and then proceed to hold all the laws and customs that were based on the previous understanding in contempt until they get in line with your current and fashionable new definition.

But of course, judges don't make laws, they just interpret them. It's the legislatures who should have the power to bring this about. I have no idea why they allow judges to re-write their laws from the bench when they have the power to impeach them. Go figure.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Modern marriage is not remotely similar to what marriage was millenia ago, over even a century ago, which your opponent would certainly point out in court.

Lee said...

> That works both ways. Conservatives insist we can keep pumping vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without consequence.

I'm fine with conservation. I'm not fine with using it as an excuse to turn the us into a Third World country run by cut-rate bureaucrats and self-appointed eco-apostles. I'll start to worry about carbon emissions when Al Gore and Thomas Friedman sell their thirty-room mansions.

> Modern marriage is not remotely similar to what marriage was millenia ago, over even a century ago, which your opponent would certainly point out in court.

Yep. A millenia ago, men married tree bark and women married thistles. The species was saved when a young couple went against their parents wishes and married each other.

KyCobb said...

Marriage was a man and as many wives and concubines he could support. Marriage, until quite recently, was the transfer of custody of a woman from her father or other male relative to another man, often a man she had never met and had no hand in choosing. Any property she brought into the marriage became his, and if he divorced her, the children were his. Marriage today is nothing like marriage as it was.

Lee said...

But it was always man with woman, and woman with man. This leads me to believe that marriage as an institution did not evolve arbitrarily with regard to sex.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

And I understand that you think that, in the words of Bruce Hornsby, "that's just the way it is, and some things will never change," should be a good legal argument. But as an attorney, I'm telling you its not.

Lee said...

So as a lawyer, perhaps you can explain why you think the burden of proof falls on someone who wants to keep the status quo.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

They don't. In order to justify the passage of recent laws expressly denying same sex couples the right to marry, the state only has to show that there is a conceivable rational reason to do so. The rational basis test is in fact the easiest test to pass. Your problem is that so far you can't come up with a single hypothetical scenario to justify your fear that giving same sex couples the same bundle of rights heterosexual couples can obtain is dangerous.

Lee said...

Perhaps we have been misunderstanding each other. I'm fine with *not* passing laws to prevent gay marriage. It's passing laws to *permit* gay marriage that I oppose.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Lots of states have already passed laws prohibiting gay marriage, including Kentucky. If the courts strike them for denying equal protection, that will necessarily entail same sex couples having the right to marry.

Lee said...

I'm not quite sure why striking down a law prohibiting gay marriage should automatically mean the law permits gay marriage. There were no laws prohibiting gay marriage twenty years ago, and gays couldn't marry then.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

If someone files suit to challenge a law, they won't be satisfied with a mere declaration that its unconstitutional. They will request injunctive relief requiring the clerk to issue a marriage license to them.

Lee said...

If they're going to use the Equal Protection Clause to put forth their claims, it seems to me that it's still not a slam dunk.

For one thing, we can utterly rule out original intent. It's a safe bet that neither the framers of that amendment nor the ratifying state governments believed that the equal protection clause applied to men who wanted to marry other men, or women likewise.

So now we are in the realm of making law from the bench -- to which I'm opposed in principle, but that has hardly stopped anyone.

Nevertheless, we're back to the definition of marriage. As it has always been defined until fifteen minutes ago, it has meant the union of someone with a member of the opposite sex. Under this definition, gays have never been denied to the right to marry.

So, to make your case, you have to tamper with the longstanding definition of marriage -- that is, the definition that the amendment's framers and ratifiers had in mind when the amendment became law.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Well, that raises the question as to whether the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection incorporates the social prejudices of 19th century white men. I would bet they wouldn't have had any problem with barring interracial marriages either. Since the Constitution does not expressly address the issue, I think rulings should be based only on the legal principles expressed in the Constitution as amended.

Lee said...

> Well, that raises the question as to whether the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection incorporates the social prejudices of 19th century white men...

Or, alernatively, the normal, natural viewpoint by 19th century American citizens of the matrimonial relationship. Gotta watch those characterizations. You wouldn't want to beg any questions, would you?

I would point out that those socially prejudiced white men wrote that amendment as part of a process to extend rights to black folks that had been denied, so I think we have to presume their motives were at least somewhat honorable.

The larger point is, of course, obscured through all the colorful adjectives: what did the framers of that amendment intend, and what did the ratifiers think they were ratifying?

I mean, if I get to project my own personal viewpoints into the Constitution, I'm pretty sure I can come up with an interpretation that requires the government to send me a billion dollars.

For the legal principles of the amendment to apply to same-sex marriage, we are required to change the definition of marriage. Otherwise, there isn't much for you to build a case on.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"I would point out that those socially prejudiced white men wrote that amendment as part of a process to extend rights to black folks that had been denied, so I think we have to presume their motives were at least somewhat honorable."

I didn't say they weren't honorable for their time. The point I'm making is that the 14th Amendment doesn't expressly exempt homosexuals from equal protection. Homosexuals simply weren't considered at the time, just as african-americans weren't considered as more than property before the 14th amendment was enacted. Since the 14th amendment doesn't expressly exempt homosexuals from equal protection of the law, you still have to justify denying them the right to marry for some reason more than "that's just the way it is."

Lee said...

> I didn't say they weren't honorable for their time. The point I'm making is that the 14th Amendment doesn't expressly exempt homosexuals from equal protection.

I think definitions matter. To make your case requires changing the definition of marriage. At the very least, that sounds like the job for the legislatures, since the U.S. Constitution does not define marriage and therefore under the 10th amendment that would fall to the states or to the people. All a state would have to do is show that they apply equal protection to all under the reigning definition of marriage.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

So if a state defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman of the same race, that would be ok, since everyone could still marry as marriage was defined by the legislature?

Lee said...

The definition of marriage as a man and a woman seems like a convention born of biology, since the institution, as the word matrimony implies, is at least partially intended for the conception and raising of children. As such, the definition of marriage is not arbitrary.

However, requiring that the man and woman must be of the same race strikes me as arbitrary with respect to marriage. I think the purpose of the 14th amendment is to protect us from arbitrary laws and arbitrary enforcement.

But arbitrariness goes both ways. Can people define themselves in any arbitrary fashion and expect the Supreme Court to grant them special rights?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"However, requiring that the man and woman must be of the same race strikes me as arbitrary with respect to marriage."

It strikes you as arbitrary now. 50 years ago, it seemed perfectly natural to many people. The races seemed distinct, and race mixing seemed unnatural.

"Can people define themselves in any arbitrary fashion and expect the Supreme Court to grant them special rights?"

First, being homosexual isn't arbitrary. Its not like picking between baseball and football. Second, they aren't asking for special rights, only the same rights we enjoy.

Lee said...

> It strikes you as arbitrary now. 50 years ago, it seemed perfectly natural to many people. The races seemed distinct, and race mixing seemed unnatural.

I think it is objectively arbitrary. I bet Solomon had black wives.

> First, being homosexual isn't arbitrary. Its not like picking between baseball and football.

That's an opinion.

> Second, they aren't asking for special rights, only the same rights we enjoy.

They are asking that we change everything. That everyone be required to recognize and affirm their unions. It goes beyond seeking tolerance to demanding approval.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

So, if not for the Bible saying homosexuality is wrong, your selection if whether to love a man or a woman would be like deciding whether to play football or baseball, and you might even enjoy both?

Lee said...

I don't know how you got that out of what I said. It seems to summarize your own thoughts, however.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

you said it was merely my opinion that choosing whether to love a man or a woman was not like choosing between baseball or football. I don't think we choose whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual, do you?

Lee said...

> you said it was merely my opinion that choosing whether to love a man or a woman was not like choosing between baseball or football. I don't think we choose whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual, do you?

If one chooses to be a homosexual, or if one is born to it, or if it's a third thing (such as imprinting or conditioning), or if it's some combination of all three or even more... I'm not sure why any of that plays in the definition of marriage and why it should be preserved or altered.

Basically, you're arguing that biology is an arbitrary component of marriage, like race. I think it is obvious that biology is an integral component of marriage. Marriage is an important institution for conceiving and raising children and keeping society going. Same-sex marriage would always be a pale imitation -- not to mention parasitic, in that it depends on others doing their biological part in the propagation of humanity, and also the job of passing down morals and culture. It simply cannot be everything a marriage is or needs to be.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I do not know if you are aware of how condescending and insulting you sound. My wife and I were unable to conceive, and adopted. Does that make our marriage parasitic, a pale imitation of "real" marriage? So far you have made a great case for your opponents that your opposition to gay marriage is based solely on your prejudice against homosexuals.

Lee said...

Believe me, if I had to worry about offending liberals, I'd never talk to them. At some point, I decided it's just another debate tactic.

Of course, I'm talking about the institution of marriage, not the occasional exception. My wife of 28 years and I are childless, too. So if I was calling you and your wife parasites, it has to come back at me, too.

None of which changes that fact that the prospect of children and their guarantee of the future is an integral part of why society sees fit to condone marriage and approve of marital relationships.

And none of which changes the fact that if everyone went out and decided to engage only in same-sex marriage, the numbers of children would wind down to a close.

And therefore, since participants in same-sex marriage depended on participants of mixed-sex marriage to conceive them, such a marriage, *as* *an* *institution*, is (brace your delicate sensitivities, please) parasitic.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"And none of which changes the fact that if everyone went out and decided to engage only in same-sex marriage, the numbers of children would wind down to a close."

Your claim is first, irrelevant, since it won't happen, and second, false, since even if everyone did turn gay, they could conceive children artificially. And if everyone was gay, they would legalize gay marriage. Gallup's latest poll shows that for the first time ever, a majority of Americans support gay marriage. I predict that in 20 years time gay marriage will be no more controversial than interracial marriage is now.