Huck's Beliefnet interview

I probably said it awkwardly...

Ya think? Sheesh.

But his "clarification" still comes up short. I am quite ready to respect the members of a religious tradition working to maintain their traditional morality within the boundaries of their religious culture. I am not ready to stand idle while that traditional morality is imposed on those outside of those boundaries. Gay marriage is a societal issue, not a Christian one. If a law explicitly leveling the field for same-sex marriage benefiting like any heterosexual marriage in those issues that are strictly societal fails to garner the votes necessary, then gays will just have to suck it up and find other ways, or wait a generation and try again. That is a far cry from passing a law that criminalizes a narrowly-defined class, or denies them the same benefits of the law enjoyed by everyone else.

"What he said about God's gay and lesbian children - putting us on a par with base animals (the false 'beastiality' comparison) amd with pedophiles (comparing our marriages with marrying children) - was monstrous!"

What, pedophiles and animal-boinkers aren't God's children too? What an incredibly intolerant thing to imply! They have to feel terribly excluded and marginalized by such a statement!

Hasn't the Bible changed over the years? Weren't certain texts included and excluded? Weren't different, accepted versions of the Bible produced with translations that vary the meaning, the original intent, of the scripture's authors?

Hasn't the Bible changed over the years? Weren't certain texts included and excluded? Weren't different, accepted versions of the Bible produced with translations that vary the meaning, the original intent, of the scripture's authors? Posted by: Matt | January 17, 2008 11:19 AM

Yes, Yes, and Yes. Read Lee Martin McDonald The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, And Authority and/or McDonald and Sanders The Canon Debate and/or Martin Hengel The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon.

Laws, sausages, and the Biblical canon - three things you don't want to learn how they were/are made. :)

This has nothing to do with the post, but if you visit Harper's Magazine Online, check out Ken Silverstein's article on Mitt Romney. It seems that his PAC donated money to the National Review.

The National Review endorsed Romney. They really have there knives out for Huckabee. I'm just saying....

Hey, Rob, just checking: would you agree that equating same-sex marriage with bestiality and pedophilia is just as valid (invalid) as equating modern Christian theology with the excesses of the Inquisition?

Equating spinach and lamb chops may or may not make sense depending on the context. I don't think anyone is going to confuse them and think they are the same thing. That nearly everyone finds bestiality and pedophilia icky and some also find homosexuality icky doesn't mean equations can't be constructed logically.

Boy! That is a really unfair characterization of Rush Limbaugh's views and statements. It's appropriate to critique other's views, but you should at least be honest about what those views are.

Oops. "they're" not "their"

Maybe what disturbs people is just how casually Huckabee talks about making amendments to the Constitution.

"Pedophiles do HARM, and animals cannot give consent."

And these things are wrong why, exactly?

Huck says:
I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?

Doesn't he support the death penalty?

>>>
If gay marriage is a societal issue, not a Christian one, then what do you say to all those Christians who are part of society? That their views must play no part in a societal discussion? That Christians can't impose their morality, but have to endure passively while a different form of morality is imposed on them?
Posted by: tyr | January 17, 2008 12:24 PM
>>>

How does giving the same legal recognition to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples now enjoy impose anything on you?

Christians will not be forced into same-sex marriages, you know...

Worthy of having your relationships called "marriage" by the state, entitling you to the same benefits as a married man and wife?

Actually, in the politics of gay marriage those are proving two different things. The legal benefits alone are packaged as "civil unions". Getting the word "marriage" is a separate fight.

Though you might not think Huck was "equating", he certainly put gays on a par with pedophiles and beastialists.

He also said it would put same-sex marriage in the same category as polygamous "marriage", but I see where you didn't raise any objection to that.

Can society proscribe polygamy if it wants? Seems a fair question to ask as long as we keep letting in Muslims.

My point is simply that you talk about "imposing," and don't seem to understand that you are also imposing. It's not just a matter of live and let live, i.e. since I won't have a SSM then it shouldn't concern me. If society recognizes SSM's as real marriages, that is a radical change in society that I oppose. You can disagree with me, that's fine, but I don't think I'm imposing anything if I'm merely arguing for the status quo to be maintained (and further codified into law).

If we're talking about a constitutional amendment, that can only get passed by a majority of the states voting in favor. If that were to happen, you could argue that the majority is imposing its views on the rest of society. Or you could argue that this is one way the majority is preventing a minority from imposing its views on them.

In any case, it is a societal problem, and society is filled with people who are against SSM. Those people are resisting being imposed upon, rather than doing the imposing.

My person opinion on this is that within the next 10-20 years, if things continue to go as they are going, we'll see a push to reduce the age of consent to 14 or possibly lower.

frederica.com/writings/lets-have-more-teen-pregnancy.html

Tyr,

I appreciate your reasoned rebuttal, but I must respectfully point out that the second portion of my post -- absent from your quote -- contains at least the first step in answering your rebuttal:

If a law explicitly leveling the field for same-sex marriage benefiting like any heterosexual marriage in those issues that are strictly societal fails to garner the votes necessary, then gays will just have to suck it up and find other ways, or wait a generation and try again. That is a far cry from passing a law that criminalizes a narrowly-defined class, or denies them the same benefits of the law enjoyed by everyone else.

I emphasize that nowhere in that second part do I identify any group or category other than homosexuals (and, by logical opposition, heterosexuals). No religious labels involved.

In my first career, I was an expert in employee benefits law. Aside: the span of years into my second career prevents me from calling myself an expert any more. A marriage certificate -- a legal document -- was a prerequisite in applying those laws and regulations that use the term "spouse". No where in any of those laws or regulations is religion mentioned or implied.

The basic question for you is this: as a Christian, your moral boundary stops where non-Christians and Christians who disagree with your moral stance apply to the law for protection or equality. It is your vote -- however it is motivated, no caveats -- that governs that application. Why is that not enough for you in a pluralistic society?

Franklin,
Good response. Point taken. I wish I could write more and engage you, but I have to work today and my lunch break is over. > Sigh

I have to note what one poster said.

"How can Christians like myself work to maintain our traditional morality with the boundaries of our religious culture if a non-traditional form of "marriage" is sanctioned by the state? Religious culture is affected by the larger culture outside of it."

First, the traditional morality and culture are yours, others have different traditions, different religions, and different morality. Frankly, it isn't the job of the government to help people maintain their religious beliefs and traditions.

Somehow, most religions and the non-religious have managed in the face of not only non-support, but active, and sometimes violent resistance to their beliefs and traditions.

You will have to do what everyone who wasn't the majority religion or traditions have been doing, and worse, well, for forever. Suck it up and deal with the fact that people, who aren't members of your group, out there are being allowed (not mandated or forbidden) to do, and to refrain from doing things that your own group forbids and mandates.

At least you aren't being forbidden from doing things you believe in, or being forced to do things against your beliefs. Though it seems people are more than willing to do that to others just for the security blanket of having the secular law enforce their own religious doctrines.

Thanks, Rob. As well acquainted with each other as we are, I remain cautious when assuming I understand your motivations. I hope you take that as a sign of respect, because it is meant to be one. :-)

I believe that the problem here is not in identifying the arbitrary nature of the topic, but in ascribing that arbitrariness to the individuals debating the topic. Society decides that bestiality and pedophilia are crimes. Society will revisit that decision if those pressuring it to do so convince the majority that their practices are not crimes. That arbitrary distinction does not hold true for same-sex marriage. Bestiality and pedophilia are governed by after-the-act legal consequences. Same-sex marriage is denied legal equality with heterosexual marriage. There is no valid logical connection between them.

"If we allow same-sex marriage, we'll then be forced to allow marriages between people and animals, or people and children."

No one that I know of is saying this. What they are saying is that if there is no transcendent standard of morality, then questions of this sort become purely cultural, both in terms of morality per se and the law.

I don't see why allowing same sex marriage means that "there is no transcendent standard of morality." Isn't that a little like saying, "Allowing shops to stay open on Sunday means that there is no transcendent standard of morality"? There can be (and is) a "transcendent standard of morality" compatible with same sex marriage.

To wit, "Master, which is the most important commandment?"

"The most important laws are two: first, to love the Lord your God; second, to love your neighbor as yourself. In these two are contained all the law and the prophets."

If that isn't a transcendent standard of morality, I don't know what is. Notice, too, how cross-cultural this standard is. (As we would expect from God incarnate.) Polygamy is not necessarily condemned, for example (those who would condemn polygamy always and everywhere have a bit of a problem with the Old Testament...). We can (and in my view, should) adhere to this "transcendent standard of morality," and still argue legitimately about the social good, and all that. But let us not elevate those arguments to Transcendence.

The second point, of course, is, "to what extent should the State be in the business of policing a "transcendent" standard of morality which is not accepted by a substantial proportion of the population?"

When those who agree with me form a majority - and this is, as everyone recognizes, very soon - the law will be changed. The State will recognize these unions for all purposes. The Churches need not. They will pursue their course, quite rightly, and the State will pursue its course. (Already the Catholic Church is at substantial divergence from the culture on the issue of divorce and remarriage.)

Let's not drag God and "transcendence" into this, OK? unless we're willing to be a bit more honest.

"The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture."

Remarkably silly and false. A genuinely religious man but not presidential material.

tyr,

"My point is simply that you talk about "imposing," and don't seem to understand that you are also imposing. It's not just a matter of live and let live, i.e. since I won't have a SSM then it shouldn't concern me."

If it is, as you say, a matter of live and let live and you admit that your "won't (i.e. don't HAVE to) have a SSM", then HOW ON EARTH is it imposing? You are right - it SHOULDN'T concern you.

"If society recognizes SSM's as real marriages, that is a radical change in society that I oppose."

It was a "radical change" to allow whites to marry blacks. But it was the right thing to do, even if you may have opposed it.

"You can disagree with me, that's fine"

I do, and thanks.

"but I don't think I'm imposing anything if I'm merely arguing for the status quo to be maintained (and further codified into law)."

The imposition is that if I am to marry under the inequitable status quo (i.e. to someone of the opposite sex), then that is an IMPOSITION of YOUR 'beliefs' on someone who does not share them. What about that do you not understand?

"If we're talking about a constitutional amendment"

We ARE.

"that can only get passed by a majority of the states voting in favor."

I know that.

"If that were to happen, you could argue that the majority is imposing its views on the rest of society."

EXACTLY. And tell me, who protects minorities in a "free" country from the tyranny of the majority?

"Or you could argue that this is one way the majority is preventing a minority from imposing its views on them."

That would be a false argument, since the majority are in no way obliged to marry someone of the same sex. The reverse cannot be said. You are failing to differentiate between "imposing views" (I can likely NEVER make you 'like' SSMs) and imposing actions (I cannot force you to HAVE a same-sex marriage yourself) What you propose forces gays, if they are to marry, to marry someone of the opposite sex. Therein lies the difference.

"In any case, it is a societal problem, and society is filled with people who are against SSM."

U.S. society was 'filled' with people who were against inter-racial marriages. Still didn't make it right.

"Those people are resisting being imposed upon, rather than doing the imposing."

See above for the difference between imposing views vs. imposing actions on people. You have already admitted it is NOT an imposition on you. ("I won't have a SSM then it shouldn't concern me.")

I doubt I will ever change your mind ("view"), but I have every certainty of changing unjust laws.

"If we allow same-sex marriage, we'll then be forced to allow marriages between people and animals, or people and children."

Rob G replied: "No one that I know of is saying this."

Um, hello Rob??? This is an EXACT QUOTE from Mr. Huckabee. It is HE who IS saying EXACTLY this. That is why we are in a turmoil. If "No one that I know of is saying this.", then you aren't conversant with what we are even discussing. Please read the interview.

Rob,
Not the same.

Yeah, I know; sorry, I was being somewhat flip. The first sentence stands, however - marriage is a human institution, and as such is by definition culturally defined and therefore potentially flexible. I would argue about "arbitrary", though... These sorts of things evolve naturally over time in response to large-scale cultural shifts such at that happening now - which will, I believe, eventually lead to the inclusion of SSM in the normative definition (although possibly not in our generation).

While age qualifications have fluctuated, sex ones never have.

If you're speaking of America, then yes, I'd agree with that. Must be the moderate in me, but it seems to me that "never have" doesn't *always* mean "never should". And I'm much more concerned about the age than the gender.

And if a 35 y.o. man can "marry" a 16 y.o. boy, why not a 14 y.o boy, if the culture wants to approve it?

The question that's actually before us, though, is "If a 35 y.o. man can marry a 16 y.o. girl, why not a 16 y.o. boy?"

For the record, as I indicated above, I don't necessarily believe that a 35 y.o. man should be able to marry *either*, as a general rule. (See the "consenting adults" part of my other posts on this topic.)

If Huck could quote texts that pre-date the Reformation maybe folks would be able to rest a little easier - the principles behind the Natural Law after all predate the Incarnation. It is reasonable for Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians to find things they agree with if we Westerner's could quote Homer's wisdom from the Iliad instead of our versions of what we wish Holy Scripture says.

(listen online for three weeks to hear the BBC's 3-part 1998 dramatization of Andrew Rissick's "Troy," the fall of the iconic 'City on a Hill', Ilium again at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/genres/artsdrama/aod.shtml?bbc7/troy
(parts II and III next two Sundays in Jan.)

I eagerly await David C. Schindler's publication: “Homer’s Truth: The Rise of Radiant Form” to unpack the metaphor of which of the three Goddesses presented to Paris in his dream, Aphrodite (the promise of satisfied physical appetites), Hera (the promise of fulfilled will to power) or Athene (the promise of an eternal rest in peace attained by wisdom) is the prize worthy of a life well lived...?

Rush Limbaugh et al quite obviously take pride in draining their swamp, but the more arduous task set by Christ is irrigating the desert...

Here's the problem everyone is dancing around, but won't address.

Same sex marriage has no victim. By definition, it's an alliance between consenting adults.

So...where's the problem? Are the heterosexual married folks defending the exclusivity of their tax breaks? That does seem somewhat less than ultimately moral. (Y'think??) At the very least, this motive doesn't exactly "transcend." I've heard it said that legalizing same sex marriage will destroy (or adversely effect) traditional marriages, but how and why that would work beats me. We live next door to a long term committed homosexual couple. Giving legal recognition to Brad and Jeff would adversely affect Pat and me...how exactly?

Y'all got me stumped.

'Let's not drag God and "transcendence" into this, OK? unless we're willing to be a bit more honest.'

No one 'dragged' it in, Susan. It's present in Huckabee's statement which prompted this whole thing. Why is same sex marriage opposed by moral traditionalists? Because homosexual activity is seen as an inherently immoral act, which understanding is based on a morality seen as transcendent. The subject cannot be escaped, because it is of the very 'stuff' of the question.

'If "No one that I know of is saying this.", then you aren't conversant with what we are even discussing. Please read the interview.'

If you read it in context, he's pretty much saying the same thing Rick Santorum said, and I paraphrased above. You are reading him too literalistically.

"I believe that the problem here is not in identifying the arbitrary nature of the topic, but in ascribing that arbitrariness to the individuals debating the topic. Society decides that bestiality and pedophilia are crimes. Society will revisit that decision if those pressuring it to do so convince the majority that their practices are not crimes. That arbitrary distinction does not hold true for same-sex marriage. Bestiality and pedophilia are governed by after-the-act legal consequences. Same-sex marriage is denied legal equality with heterosexual marriage. There is no valid logical connection between them."

But Franklin, up until fairly recently homosexual activity was a crime in many places in the U.S. I'm not saying it should have been, just stating a fact. So you can see the trend here: 1) decriminalize, then 2) mainstream, then 3)give it the state's stamp of approval.

Now given the legal and moral precedent that would be established by government sanctioning of same sex 'marriage,' the NAMBLA crowd, for instance, could use the exact same arguments and follow the same plan, and people opposed to THEIR agenda would have no moral or legal support for stopping it. Its critics fault this as a slippery slope argument but it really isn't. It's the idea that once a good is compromised, either morally or legally or both, it's very difficult to keep further related goods from being compromised in turn.

Look at it this way: traditionalists want to draw the line at one place, supporters of homosexuality want to draw it another. They disagree on where, correct? But traditionalists and most supporters of homosexuality would agree where the line should be drawn in regards to sex with children. NAMBLA disagrees with us. So if this morality is purely culturally defined, NAMBLA can use the exact same arguments against where we draw the line, as homosexualists can use against traditionalists: "Who cares if pederasty is illegal? Sodomy was illegal once too. If laws against sodomy were unjust, why are not laws against pederasty?" etc., etc. You can see where this goes, can't you?

How about marriages between humans and robots? BICENTENNIAL MAN will be a reality in less than 100 years.

It's going to be hard to pass agreed-on "moral" laws or proscriptions in a "free country" that enshrines individual rights. When each person has a vote and/or can contribute money politically and/or can run for office, and when the courts can rule as they do, as the culture becomes less and less homogenous in its core values and religious beliefs, it will be difficult to absolutize bans on certain behaviors.

As genetics and technology and medicine start changing the perceptions and meanings of life and death and what it means to be a "person," it will only get trickier.

O brave new world that has such people in it!

So you can see the trend here: 1) decriminalize, then 2) mainstream, then 3)give it the state's stamp of approval.

No. You're denying a necessary distinction between the people and the behavior. For example, ending the vote disenfranchisement of ex-felons does not mean condoning the felonies they committed.

You can see where this goes, can't you?

The slippery slope fallacy, yes. Here's the answer to give NAMBLA- "We think there's a hard distinction between the two things and we don't see anything to negotiate. But you can try to convince other people to see it your way." They haven't succeeded yet.

Add NAMBLA to the list of terms that demonstrate that serious discussion has ended and the debate is over. It joins Hitler and PC.

Matt:

What a find on the Romney donation to NR. Here's the excerpt from the article:

"In seeking to woo conservatives, Romney has also used his personal PAC—the Commonwealth Political Action Committee—to contribute lavishly to several national pro-life groups, the Federalist Society, the National Review, and the Heritage Foundation, among others."

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/0081773

One correction, though--they've had the knives out against the other guy who beat Romney, too: McCain.

Susan, in regard to your 2:02 post, I think you're overlooking the areas of concern for people who believe that the definition of marriage should not be changed.

In Massachusetts, for instance, parents aren't allowed to or exempt their five-year-old children from classes where gay fairy tales like "Prince and Prince" are being read, or to protest against graphic homosexual sex ed in older grades. States like California are discussing redesigning all the textbooks to show gay "families" alongside heterosexual ones, and there's growing pressure to eliminate words like "husband" and "wife" from all texts and reading materials used in the classroom, as these are exclusive and therefore hurtful words. There is increasing demand to eliminate holidays such as "Mother's Day" and "Father's Day" on the grounds that these are too gender specific, and cause problems for children who are being raised by two same-gender people, particularly if one parent actually is the child's biological parent while the other is not.

Countries that have permitted the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples have denied those who disagree the freedom to express their disagreement on civil rights grounds; it's "discriminatory" to say you don't think two gay men or two lesbian women are the exact same thing as a husband and wife, or to express even deeply-held religious views against gay marriages. In America, it might be permissible on free speech grounds to continue to say that you disagree with gay marriage, or to teach your own children in the privacy of your home that gay marriage is against God's law, but though this might not be grounds for arrest or a fine it could still impact your life in a myriad of ways.

For instance, if you own a business, you probably won't be allowed to do any government contract work if you don't meet "diversity" guidelines--and if you've ever said or written publicly that you don't believe in gay marriage, that will be used against you. In corporate hiring the same will be true: companies will not overlook your anti-gay marriage views in the future any more than they would overlook ties to a white supremacist group today, because they could get in trouble for hiring you. If you wish to adopt a child, not only will you have to compete with gay couples to do so (because like in Massachusetts only those agencies willing to place children with gays will be allowed to remain open) but you will probably be turned down if you express, or have publicly expressed in the past, anti-gay marriage views or anything that could be construed as disparaging to homosexual couples (even membership in some churches would probably be enough). Religious institutions such as schools will not be exempt from promoting a pro-gay marriage viewpoint as long as they use any government materials or are even licensed or accredited by government agencies.

And that's just for starters. What the supporters of the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples ultimately want is full societal acceptance and approval of homosexual activity, which they believe--and want to force the rest of us to pretend--is the social and moral equivalent of heterosexual behavior. Gay marriage is just the mechanism its supporters plan to use in their quest for a radical restructuring of society.

Erin,

Do you believe that opponents of interracial marriages (such as the folks at Bob Jones University) have a right to speak out against them?

Many of your arguments parallel very closely the arguments made against the acceptance of interracial marriage some 50 years ago. Bob Jones, Sr. made what he felt was a strong Biblical case against such marriages, and until 2000 it was the policy of the university bearing his name that interracial dating was prohibited.

Can you explain why your opposition to same-sex marriage is any different than Bob Jones' opposition top interracial marriage?

Erin:

A bit of advice, if I may--don't feed the troll.

Dale, please take a moment to consider the difference between a person whose only goal is to manipulate others and disrupt discussions, and a person whose passions tend to overwhelm him in certain topic areas. REP is not a troll, and (while you may not care about it) I take personal offense at your attempt to label him so.

REP, I apologize for criticizing you indirectly. You complimented me in the other thread, and I do appreciate it; but you do all right, too, except that your passion sometimes becomes all that people see, and passion is short on semantic content.

Rob,
as has been shown above, the line between child and adult is itself somewhat flexible and arbitrary, thus complicating the issue.

You have a point, but I still see it as a separate issue, albeit one that does need to be addressed. These extremely low ages of consent are relics of an earlier time and are no longer beneficial... although I do have to wonder how often these laws are actually applied, for instance whether there are actually any parents showing up at court to sign off on their 14-year-old getting married. I remember hearing about *one* such case when I was in elementary school in SC, in the early 1970s.

Two comments above my 3:27 troll bomb, that is.

I can, ds, but this may take a minute.

The prohibitions against interracial marriage in America were not really in line with human history. Throughout history, people of different races have intermarried with each other, and even in America this was true in the early years: French Canadians married Native American women, Spanish settlers married among the indigenous populations of Mexico and Latin America, and so on. So laws against interracial marriage were a departure from, not a continuation of, previous marriage laws and customs, and there can be no question that they were tied to the ugly strain of racism that still impacts our nation.

I don't really know the grounds Bob Jones uses for continuing to oppose interracial marriage, but he can hardly point to centuries of human marriage customs and traditions to back him up (at least, not honestly). But homosexual relationships have never, before the extremely recent past, been elevated to a position where any equivalence to heterosexual marriage has been expressed or even implied.

In fact, marriage has only recently been viewed as a temporary commitment based on romantic feelings, with little or no desire for progeny; this has had extremely detrimental consequences to the family. In point of fact, this sort of marriage--temporary (in that divorce is easily permitted), feelings-based, and sterile--is exactly what gay couples want, since they're not physically capable of entering into a relationship that is ordered toward procreation.

Without the ordering toward procreation, in fact, it makes little sense for marriage to be a permanent state (protection for the children) and a legal contract (protection of the children's future interest in their parent's material goods). All marriage really is today for most people (other than the religious-minded) is an excuse to throw a truly fabulous party.

In most countries that have legalized gay marriage, the numbers of marriages overall have dropped. Heterosexual couples realize that they can move in with each other, avoid children or have them, and have plenty of fabulous parties without tying themselves up in a legal contract which they have no intention of honoring, and that will only make the inevitable break-up more complicated than it already will be. Unfortunately, it is women and children who suffer most from this reality.

Now, why not just accept all of this? Why not just accept that society is in a state of decline, and that the family unit is being redefined right along with marriage to include any random sets of people who feel like sharing a bed for a while, with or without their assorted children from previous living arrangements? With marriage so utterly meaningless for vast numbers of society, why not add gay couples to the mix?

I oppose these things because as a religious-minded person I don't think a society will endure for very long on such shaky grounds. As Rod wrote in "Crunchy Cons," if we have no ties to home, to family, to ancestry, to the things that matter then we really are adrift, indeed. And as M_David points out on these threads, those whose traditional values include lifelong marriages between men and women who are, for the most part, raising their own biological children are the ones who put down the number and kind of roots that endure as they produce the future generations who will have the largest stake in this country's destiny.

Clare,
Of the three, Athena's gift is clearly the greatest; I've been praying for years that She would grant a bit of it to GWB.

Thanks for the tip on the Schindler book! There *is* a lot of wisdom to be found in Homer, although I sometimes regret that his relatively low opinion of the Gods is what most people are exposed to as their primary introduction to Hellenic religion. (IIRC, Homer was one of the reasons that Plato wanted to exile the poets from his Republic for impiety...)

Rob G,

"Forget it, Rec. ex-Pent."

I don't think I will. It's about ME, after all.

"You're too emotional about it"

Like I said, it IS about ME. Why wouldn't I be emotional when people are willing to continue bearing false witness about me?

"to discuss it logically"

I believe if you'll check ny posts, they refute every single argument you raised and did so with logic. Quite a few others here seme to agree.

"and with any sense of nuance or subtlety."

Either we ARE equal before the law, or we are NOT equal before the law. There's nothing subtle to say about that. It's pretty black and white, no nuance required. But thanx 4 playing anyway.

>>>
All marriage really is today for most people (other than the religious-minded) is an excuse to throw a truly fabulous party.
Posted by: Erin Manning | January 17, 2008 3:51 PM
>>>

And here I was thinking my marriage was the public expression to the community of my lifetime committment to love and care for my wife. Silly me.

Erin Manning,

"it's "discriminatory" to say you don't think two gay men or two lesbian women are the exact same thing as a husband and wife"

First of all, it IS discriminatory, no (to borrow a phrase from a poster above) "snarky" quote marks required.

And of course, we aren't even saying that. We ARE saying they are equivalent under the law, not "the same thing as" a husband and wife. There's a difference. (And Rob thinks I can't/don't do "subtle"!)

"or to express even deeply-held religious views against gay marriages"

You are perfectly free to express your deeply held religious views against gay marriage so long as others are perfectly free to express THEIR deply held religious (or not) held views FOR gay marriage. WE, however, are discussing Huckabee's wish to change the Constitution to forbid equality before the law, to enshrine discrimination into it, based on HIS 'deeply held religious views' when ALL citizens are supposed to have FREEDOM of religion, even if the tenets differ from yours.

Get it yet?

The rest of your post (having to do with education, parenting, fair employment practices, etc.) is really not what we're discussing.

Erin, Marriage rates may have dropped in countries that have allowed gay marriage but they are also declining everywhere, period. You cannot blame gay marriage on that.

Erin,

A more disciplined response.

The prohibitions against interracial marriage in America were not really in line with human history. Throughout history, people of different races have intermarried with each other, and even in America this was true in the early years: French Canadians married Native American women, Spanish settlers married among the indigenous populations of Mexico and Latin America, and so on.

Likewise, prohibitions against homosexuality are not in line with human history. There have always been homosexuals, in every time and place. What you want to do is deny them the right to make legally committed relationships. Do you imagine that that prohibition will magically just make them go away?

But homosexual relationships have never, before the extremely recent past, been elevated to a position where any equivalence to heterosexual marriage has been expressed or even implied.

"We've always done it this way so it must be right." Human slavery has been the norm until very recently, and is still practiced in this year of 2008. That makes it right?

In fact, marriage has only recently been viewed as a temporary commitment based on romantic feelings, with little or no desire for progeny; this has had extremely detrimental consequences to the family.

Agreed. But this has what to do with homosexuals exactly? Many of these couples have children in fact. How would those families fit into your mold?

In most countries that have legalized gay marriage, the numbers of marriages overall have dropped. Heterosexual couples realize that they can move in with each other, avoid children or have them, and have plenty of fabulous parties without tying themselves up in a legal contract which they have no intention of honoring, and that will only make the inevitable break-up more complicated than it already will be.

Can you establish a connection here between the easy of divorce and the recognition of homosexual marriage? It seems to me that the USA, which does not recognize homosexual marriage, has a plenty high divorce rate, as well as a plenty high rate of illegitimacy.

I oppose these things because as a religious-minded person I don't think a society will endure for very long on such shaky grounds. As Rod wrote in "Crunchy Cons," if we have no ties to home, to family, to ancestry, to the things that matter then we really are adrift, indeed.

OK. Now Brad and Jeff, who live next door to me, fit into this mold how again? They have plenty of ties to home, to family, to ancestry. They are godfathers to numerous children. How are they different from an infertile heterosexual couple?

And how about Jane and Kathy down the block? They have three children, but cannot marry. This would serve the needs of those children how again? Allowing them and their children those protections would cast us "adrift" how exactly?

Come on, Erin, you're smarter than that, however limited your experience.

"I believe if you'll check ny posts, they refute every single argument you raised and did so with logic. Quite a few others here seme to agree."

Keep telling yourself that, REP.

A cop-out, not an answer. Cop-outs are usually resorted to by people who cannot make a logical answer.

"A cop-out, not an answer."

To answer each of his inanities individually would take a fortnight. They're not logical, they're emotional. If he wants to believe they're logical, that's fine by me. But I know all about tar-babies.

(I'm closely watching where the ball ends up, however.)

Rob, I am not meaning to put words in your mouth, so please bear with me for a moment.

If there's no transcendent ground for conscience, it's just opinion or feeling, and thus arbitrary and transitory.

Stipulating a long and previously iterated discussion, your statement is tantamount to declaring that unless there is a Christian foundation for conscience, then it cannot be valid. The US Constitution is your logical opponent for that, not the opinions and whims of individuals.

We have a "transcendent" ground for moral conduct, and it is the secular law of the nation. So the question in my mind is: why isn't that foundation good enough? Why must needs it be explicitly Christian, or why is it unacceptable that portions of secular law contradict Christian morality?

My difficulty here is that "Christian foundation for conscience" very often does not refer at all, as the name implies, to the teachings of Christ, but to some other body of "knowledge."

I fully realize that to a Roman Catholic the "Christian foundation for conscience" is identical to "the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" and hence to the Word of God itself, but I would call on the Catholics here to wake up to the idea that the teachings of your particular church are not recognized as identical with the teachings of Jesus, not even by all Christians. Certainly not by the Orthodox, among others.

If you folks want to take the position that ONLY Roman Catholics are "really" Christians, please do so up front. At least then we'll know where we stand.

Susan, check your baseball glove. The text you quoted at 5:01 was mine, not Rob's. ;-D

And "the truth of conscience" is what, exactly? If there's no transcendent ground for conscience, it's just opinion or feeling, and thus arbitrary and transitory.

If truth is that knowledge which stands eternally, maybe it's transcendent. Or maybe not. "Here stand I, I can do no other. So help me God" is Luther's classic formulation of it.

Somehow this article missed another of Huckabee's statements: "And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view".

So my questions: Whose God? What standards?

Assuming he means the Christian God and standards, how complete will the changes be? Will the Constitution be changed to encompass all of the Bible, or just the usual cherry-picking of prohibitions from Leviticus? Would I have to fear being stoned to death for wearing a cotton/polyester shirt (of two fabrics)? Likewise, would I be executed for working on the Sabbath?

Huckabee would have to completely gut the Constitution and Bill of Rights to push this absurd proposition through. It would directly violate the First Amendment, as it would unequivocally *establish* Christianity as the official religion. And those of us who do not believe would have to fear government-sanctioned execution simply for that lack of religious faith.

Overreaching? Overreacting? Possibly, but I don't want to go down that slippery slope. This campaign has religious conservatives savaging each other over the issues. I guarantee they will NOT be as pleasant with non-believers or even rival denominations if the Bible replaces the Constitution.

Take a moment to think about it before you post a flaming reply. If a denomination other than yours wields absolute power, will you feel safe?

>>>
Given all of this, in a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, how, precisely, do we define their duties toward each other? How do we define "consummation," for instance? How do we allow the law to overlook a gay couple's complete physical inability to engage in the marriage act, while insisting that a heterosexual couple risks the annulment of their marriage for not engaging in it?
>>>

We could start by deciding that it isn't really any business of the State what the members of the couple do with their various members.

After that, the Family Law code of the various States should generally apply.

We have a "transcendent" ground for moral conduct, and it is the secular law of the nation. So the question in my mind is: why isn't that foundation good enough? Why must needs it be explicitly Christian, or why is it unacceptable that portions of secular law contradict Christian morality?

Posted by: Franklin Evans | January 17, 2008 4:54 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. All the talk about God's standards, transcendental morals and such is meaningless except to the extent that it can be used to sway public opinion. In the end it comes down to which side has the votes to make or change the law/constitution. Culture and morals change over time and the laws of the land will change with them. If our constitutional democracy is to survive it can be no other way.

I personally believe that same sex marriage will eventually become legal. Why? Because young people don't have a problem with it. They have gay friends or friends who have gay parents and they see that they are regular people with regular lives. That's why it was so important for the opponents of same sex marriage to spike the Buster episode that showed the family of a lesbian couple. Not because it showed a lesbian couple per se (it was never mentioned), but because it showed a normal family that happened to headed by a lesbian couple.

I suppose the mest way to put it is this way: Huck, despite his best intentions, cannot change the social mores of OTHER people. he can only change himself. As Buddha so famously it:

By oneself evil is done, by oneself one suffers. By oneself good is done, by noeself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself. Noone can purify another.

As much as Huck would like to purify the nation, and possibly the world, he cannot. Even by changing the constitution, he is missing the fact that he has not changed the underlying culture. First, he has to get the culture to change, then change the laws. And even then, he isn't going to stop these things from happening.

And on that note, let's play the other religion card, like so many here have done. As a Buddhist, say I win the presidency (why I would try for it in the first place is besides the point). What then? Would it be okay to "change" the Constitution and insert the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path as the law? Would it be okay to draw from whatever obscure sutra to force others to practice meditation? Would it be okay to substitute my own will (under the guise of Buddhist Dharmic concepts) for the Constitution?

Clearly the answer is no. And it is no different with Huck trying to substitute the bible's teachings for those found in the Constitution. All he would be doing is forcing his views on others. And when a mn forces himself on someone else, we have a term for that: rape. Yes, I am saying that Huch's proposed changes to the Constitution would be the rape of America. With all due respect to the guy, we don't need that.

Erin, as for the rest of it...

Given all of this, in a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, how, precisely, do we define their duties toward each other?

Well, start with financial support, and the support of their children. That ought to do to go on with. Few heterosexual couples can pass that bar.

How do we define "consummation," for instance?

Please no. Gay or straight, for the love of God don't go there. The Church wants to go there? All blessings and speed. We're talking about the State here. I really do NOT want the State inspecting whether or not my husband and I have engaged in what the State considers "intercourse." May God forbid.

How do we allow the law to overlook a gay couple's complete physical inability to engage in the marriage act, while insisting that a heterosexual couple risks the annulment of their marriage for not engaging in it?

For the love of God get the video cameras out of the bedroom. My bedroom, your bedroom, Jeff's bedroom next door, Kathy's bedroom down the block. YIKES

Your other questions are emotional appeals, of course. A couple of swingers might also feel tied to the community, be godparents etc. but that's hardly an argument in favor of swinging. A couple of widowed sisters might live together to share household expenses and raise one or the other's children, but that's not an argument in favor of offing one's husband and moving in with one's sister, either.

It's embarrassing to address these "arguments." What is a "swinger"? If "swingers" are outside the law, we will need a definition. Someone who strays from marriage once? Two times? Three times? Where does the line get crossed? And this would be the business of Big Brother why?

The sisters who live together and raise the children have, of necessity, "offed" one of their husbands (or maybe both of them)? Wouldn't "offing" a man be prosecuted as murder, regardless of any later domestic relationships?

Erin, not to worry. You're a good girl. You're married to your husband according to the State and according to the Church, you have "consummated" your relationship (not, I hope, on camera) and you have everyone's approval.

So leave off. All good, OK? It's not your job to pass judgment on everyone else.

So do we need to re-institute the practice of hanging the bloody sheets out the window the next morning?

I'm done. If you want to stand before a court and solemnly declare that you love your ficus tree and are married to it, and that you can clearly hear the ficus tree's consent so it's nobody's business to define your marriage for you, go right ahead.

If this isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is.

I'm 62 years old. I've been married to the same guy since 1966. I'm a homeschooler, like you. We have four children, all adults now. I'm probably old enough to be your mother.

I'm not aware of any "personal" attack I've made on you. I just think you ought to leave off passing judgment on other people. If thinking that is a personal attack, I plead guilty.

I don't think it's the State's proper business to figure out whether my husband and I have "consummated" our marriage. Likewise, I'd appreciate it if the State would keep their video cameras out of the bedroom of Brad and Jeff next door.

There's no call here to lose your temper. You say, "all it really comes down to on the pro-gay marriage side is a temper tantrum. 'We wanna be married! We wanna make you call us married! We wanna redefine marriage however we wanna!'" I'd suggest that it's your position which is based on emotional rather than reasonable arguments.

I actually believe that words mean things, and that deciding that you can marry a member of the same sex shows no more understanding of the whole concept of the word "marriage" than deciding you can marry a plant, a teapot, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. We disagree, that's all. There's no reason here for you to lose your temper.

Your personal comments directed at me, Susan, are totally out of line.

Please to quote those "personal comments."

If you think the observation that it isn't your job to pass judgment on everyone else is a "personal comment," I'll refer you to the gospels.

I was talking about your "camera in the bedroom" comment, Susan, and I apologize for the English language's inability to distinguish between (you) individual and (you) group. I was referring to the group with the ficus bit; I suspect you know that, but wanted something else to get outraged about.

And if you think you can determine loss of temper from words on a screen, be my guest! I'm actually rather (sadly) amused by this whole thing. These arguments always devolve into the same thing, but nobody can ever answer my question: why do we have to restructure all of human society because of what a handful of people do in *their* bedrooms?

There's no logic at all; it's just an increasingly shrill insistence that we HAVE to, it's not FAIR, etc. Lots of things aren't fair, but I fail to see how it becomes imperative to redefine marriage completely because a tiny group of people want marriage despite being ineligible for it by definition.

Here's a thought, pro-gay marriage people: be honest! Admit that what you want is a complete redefinition of marriage with the attendant restructuring of society, accompanied by the silencing of anybody who doesn't like it. I'd respect you a lot more if you admitted this, instead of pretending you have the "right" to something that has never ever been yours, or even *about* you.

Oh, Susan, there's that "group" you again; I hope I'm not confusing you (individual).

What a lovely idea! Now I'm really wanting to meet and marry a hyperintelligent shade of blue. I'm sure Mr. Sig would agree, and then we could be polyamorous in color! I wonder if there's a dating service for broad-minded, hyperintelligent shades.

But seriously . . . a society that wants to can certainly find adequate grounds for maintaining an age of consent without relying on divine commandments. For instance, I would argue that marriage is an adult commitment that requires the exercise of adult rights and responsibilities, and therefore it is inappropriate for anyone below the age of majority to make such a contract. We don't allow 14 year olds to sign leases, drive (in most places) or adopt children, so why on earth do we permit them to get married?

The issue of consent to sex is a separate one. And it's already a big problem for heterosexuals. The forces driving the age of consent downward are not primarily homosexual. It's the unofficial lobby of heterosexual men who want the freedom to have sex with teenage girls, and who consider this entirely normal and natural. Commenters all over this site, on a variety of topics, have argued that it's perfectly okay under some circumstances to marry and impregnate young teenage girls. Check out the Genarlow Wilson case--there was an outcry among straight men who felt it was unfair to punish him for having sex with a teenager. If it's okay for men to have sex with girls, why is it suddenly not okay for them to have sex with boys of the same age? The boys can't get pregnant, so there's no chance of disrupting their lives with a baby. And if it's not okay for grown men to have sex with boys--which would be my own opinion--then it shouldn't be okay for them to do it to girls, either.

I consider that the key issue with sex of all kinds is consent. Just as we rely on law to protect our right not to be assaulted in other areas, so too we can rely on the law to protect us from sexual violence. No one has a right to impose their gratification on another by force or fraud--be that other a human being or a sentient animal. When it comes to potted plants, you're on your own, folks. Many heterosexual men have a big problem with making clear, informed consent the sine qua non of legitimate sex, however. I leave it to them to explain why, though I have my own hypothesis, of course.

Erin,

First, the comment,

Your personal comments directed at me, Susan, are totally out of line.

This implies - no, it doesn't "imply," it states it outright, that you're angry. Don't bother to deny it. (I notice that you decline to cite particular examples. Hm.)

And if you think you can determine loss of temper from words on a screen, be my guest!

Thanks, I will.

Here's a thought, pro-gay marriage people: be honest! Admit that what you want is a complete redefinition of marriage with the attendant restructuring of society, accompanied by the silencing of anybody who doesn't like it.

OK. "Here's a thought, you anti-slavery people: be honest! Admit that what you want is a complete restructuring of society, accompanied by a silencing of anybody who doesn't like it."

Yes. We do.

With all that out of the way, everyone's emotional biases, can we move on to discussing the issue at hand, to wit, why committed same-sex couples should not be accorded the legal advantages (in a non-established-church environment) now enjoyed by heterosexual married couples?

I'd be interested in your arguments.

Jonhn E's comment got me to thinking:

"Susan, same sex marriage makes God all smitey and stuff..."

If god really hates gays and abortion, and god really is omnipotent, god has the ability to stop them before they start. To just wave his divine hand and wipe these thoughts from our brains. There could be several reasons why he doesn't. Let's consider them, shall we?
(in no particular order)
-God doesn't care
-God is trying to teach us a lesson about loving our neighbor
-God doesn't really exist, it's just us humans trying to push ourselves on each other
-God is not really omnipotent
-God actually likes abortion and or SSM
-God is asleep at the wheel (or possibly on vacation)
-God gave us free will to do these things beause:
--God is a Sadist and invented this so we'd all fling angry words at each other and hurt each other, thus providing him with his jollies
--God, all appearances to the contrary, actually does love us all

Take your pick.

I think in a conversation where I've been labeled judgmental, a gay-hater, a bigot, and the equivalent of a slave-owner, I'm wasting my time saying anything at all.

Y'all have fun.

>>>
I think in a conversation where I've been labeled judgmental, a gay-hater, a bigot, and the equivalent of a slave-owner, I'm wasting my time saying anything at all.
>>>

Hey, you're the one who wants to keep my cousin from having the same benefits in her relationship as I do in mine with my wife.

What's up with that, anyway?

Erin, your last is an easy out to answering substantive questions. But maybe not so easy, since we will all draw the obvious conclusions.

(Note the "I am a Victim" tone in Erin's last.) "I've been labeled..." but no answers to the charges, no discussion.

"I have been labeled!! How Unfair!!" (Never mind discussion! I am Right by definition! I'm being Persecuted!!)

Poor, poor Erin! "Labeled" by the houseplant-loving horde as one who stands up for what is right!! Shall we institute her Cause forthwith?

You go, Mark V.

Re Ray's comment, I don't think it's fair to pick on Erin because Rod likes her. After all, that's neither here nor there, and not her fault either way. I like a good playground brawl as much as anyone, but let's stop short of the hair-pulling.

I usually like stopping by CC, even though I disagree many of the posts. But this last thread is getting pretty unkind.

For me, I'm pro-gay marriage. I really try to treat all people with dignity and respect. And that's still true even if their beliefs are in opposition to mine.

Lots of times I fail and mess up. But I know this: being snarky doesn't elevate any of us.

This board is filled with really cool and brilliant people. Can we please let the bugles sound truce?

Thanks for considering,
Violachick

Violachick,
Sometimes the dogs 'round here jes' gotta have a good ol' tussle with the knotted rag afore they kin get back to playin' nice. ;)

This time, Erin appears to be the rag; but she's been one of the dogs before as well, and no doubt will again.