In your latest entry, Tony, you choose to focus on the state's role in defining marriage as a legal institution, and point out that the legal definition of marriage has changed over time (e.g., the defeat of laws against interracial marriage), or not changed despite challenges (e.g., the defeat of polygamy). I take your point to mean that as a matter of secular law, the definition of marriage is not a fixed thing, handed down from on high.
True -- but, I think, insufficient. Except for procedural laws, all laws are made with reference to a moral ideal. Whenever our lawmakers and our courts are faced with a challenge to the definition of marriage, they have to ask themselves, "What is marriage?" Mind you, I have no serious knowledge of the jurisprudence in either the interracial marriage cases or polygamy cases, but the consistent principle in both cases is that marriage, in the eyes of the law, consists of one man and one woman.
Gay marriage fundamentally changes the institution in ways that interracial marriage did not (even the segregationists didn't claim that interracial marriages weren't marriages; they just didn't think blacks and whites should marry). Our government doesn't recognize polygamist marriages as marriages, because the assumption is that anything that is not one man + one woman is not a marriage by definition.
Gay marriage is not analogous to interracial marriage because the two unions are based on fundamentally different philosophical views of what marriage is. To clarify, gay marriage is analogous to interracial marriage if one believes that marriage itself, as a phenomenon, is nothing more than a contract between two people who love each other and wish to bind themselves together legally. But if marriage means something deeper than that -- that is, if marriage has a purpose that we can discover, but not alter -- then the two are only superficially alike.
The basic question that guides how courts and lawmakers -- and ultimately, all members of a polity -- decide on the question of gay marriage is: What is marriage for? There is no such thing as a morally neutral position for the state to take. Whether the state privileges traditional marriage, or opens itself up to radical innovations (same-sex marriage, polygamy), all depends on how the lawmaking bodies answer that question.
Put another way: Yes, you can legislate morality. We do all the etime. Again, aside from laws governing procedures, all laws are statements of moral principle. Moral neutrality when it comes to marriage law is impossible.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
God says; This is a SIN! And I BELIEVE IT TO BE SO as well!!
Diana,
God. Says. That. Eating. Shrimp. Is. Likewise. An. Abomination. (aka "SIN!")
God. (via the Bible) Says. Disobedient. Children. Should. Be. Put. To. Death.
Do YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE SO as well?
So much "God says" talk, and so little understanding.
"Your Name:"
Please stop posting. You obviously do not understand the Christian perspective on this as you only quote the OT without any discussion to the historical practices of the Church and the Scriptures of the NT. Homosexuality, like adultery, incest, polygamy etc and abortion have been opposed by orthodox Christianity from its very inception. Unlike Roman society, their focus on heterosexual life-long marital unions and opposition to abortion were just a few of the factors that promoted the expansion of the % of Christians in a pagan Roman culture. Furthermore, in the Book of Acts a council of the Apostles determines that Christians should still refrain from sexual immorality, though they need not be circumcized and follow all of the strident moralistic laws laid out in the OT. It is on these evidences that Christianity has opposed homosexual marriage for almost 2000 years. Ironically, in your attempt to enlighten us and promote understanding, you stuck your foot in your mouth from a Christian perspective. As you said: "So much "God says" talk, and so little understanding."
As a Christian, I have no moral or Biblical prompting to refrain from using my God given right to vote on proposed amendments to a state Constitution. What is unfortunate, illogical, and usually comical is how some attempt to justify indifference to same-sex marriage because they are fighting against "oppression?" Yes, and I believe wish should end the oprression against the marriages the North American Man-Boy Love Association wants legalized and the religious oppression against fundamentalist Mormon polygamists. Please note my sarcasm.
In fact, as a Christian I do have moral guidance from Christ to be a good steward of EVERYTHING I am given, including a right to vote on socially pertinent issues. A bi-partisan group of people of all faiths and none voted for these marriage amendments, and their is legitimate legal and social interest for the govt. to determine which unions will be sanctioned by the state. For example, APA studies show that children do best in homes in which both father and mother are present. The govt. and the People have reason to promote unions that support family units in the best interest of children, and not reward those that do not with the same priviledges of marriages. As a Christian, I am not being a good steward of my right to vote by using it to participate in the sanctioning of institutionalized sin and social detriment, just like it would be wrong for me to support adulterous marriages, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, pornography, pre-marital sex, abortion, economic injustice (greed) etc. Sin is the greatest oppressor!
As the Crunchy Con wrote, YES you can legislate morality. The Constitution (both nationally and at a state level) and the People that give those documents and the govt. authority do legislate morality with every legal decision, wether it is seen as "neutral" or not. If we allow same-sex marriages, we are legislating morality. If we allow polygamy, we are legislating morality. If we allow relaionships between adults and minors, we are legislating morality. If we allow prostitution, we are legislating morality. If we allow gambling, we are legislating morality. If we allow abortion, we are legislating morality. The morality being legislated is that as a society we will sanction and condone the occurrence of these things.
If we do not allow these things, by the expressed voted will of the People who gives the govt. and consitution authority, then we are also legislating morality. There is no difference, and since the govt. is in the business of legislating morality already by not allowing polygamy, pedophilia, incestuous marriages etc. because of pertinent social interest, there is no legal mandate that the People refrain from doing so with same-sex unions.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.