Fisherking wrote:micatala wrote:
The Supreme Court of Iowa is recognizing that there is no rationale to constitutionally or legally support a ban on gay marriage. This is certain to make many people, perhaps even the majority, unhappy. But I have faith the justice will eventually triumph, even if unanymity is never acheived.
Once we tear down our moral foundation there is no rationale to constitutionally or legally support a ban on anything, including gay marriage.
I would disagree. Certainly there are countries all over world that do not base their legal system on conservative Christian morals and many of these operate just fine.
However, the larger issue is what counts as the moral foundation. My opposition to bans on gay marriage is every bit morally based as your support of bans. In particular, I base my opposition on
1) The golden rule
2) Freedom of religion which is at least implicitly present in many biblical teachings. It is up to each person to decide whether they will accept Christ or not. I do not believe you can find much support in the NT, if any, for the notion that non-believers should be made to subscribe to Christian teaching.
3) Romans chapter 14, where it is allowed that each believer can decide for themselves what is sinful (moral) or not in their own conscience and in their own relationship with God. Believers are told not to judge other believers as it is "to their own master they stand or fall." As long as believer A is not harming believer B directly or by harming his faith, believer A is free to follow whatever practice they deem fit for themselves.
Following the biblical moral teaching 3), gays should be free to marry. It might be appropriate to ask them not to make inordinate displays of affection in public, but that would be considered appropriate for heterosexuals as well.
Following biblical teaching (1), we should not be deciding for others who they can and cannot marry if we are not willing to have others decide for us who we can and cannot marry.
Following (2), we should not seek to abuse the political process in order to tyrannize or oppress others of different religious views.
Your protestations about morals is hollow. No one is stopping you from practicing the morals you deem most appropriate for yourself. I am not even saying you should not let your morals determine your political views. I do disagree that it is appropriate to enforce your particular moral views on others unless there is a compelling societal reason to do so.
I completely and categorically reject your notion that banning gay marriage is the moral choice and not banning it is the immoral choice.
Now, to address another of your points.
micatala wrote: My point is it should be considered a right, whether or not many consider it a perversion. Many people used to consider interracial marriage a perversion. Now, not so much.
My point is that it shouldn't be considered a right. The dirty little secret is that homosexuality was not an inalienable right endowed by the creator, a point you seem to continually deny.
I agree and allow that there is no explicitly enumerated right in the constitution to gay marriage. However, read what James Madison wrote on June 8 of 1789.
James Madison wrote:
That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people
Note the people rule, not God. Certainly the founders based some of their thinking on their religious views, but, knowing their history, they understood the people would need to govern themselves, and that allowing religions an undue place in government could lead to tyranny. Their not too distant ancestors had experienced this tyranny, and it had led many of them to emigrate to the New World.
That Government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Bans on gay marriage go square against the principle that we each have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit.
Now, let's look at the actual preamble to the constitution.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note the prominence of justice and liberty. Bans on gay marriage are unjust, because they treat people unequally, and they deny liberty.
Note also there is no mention of a moral foundation here. The justification is a practical one; "to form a more perfect union."
If one continues into the body of the constitution, one will note that marriage is nowhere defined and is not even directly addressed. What is addressed in the bill of rights are our freedoms, including freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion means being able to choose ones own religion, and follow the religious doctrines and the definition of morality of ones own choosing.
By attempting to impose their own religious doctrines on others through gay marriage bans, those who do so are violating the principle of freedom of religion. Thus, unless supporters of such bans can provide a reasonable, non-religious reason for such bans, they have no constitutional ground to stand on.
micatala wrote:Unless the Supreme Court of the U.S. bows down to tradition
Unless the Supreme Court of the U.S. bows down to gay activism, they will recognize that marriage is for men and women and not for those of the same sex.
Again, where in the constitution is marriage defined as between one man and one woman?
I again commend a reading of the full Iowa decision to you. Perhaps you can indicate how their reasoning is legally in error and counter to the constitution.
Fisherking wrote:
micatala wrote:If a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage were to pass, it would, in my view, reflect an unjust regression back to a day when we allowed prejudices, biases, and unconstitutional infringements on freedom of religion to rule.
No, it would be upholding the morality (ultimately from religion) we
should have in society.
Our founding fathers understood the concept:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, 1798
And what particular moral and religious views do you think John Adams had in mind as being necessary? Are you seriously suggesting opposing gay marriage would be among them? I would suggest he had such moral teachings in mind as those I cited above:
1) The golden rule
2) Honesty
3) Fair-mindedness and fair judgments
4) Respect for the rights of others
Do you have any source for what you think Adams had in mind?
You are making a huge assumption in thinking that men like Adams, were they alive today, would be taking your position. This assumption again goes back to thinking that tradition should dictate morality and legality. Again, if you want to go back to the "tradition" argument, maybe you should directly address why we should not go back to the following traditions.
micatala wrote:If we let tradition dictate legislation than
1) Slavery would be legal
2) Women would not be able to vote or hold property
3) Wife-beating would be legal
4) Child labor would be legal
Are you saying you are in favor of going back to all the legal traditions of, say, early 19th century America?
Your response was to vacate tradition and appeal to the authority of the majority
Fisherking wrote:
No, I said "If the only authority is the majority, I simply have to convince the majority that traditions I hold are more "tasteful" than the minority's".
This again goes against the very rationale of having a bill of rights in the first place.
"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
Benjamin Rush
Again, which religious principles do you think Rush is referring to? Also, notice the importance of liberty. And finally, note that this and your other quotes are not part of the constititution, they only express the opinions of the authors.
Now again, I grant that religion can be a good thing. I have no problem with people advocating for religious views or using their religious views to inform their politics. However, advocating for the desirability of a religious populace is quite different than imposing particular religious rules on everyone as the law of the land.
I do not believe your quotes support this latter position.
If homosexuality is a perversion of the sexuality God created men and women with, then homosexuality is immoral and should not be sanctioned by government.
To conclude, where in the constitution does it say that the purpose of government is to enforce particular religious views? WHere in the constitution does it say the law should recognize and enforce any particular sexual mores?
micatala wrote:Fisherking wrote:micatala wrote:Would you be willing to live with the majority imposing another religion on you?
I wouldn't have a choice.
So what actions would you take if the majority, say, outlawed the practice of Christianity and banned the sale and possession of Bibles?
I would appeal to the ultimate authority has said on the matter (God).
And what likelihood would you give that God would directly intervene in your favor?
I am all for prayer and basing ones actions on moral and Godly principles. However, as a practical matter you will have to persuade actual persons to agree with you. This is one instance where we are largely in agreement.
You may not need a majority. As with racial prejudice, I would suggest the first action should be to take your case to the courts. This may not work, but at least the courts are set up to be somewhat immune (although I agree with your previous point they are not totally immune) to political pressure. Clearly, claims of injustice are often easier to successfully make in the courts than to the population at large.
If homosexuals could convince people that God sanctions homosexual marriage there would be little resistance. Since they cannot, resistance will remain.
I suspect you are right that resistance will remain. However, I have some faith that this resistance will eventually be marginalized. In addition, one does not need to persuade people to believe that God sanctions gay marriage, only that it is a reasonable thing to allow in a pluralistic society that espouses religious freedom.
Fisherking wrote:
micatala wrote:I would point out to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that "you reap what you sow." To the extent that Christians do try to circumvent the spirit of the constitution to trample on the rights of others, they are sowing seeds that will eventually reap a harvest that might include restrictions on their own freedom of religion.
" Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Jesus)
I accept your sincerity that you believe God opposes gay marriage. I do not share your opinion. My opposition to gay marriage bans is not in opposition to Christianity, it is rather informed by my understanding of the most important teachings of Jesus. Now, we'll continue to disagree on that point, I expect.
However, the larger questions continues to be why those who share your religious views should be allowed to impose their will, by majority or other means, on others when allowing gay marriage does absolutely no demonstrable harm of any kind to anyone.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
