SCOTUS Mandates Same Sex Marriage Nationally (UPDATED)

 

shutterstock_141934102From the the syllabus in Obergefell v. Hodges:

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

More:

Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

From Kennedy’s decision (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan; starts on p. 6):

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex…

From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent im- portance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secu- lar realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

From Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent (joined by Scalia and Thomas; starts on p. 40):

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

From Justice Scalia’s separate dissent (joined by Thomas; starts on p. 69):

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write sepa- rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per- sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar- riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange- ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit- tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

From Justice Thomas’s dissent (joined by Scalia; starts on p. 78):

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not enti- tlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

From Justice Alito’s dissent (joined by Scalia and Thomas; starts on p. 96):

Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage.1 The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State…

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi- tion.’ ” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

Published in Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 362 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Leigh:

    Frank Soto:

    Jamie Lockett:The melodrama in this thread is very amusing.

    There is a degree of melodrama in all political discussion, but I think Christians are right that the battle ahead to preserve their religious liberty will be quite difficult. You can forgive them a moment of lamenting that it has to come to a point where such a basic liberty needs to be fought for in America.

    Even if that were not true, you’re looking at people’s genuine fears for their most precious liberties, and you, as a libertarian, truly find that funny?

    While I do empathize with why you’re fearful for your liberties, please also understand that the Church (in all its denominations and non-denominations) is as much a creature of culture as you and I are. The Church will adjust; the Church will evangelize to LGBT brothers and sisters in need of its love and fellowship.

    I’ve brought up the Biblical Curse of Ham in the past as an example of how the Church can and did adjust to the civil rights era. Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 will simply no longer be a part of church teaching, and the Church will endure. We will endure.

    • #331
  2. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Brad2971:

    While I do empathize with why you’re fearful for your liberties, please also understand that the Church (in all its denominations and non-denominations) is as much a creature of culture as you and I are. The Church will adjust; the Church will evangelize to LGBT brothers and sisters in need of its love and fellowship.

    I’ve brought up the Biblical Curse of Ham in the past as an example of how the Church can and did adjust to the civil rights era. Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 will simply no longer be a part of church teaching, and the Church will endure. We will endure.

    Brad, do you not see what you are saying here?  That in the end it does matter too much whether you have the right to agree with the majority — because sooner or later everyone will anyway?  That a government-backed demand for conformity of thought is likely to lead to a certain amount of conformity of thought hardly makes the demand less chilling.

    And even as you make that argument you acknowledge that in order for it to come true, Christians must simply abandon biblical authority?  Do you not realize that people have died rather than do that?

    • #332
  3. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Leigh:

    Brad2971:

    While I do empathize with why you’re fearful for your liberties, please also understand that the Church (in all its denominations and non-denominations) is as much a creature of culture as you and I are. The Church will adjust; the Church will evangelize to LGBT brothers and sisters in need of its love and fellowship.

    I’ve brought up the Biblical Curse of Ham in the past as an example of how the Church can and did adjust to the civil rights era. Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 will simply no longer be a part of church teaching, and the Church will endure. We will endure.

    Brad, do you not see what you are saying here? That in the end it does matter too much whether you have the right to agree with the majority — because sooner or later everyone will anyway? That a government-backed demand for conformity of thought is likely to lead to a certain amount of conformity of thought hardly makes the demand less chilling.

    And even as you make that argument you acknowledge that in order for it to come true, Christians must simply abandon biblical authority? Do you not realize that people have died rather than do that?

    What if I told you that the government doesn’t have to do a blessed thing in the area of “demand for conformity.”

    • #333
  4. Ricochet Moderator
    Ricochet
    @OmegaPaladin

    Brad2971:What if I told you that the government doesn’t have to do a blessed thing in the area of “demand for conformity.”

    Of course, there will be plenty of twitter mobs demanding that the witch be burnt the conservative be fired.   I find it hard to converse with someone so smug without violating the CoC

    By the way, the curse of Ham is not explicitly stated to be a curse on black people in the Bible.   The whole idea of “race” is a much more recent construct than we like to think.  See Dinesh D’Souza’s The End of Racism for more on that.

    It’s interesting to see that the Biblical approach to homosexuality is also quite different from the modern viewpoint of orientation and the Kinsey Scale.  The terms Paul used were more akin to Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), which is the term used by health researchers.   This approach is entirely focused on behavior, and unlike contemporary Greek or Roman ideas was equally applicable to women who have sex with women.

    • #334
  5. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    OmegaPaladin: By the way, the curse of Ham is not explicitly stated to be a curse on black people in the Bible.

    More like “there is nothing at all in the text to give any such idea.”

    Brad2971: What if I told you that the government doesn’t have to do a blessed thing in the area of “demand for conformity.”

    I’d say that, first, you had not grappled with my second point, or with years of church history.  And second, that your expectation that the change will happen without government compulsion is still hardly a reason to be less concerned about government compulsion.

    • #335
  6. Ricochet Moderator
    Ricochet
    @OmegaPaladin

    Leigh:

    OmegaPaladin: By the way, the curse of Ham is not explicitly stated to be a curse on black people in the Bible.

    More like “there is nothing at all in the text to give any such idea.”

    Brad2971: What if I told you that the government doesn’t have to do a blessed thing in the area of “demand for conformity.”

    I’d say that, first, you had not grappled with my second point, or with years of church history. And second, that your expectation that the change will happen without government compulsion is still hardly a reason to be less concerned about government compulsion.

    Remember, opposition to same sex marriage only dates back to 2004, according to Brad.

    • #336
  7. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    OmegaPaladin:

    Leigh:

    OmegaPaladin: By the way, the curse of Ham is not explicitly stated to be a curse on black people in the Bible.

    More like “there is nothing at all in the text to give any such idea.”

    Brad2971: What if I told you that the government doesn’t have to do a blessed thing in the area of “demand for conformity.”

    I’d say that, first, you had not grappled with my second point, or with years of church history. And second, that your expectation that the change will happen without government compulsion is still hardly a reason to be less concerned about government compulsion.

    Remember, opposition to same sex marriage only dates back to 2004, according to Brad.

    Oh, I didn’t even mean specifically this issue.  I meant that if you think Christians are not prepared to face significant cultural pressure, you do not know Christian history.

    • #337
  8. user_998621 Member
    user_998621
    @Liz

    Kate Braestrup:

    The general gnashing of teeth over this decision has to do with the content, not the process.

    I disagree, and I have to say that your word choices (“gnashing of teeth”) are condescending.  There is no constitutional right to marriage, of any kind.  The Constitution is not a prolix legal code; what it does not cover is left to the States.  Lest there be doubt, the 10th Amendment makes this explicit.  Every lover of the Constitution should, indeed, find the process deeply galling.

    • #338
  9. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    I find it interesting that this is the issue where the religious have chosen to make their stand on biblical authority and have decided that their entire religion is at stake.

    We no longer kill adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22)

    We no longer stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

    Heck we no longer kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

    The various churches have adapted to changes that have made these monstrous rules both illegal and culturally beyond the pale. I see no reason why they won’t adapt now.

    It also seems, to his lay person, that those that see this as the end to their religion have lost sight of the purpose and overall message of Christianity.

    • #339
  10. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Kate Braestrup: There is nothing infantile about defending your belief system. There is something infantile (or at least melodramatic) about saying “all right then, we’ll secede.” We being Texas, I guess, or Arkansas or whatever. Secede. Because of gay marriage. And explicitly conjuring the Confederacy, which stood up for what it believed in, and what it believed in was…?

    Nobody’s talking about seceding because of gay marriage. The secession talk is over the imposition of gay marriage by five unelected, unaccountable magistrates. I’m not a secessionist, but I sympathize with their complaints; this is just the latest in a long history of the assault on democracy by the courts. That, not the specific issue of gay marriage, is the reason behind the secessionist talk.

    • #340
  11. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Jamie Lockett: We no longer kill adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22) We no longer stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) Heck we no longer kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

    All Old Testament laws about which Jesus himself, not unelected magistrates from the civil government, told us, “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    Jesus rescinded those laws, not Anthony Kennedy.

    • #341
  12. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Umbra Fractus:

    Jamie Lockett: We no longer kill adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22) We no longer stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) Heck we no longer kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

    All Old Testament laws about which Jesus himself, not unelected magistrates from the civil government, told us, “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    Jesus rescinded those laws, not Anthony Kennedy.

    Absolutely true and well-said.

    • #342
  13. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Umbra Fractus: All Old Testament laws about which Jesus himself, not unelected magistrates from the civil government, told us, “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus rescinded those laws, not Anthony Kennedy.

    So you’re not against unelected autocrats rescinding laws, per se.

    • #343
  14. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Umbra Fractus:

    Kate Braestrup: There is nothing infantile about defending your belief system. There is something infantile (or at least melodramatic) about saying “all right then, we’ll secede.” We being Texas, I guess, or Arkansas or whatever. Secede. Because of gay marriage. And explicitly conjuring the Confederacy, which stood up for what it believed in, and what it believed in was…?

    Nobody’s talking about seceding because of gay marriage. The secession talk is over the imposition of gay marriage by five unelected, unaccountable magistrates. I’m not a secessionist, but I sympathize with their complaints; this is just the latest in a long history of the assault on democracy by the courts. That, not the specific issue of gay marriage, is the reason behind the secessionist talk.

    Precisely.  And I will add that there is nothing hyperbolic about my talk of secession.  I am an avowed Texas Nationalist.  If ever there is an independence referendum in this state, I will vote for it.

    • #344
  15. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Mike LaRoche: Precisely.  And I will add that there is nothing hyperbolic about my talk of secession.  I am an avowed Texas Nationalist.  If ever there is an independence referendum in this state, I will vote for it.

    Good luck with that.

    • #345
  16. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    That’s what Santa Anna said.

    • #346
  17. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Jamie Lockett:I find it interesting that this is the issue where the religious have chosen to make their stand on biblical authority and have decided that their entire religion is at stake.

    We no longer kill adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22)

    We no longer stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

    Heck we no longer kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

    The various churches have adapted to changes that have made these monstrous rules both illegal and culturally beyond the pale. I see no reason why they won’t adapt now.

    It also seems, to his lay person, that those that see this as the end to their religion have lost sight of the purpose and overall message of Christianity.

    Jamie,

    None of the examples you pose are particularly difficult to answer in Christian theology.  That you think they are reveals a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine, which is of course to be expected of someone who doesn’t hold to their beliefs.  I would respond to them here, but I suspect you are not interested in the nuances of Christian belief, and are rather just looking for a cudgel.

    However, it does display a rather unseemly arrogance that you believe you have found contradictions in a few minutes of research that most Christians who have studied the bible for years are unaware of.

    • #347
  18. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Frank Soto: None of the examples you pose are particularly difficult to answer in Christian theology.  That you think they are reveals a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine, which is of course to be expected of someone who doesn’t hold to their beliefs.  I would respond to them here, but I suspect you are not interested in the nuances of Christian belief, and are rather just looking for a cudgel. However, it does display a rather unseemly arrogance that you believe you have found contradictions in a few minutes of research that most Christians who have studied the bible for years are unaware of.

    My point, was that religion has adapted throughout history to changes to its doctrine and to see this one particular legal change as bringing about the end of the entire Christian faith smacks of chicken-littleism.

    I would actually be interested to know why some parts of the bible still hold true as law and others do not. There is a not insubstantial and vocal number of Christians that often quote from both Deuteronomy and Leviticus to justify their opposition to homosexuality. Are these people not true Christians? Can you point me to the new testament verses that deal with homosexuality or marriage and explain how these laws are distinguishable from the old testament laws governing homosexuality and marriage?

    (I ask this in good faith because, as you have pointed out, I am not a Christian, nor am I well versed in Christian belief).

    • #348
  19. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Mike LaRoche:That’s what Santa Anna said.

    You guys do it and I may be coming.

    My daughter was born in Texas so I have an “anchor baby” there.

    • #349
  20. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Jamie Lockett:

    Umbra Fractus: All Old Testament laws about which Jesus himself, not unelected magistrates from the civil government, told us, “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” Jesus rescinded those laws, not Anthony Kennedy.

    So you’re not against unelected autocrats rescinding laws, per se.

    Not if they’re the Son of God, no.

    • #350
  21. C. U. Douglas Coolidge
    C. U. Douglas
    @CUDouglas

    Jamie:

    Odd choice of verses you picked for your point. I understand you’re trying to say that Christians have changed their view on such things but you’ve glossed over a big point: Christians still regard such behaviors as adultery, premarital sex, and yes even homosexuality as sinful.

    Now God has changed how we address such behaviors. What has not changed is that these behaviors are still to be considered sinful. In this we can get into a long conversation about the moral vs. ceremonial law of the Old Testament.

    So to say we’ve changed our attitudes is wrong. We’d say, “Of course we don’t have the death penalty for such things any more. Christ spoke a message of redemption and repentance, not of retribution. He still spoke a message of personal change, however. We no longer stone the adulteress, but after redeeming her we are to instruct as He has: “Go and sin no more.”

    So no, hate to burst your bubble, but conservative Christians won’t be backing off this homosexual behavior is sinful thing …

    • #351
  22. C. U. Douglas Coolidge
    C. U. Douglas
    @CUDouglas

    The common misconception is that most Christians oppose same sex marriage out of antipathy towards homosexuals, or at best towards homosexual behavior. The idea is that we’re trying to enforce morality on others in the case of SSM. This is not the case. The concern has been not keeping others from behaving immorally – in an increasingly secularized America we can’t, but rather that we would be forced to endorse immoral behavior. Evidence seems to point that this is exactly what codifying SSM will attempt to accomplish. Legal action both recently in America and in the last decade or so in Canada and Massachusetts since SSM was codified in those places point to the idea that SSM is established and freedoms are sacrificed on the altar of equality.

    Constantly being told that no one will be complaining about it in five years doesn’t make us feel better, especially as that silence is at present being bought almost entirely through coercion. There’s no liberty to be seen here.

    • #352
  23. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Jamie Lockett:

    I would actually be interested to know why some parts of the bible still hold true as law and others do not. There is a not insubstantial and vocal number of Christians that often quote from both Deuteronomy and Leviticus to justify their opposition to homosexuality. Are these people not true Christians? Can you point me to the new testament verses that deal with homosexuality or marriage and explain how these laws are distinguishable from the old testament laws governing homosexuality and marriage?

    (I ask this in good faith because, as you have pointed out, I am not a Christian, nor am I well versed in Christian belief).

    As C.U. pointed out earlier, none of the examples you cite are quite relevant, as all of the activities are still considered sinful.  I am actually not aware of a sin which is identified in the old testament that is rescinded in the new.  The punishments for many sins did indeed change, with a famous moment where Jesus asked someone without sin to throw the first stone.  That Mercy is a defining trait in Christian belief does not change the nature of the sins for which said mercy will be shown.

    I have read numerous papers that attempted to argue that homosexual sex is not a sin under proper reading of the bible and can only say that all attempts to make this argument have been laughable.

    There are only two intellectually viable positions on this issue:

    Christianity is false and Homosexual sex is not a sin

    Christianity is true and Homosexual sex is a sin

    What you are asking Christians to do is abandon the document that they believe is the word of God and the foremost source of universal truths, and instead make up their own truth as they see fit.  This is really a call to abandon their Christian beliefs, while pretending that they haven’t.

    It would be more honest if you simply came to these threads and argued that all Christians should instead become atheists or agnostics.

    • #353
  24. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    And how does government recognition of Same Sex Marriage change the sinfulness of homosexuality? Does government imprimatur define sinfulness now?

    • #354
  25. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Jamie Lockett:And how does government recognition of Same Sex Marriage change the sinfulness of homosexuality? Does government imprimatur define sinfulness now?

    That is essentially the argument I have made, and part of understanding how I (Christian in all ways except nominally)  support the civic institution of marriage being adjusted, as I separate it from the religious institution.

    Others (like James of England) can make a strong argument that I am wrong about this and the two cannot be separated without causing numerous problems.

    Back to your original criticism however, you were suggesting that Christians should simply change their doctrine on homosexuality.  This cannot be done without abandoning every premise behind Christian belief.  That is the point I wanted to address.

    • #355
  26. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Frank Soto: Back to your original criticism however, you were suggesting that Christians should simply change their doctrine on homosexuality.  This be done without abandoning every premise behind Christian belief.  That is the point I wanted to address.

    If that was the impression I left then I apologize for not being clear. I meant that Christianity and christian doctrine has found a way to exist for 2000 years regardless of changes in law and culture. This particular change in law may or may not have an effect on christian doctrine – but the evidence of history suggests that they will adapt and continue for quite a while.

    • #356
  27. C. U. Douglas Coolidge
    C. U. Douglas
    @CUDouglas

    Jamie, you’re missing my point, I’m afraid.

    The government can’t change what is or isn’t sinful (side note: Not that governments won’t try, and not that they haven’t tried to do so for centuries). However, through use of force, the government can make you endorse such things or face penalties – see the aforementioned cake decorators and photographers who refused to offer services for same sex marriages. Also note Catholic charities shutting down their adoption services in Massachusetts because they would not adopt to same sex couples against their religion and per government force. Also note how speaking out against homosexuality is a punishable offense in other western nations.

    The government can’t change what sin is, but it can definitely make life very uncomfortable or worse for anyone who won’t accept the government’s attempt to change the definition of sin.

    • #357
  28. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    C. U. Douglas: The government can’t change what sin is, but it can definitely make life very uncomfortable or worse for anyone who won’t accept the government’s attempt to change the definition of sin.

    Yes, but as a libertarian I see that as a separate issue. Basically, for me, two wrongs don’t make a right. SSM should be legal and the anyone should be free to refuse service to anyone they wish.

    • #358
  29. C. U. Douglas Coolidge
    C. U. Douglas
    @CUDouglas

    We’re living in a Progressive State and nowhere near a libertarian state. In Oregon, when they expanded anti-discrimination laws to protect homosexuals, social conservatives voiced concerns that such laws will be used as a hammer against them once things such as same sex marriage gains legal status. The two are tightly intertwined thanks to our state and federal governments being run by social progressives. As much as Libertarians want to say they are two separate issues, they won’t be because again, we’re nowhere near a libertarian state.

    What’s frustrating for so-cons and Christians is they are now being told that we need to sacrifice our religious liberties in the name of ephemeral concepts of equality. And when we object to the former, we’re told by some, “Don’t worry, backward-thinking, close-minded bigot, we got your back!”

    There are small but at present socially and politically powerful groups that want to punish social conservatives and Christians for opposing their aims, and same sex marriage is a very handy hammer. As SSM-advocates smash our fingers with said hammer, it really isn’t comforting to be informed that the hammer reads “anti-discrimination” and not “gay marriage.”

    • #359
  30. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    I get that, and I stand with you on the religious liberty issue, but that doesn’t mean I should give up my beliefs on one issue because it affects what I see as a separate issue.

    • #360
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.