Sunday, July 26, 2015

Court decision diminishes meaning of marriage

From www.sourcenewspapers.com:

I’ve heard it said by some that when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on something, it is the “final answer” to any questions surrounding an issue and, therefore, must be good. But considering the Supreme Court has historically ruled in favor of slavery and the killing of the unborn, shouldn’t we scrutinize every court decision for its broader implications?

For instance, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage, supporters took to the streets and social media with the slogan, “love wins”; and in rewriting the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Justice Anthony Kennedy said same-sex marriage allows two homosexuals to “find a life they could not find alone.”

It all sounds good because everyone deserves love and respect. But truth be told, the Constitution’s purpose is not to promote or legitimize love.

What the Supreme Court did was redefine marriage as an institution that existed for thousands of years primarily to benefit children, into one that primarily benefits adults. Marriage, as between one man and one woman, has been the only institution that can most closely guarantee a child’s right to unity with both his mother and father.

It is precisely because so many children benefit from growing up with a married mother and father – and ultimately how that benefits society -- that governments started supporting marriage. This support never had anything to do with the love between the man and woman. It had everything to do with the unique, complementary nature of the man and woman -- namely the potential ability to conceive a child, and the different and important qualities each gender offers that child.

But now in the name of love, we’ve abandoned that unique trait of marriage to make it whatever anyone wants it to be. Marriage has been reduced to nothing more than helping couples feel their love is now seen as legitimate, which is not the true point of marriage. If it were, then parents would need to "marry" their children to prove their love is legitimate.

Accordingly, if marriage is now defined solely by love, not gender, how can we deny the polygamist his many wives? How can we deny the sister marriage to her brother? The boundaries have been obliterated along with the meaning of marriage itself.

In fairness, plenty of heterosexuals have diminished marriage as well. Cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births and rampant divorce have all undermined the institution. The task at hand now is to reintroduce the worth of traditional marriage’s benefits to society in terms of bringing up children in stable homes with a mom and a dad whenever possible.

Unfortunately, same-sex marriage cannot benefit society in the same way. It only impacts the adults involved. As for children, of course the only way this is possible for homosexual couples is through adoption or surrogacy. But both automatically deny the child’s right to both a mother and a father, and surrogacy reduces women to the professional pimping of their own bodies. This is tragic in itself, but worse, it makes innocent children the guinea pigs in a wild social experiment geared mostly toward the satisfaction of adults.

Ominously, same-sex marriage also seriously threatens religious liberty in America. Though the Court justices suggested that religious dissenters of same-sex marriage may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views on marriage, they refused to acknowledge the right to “exercise” religious beliefs.

This is worrisome because now that homosexual marriage is the law of the land (as decreed by five unelected people in robes who ignored millions and millions of votes on the issue), on what grounds can someone choose his religious beliefs over demands that he participate in something that violates his beliefs?

We’re already seeing it, such as with the Christian Oregon bakers who were fined $135,000 and had a gag order placed on them for declining to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple whom they had served lovingly for years beforehand. Also, immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, activists announced they would now target religious institutions and Christian colleges that teach biblical views on homosexuality.

What remains to be seen, then, is the extent to which Christians will win their lawsuits, because that is what it will come to: The need to fight for religious freedom in the courts, rather than being able to enjoy the freedoms once guaranteed in our Constitution. And given today's increasingly liberal judges who decide base on their own political views, not the Constitution or other laws, how often do you think Christians will win their cases?

When our courts begin rejecting the Constitution to make up rights for some, while stripping others of theirs, we are no longer a nation of law. Sadly, in efforts to eradicate perceived discrimination against homosexuals, it seems the Supreme Court has succeeded only in legitimizing discrimination against Christians, while rendering meaningless an institution that exists primarily for the benefits of children and society.

As for love, we are all different and are all called to tolerate those differences and to love one another. There is no question about that. But it needs to go both ways. Undermining children and forcing people to act against their beliefs is not tolerance, it is not freedom and it certainly doesn't feel like "love wins", despite what the catchy slogan conveys.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

30 comments:

  1. This may be one of your best columns, Julie. You have written so many splendid articles through the years. It is a joy to read your writing. Even when dealing with contentious issues, you bring sensitivity, precision, fairness, a sense of decency, and depth to the matter in question. More than a few modern writers - who revel in the spirit of the age - too often turn to ridicule, bitterness, and anger to get across what they feel they have to stay. If you ever wonder if what you write helps, encourages, or inspires others, please know that the answer is YES. You write from a deep and abiding reservoir of faith, wisdom, and knowledge. As a result, your words are rooted in good ground. The public square is your mission territory. The good work you do there is every bit as important as the labors performed by those who build, plant, heal, and teach in mission lands around the world. Thank you for using your talents, skills, and abilities to help our confused and hurting world. Paul M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Paul,

      Wow. Thank you so very, very much. You have no idea how much your words help to keep me inspired to keep doing this when it seems that I often get such negative feedback and accusations of being hateful and it makes me wonder if maybe I am not articulating things the way I want to. Thank you so much for encouraging me this way - I truly appreciate it.

      Delete
  2. Great column, Julie. I responded to it on-line at the Source’s website, about a week ago, but they’re still having system glitches that are preventing the comments from getting past “approval pending” status. I want to echo what Paul M. wrote. Your columns are always well-researched, superbly written, and very informative. Over the past couple of years, whenever I picked up my Source newspaper from the end of the driveway, guess whose column I searched for first? I’m sure many people do the same thing. The fact that you’re sometimes accused of being “hateful” when you write about social issues is just a reflection of the bitterness of our society towards people who still have an objective moral compass. You’re not hateful and don’t allow yourself to believe that! Keep up the great writing and don’t be discouraged. We need you to keep writing for many more years to come!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much, Paul. I appreciate your kind words as well and may I say I always enjoy your letters to the editor! I especially liked the one you wrote following the June 26 Supreme Court decision. It's so helpful to know people like you are out there. Thanks for all you do as well!

      Delete
  3. See my opinion in the Source. Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my comments, in the Source, after they've cleared "approval pending" status.

      Delete
    2. Paul,
      I don't care to see your comments.
      Mark

      Delete
    3. Mark,
      Then don’t ask me to look at your opinion if you’re not interested in meaningful dialogue.
      Paul

      Delete
    4. Paul,
      Who's blog is this anyway. Not yours Paul.
      Mark

      Delete
    5. Mark - I welcome all comments on my blog whether someone agrees with me or not, as long as the dialogue is respectful. Paul is welcome to post here as he pleases - as are you. Thanks and have a great day!

      Delete
  4. I was not interested in his reply or yours. I only wanted you to note my opinion printed in Sundays paper. I know I will never change your opinion. And since you will never understand what its like to be born gay, yes born gay, I can't expect you to understand the relationship I have with Jesus Christ or my husband. Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish you peace, Mark. God bless you.

      Delete
    2. Mark,
      Even though my letters may seem harsh, they’re not meant to be. Because they ARE responses, and because they’re written in a more formal style, sometimes with strong assertions, I can understand that you may feel offended. The Source just published my response to your letter but it’s a response that’s meant to offer a view, for the general public, that’s different from yours.
      I think you’d have to agree, Mark, that every one of us is born “imperfect” (spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically, etc.) with our own unique burdens. However, that doesn’t mean God makes “mistakes”. It’s simply a reflection of the fact that we live in a fallen, sinful world.
      Every person who wants to follow Jesus is told that they must first count the cost (salvation is free, but it’ll cost you your life). We have to learn to contend with every desire that’s not in harmony with what God wants for us. I’ve never experienced your burdens, Mark, but I DO know that you’re not alone. We all struggle with sins that we need to forsake but we first have to admit that God is the one who defines what sin is. I knew a person who struggled with alcoholism his entire life. It’s not easy for people to say “no” to alcohol, or drugs, or sexual desires, or a host of other things but that’s exactly what Jesus expects from every one of His followers. If we truly say that we want to follow Christ, we have to be honest and be willing to accept what that means. We have to accept that the Bible really means what it says. Same-sex attraction may be your burden in life and you may struggle with it your entire life (just like an alcoholic may struggle with his burden) but God does not want you to keep going in that same direction. Even if the desires remain, God wants you to keep trying to allow Him to lead you. That’s an example of a “daily cross” that Jesus said every one of His followers would have to bear.

      Delete
  5. Thank you, but honestly you truly do not understand. People like you have been the bullies for over 50 years. The LGBT Community has been persecuted in ways you will never know. And after going through your blog and reading everything you have created, I have come to the conclusion that your intention from the start, along with that of your following has been to continue persecuting the LGBT Community. Yours is not the only religion, your opinion is no longer the opinion of the majority. There are many other concerns that plague our country and you could truly become a catalyst in there demise and avoid being consider a bigot. Mark Cichewicz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not bearing the cross an entire community is carrying it. The community is made up of all kinds of people. Some believers and some not, just like the world. As I said we have been denied more then you know. We are just like you with the exception of our sexual identity. Like you we were given our identity at birth. Some might be able to denie who they are, I can't nor would it be fair for me to try. Your religion may not except homosexuality but my relationship with God tells me something different.

      Were not at all trying to take your rite to that religion away. But don't try to make your religion ours. I admit turning someone down when it comes to a job dosen't seem like it has anything to do with religion or the celebration of a wedding. Its a job. How would the baker even know if a cake was for a gay wedding unless they asked. Is that really any of their business. They didn't ask when I ordered my cake. Mark

      Delete
    2. Mr. Cichewicz, you're right, I don't understand what you have endured in life. And until you walk in my shoes, you cannot know what I have had to endure - or continue to endure - in extremely difficult and often profoundly unjust ways. We all have the Cross to bear. The difference is in how we bear it. But I assure you, there is no persecution here, not by me anyway. It is what you choose to perceive where others see it as the honest exchange of thoughts and beliefs. Disagreement is not bullying - however, calling someone names like "bigot" could be seen as such. And beliefs are not opinions, though it is true our society is moving away from God's teachings. That doesn't make God less real, but maybe those who reject Him are growing in number. As someone who believes in God’s word, it is sincerely out of concern for others that I talk about these things, especially when I fear someone may have been deceived, and also when I see anyone’s rights being taken away in the name of someone else’s rights, yes, I feel it should be discussed. We should all discuss it openly and honestly without trying to shut down debate by calling people names. If you knew me, you would know without question that I am truly sad and sorry you have been so hurt in life by anyone who has harmed you directly and I wish you the strength to overcome it where you can and give it to Jesus. Pray for your persecutors, but believe it or not, you could consider me a friend. As I said earlier, I do wish you peace and I hope only good things for you. God bless you and your loved ones.

      Delete
    3. Sorry...am having computer problems - my posts keep disappearing and reposting out of order:-) But please allow me to say, nobody can tell someone to deny their theology and there are places in the Bible (e.g. Ezekiel) that warn believers not to help celebrate "sin" in any way, so there are sincere believers who feel they are sinning by say, photographing a same-sex wedding. It truly doesn't mean they "hate" the people getting married. Not in the least, but it is hurtful to be accused of that, and it is even worse that we are at risk of losing our livelihoods because we choose God's teachings over certain requests. It just cannot be the private citizen or the government's place to tell that photographer that he must be hired against his will to do a job. The work I do, I do freely. If I was forced to work where I work, I would not be free. If the LGBT community truly believes in justice, it would be very good to be accepting of the fact that not everyone believes as they do. No, nobody should be denied lunch at the counter because of their sexual identity, or any reason - feeding people is not sinful no matter what one's personal lifestyle is. In fact, it would be sinful to deny someone lunch, or police protection, or whatnot because of who someone is. But to be forced to help make happen an activity celebrating actions that some are taught is sinful, does cross a line and we are asking the LGBT community to respect that. It is not out of "hate" that I could not partake in some activities - it is out of my love for God and humbling myself to Him at the risk of persecution from my fellow brothers and sisters in the world. And in that love for God, I have love for my fellow citizens, but as the Bible teaches we need to put God's law first. I am probably not expressing it very well, but the accusations of hatred and bigotry do need to stop if we are to ever begin to hope to have understanding.

      Delete
    4. And one other quick thing, please: if the baker making your cake didn't know what it was for, there is no culpability (assuming the baker is someone who might have objected had he known). I just have seen examples of couples making it very clearly known what the event is for, and specifically going to Christian vendors knowing they are putting them in a very difficult position, when there are loads of other vendors they could have easily chosen who'd have gladly provided. I just find it purposeful in an unkind way in those cases, that's all, and the Christian baker shouldn't lose his livelihood because of it.

      Delete
    5. I am not unhappy or have I been personally affected by what the gay community has gone through. But so many people that came before me have suffered at the hands of others, some in the name of religion. I believe unfairly. I have heard of Michigan doctors turning down a person because they were gay.

      The people sued for not providing goods and services live in a state that has laws to protect everyone from discrimination. The owners should have been aware of the law before they chose not to do the work they advertised to do. Personally I wouldn't shop where I'm not wanted most of all for a wedding. But you can't decide for me if I want a civil wedding. No one no where has or will be forced to perform a same-sex wedding. The fear mongers have been making up things for years now that are simply njudgment. Clergy have not gone to jail. Bibles are not being burned. People also won't be marrying there dogs nun to soon. For someone to say so is just the poorest judgment. I say pass allthe religious freedom laws you want but don't excluded protection from Elliott-Larsen. Mark

      Delete
    6. Sorry...The fear mongers have been making things up for years now that are simply not true. Mark

      Delete
    7. Mark,
      Did you read my post (August 6, 7:00 PM)? It unfortunately went through as a reply to Julie.

      Delete
  6. Paul,
    I just saw it. Have not seen it in the past. At first glance it seems filled with concern. But just like others like yourself, you bring out the comparison of alcoholics to homosexuals. Apples to oranges, its wrong and you know it. The Supreme. Court would not condone the drinking of an alcoholic, nor would the Michigan Competitive Workforce Coalition say come work in Michigan for one of the car co. and drink all you like. Top it off you act like you speak for all religions, all Christians and you don't. And yes your column makes you come off like a bigot...comment on your August 6, post.
    Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark,
      When someone opens the Bible and simply shows you verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God), why do you think that it’s a “comparison” of sins? And why do people in the LGBT community get offended by the “nor men who practice homosexuality” part? ALL of us, Mark, are sinners (ME INCLUDED). If someone struggles with sinful activity, we’re supposed to help them abandon their sins. I don’t understand your constant “bigot” labels. I guess I’d also be a “bigot” if I told a thief that stealing is wrong or an alcoholic that drunkenness is wrong (both of those are in that list).

      Delete
  7. Paul,
    Since you obviously take the Bible word for word and put as much value in both the old and new testaments, I'm sure you don't eat pork or shell fish and you have never been divorced. The Bible was strictly adhered to to prevent death and increase the Jewish population so they could defend themselves. Being homosexual certainly would not increase the population. Gay marriage must not have even been considered. Look how long it took the LGBT Community to stand up for it self and come out of the closet. It took forever. That tells you the kind of hold religion had on people. Is that where you think we should be? Back in 1940, before it was determined being gay was not a sickness. If that is the case were done talking. I'm done anyway.
    Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark,
      Every time I encounter the “why do you eat pork?” argument, I shake my head in disbelief. This stuff is NOT that difficult to figure out. Let me give you a brief summary.
      There are distinctions in the Bible between ceremonial, civil, and universal (or moral) laws. Israel was a theocracy in the Old Testament and God gave certain laws that applied only to them. The dietary laws (like not eating pork, or shellfish) were prescribed only for them. God wanted to limit their intermingling with the surrounding pagan nations (it makes it difficult to socialize and go over someone’s house for dinner if you’re prohibited from eating what’s on your pagan neighbors’ plates). Secondly, there are ceremonial laws that we see in both the O.T. and N.T. as well. The animal sacrifices seen in the O.T. are no longer applicable for us today because they were intended to point FORWARD to the finished work of Christ and were fulfilled in Him. An example of a N.T. law (not seen in the O.T.) is the Lord’s Supper which looks BACK to the cross and is prescribed for Christians until He returns. Finally, a universal moral law is one that’s applicable for all people for all times (like commandments not to murder, lie, steal, worship other Gods, etc.). One easy way to differentiate between a civil/ceremonial law and a universal law is to see if God holds ALL men accountable to it or only His people.
      The prohibition against homosexual activity is without a doubt a universal moral law that’s reiterated over and over again in both Old and New Testaments. God never approves of it and never allows for it. When you write that “gay marriage must not have even been considered”, you’re absolutely right for obvious reasons. Homosexual activity has always been viewed as sinful so why would “gay marriage” have ever been considered.
      As far as divorce, it’s permitted under certain conditions (like unfaithfulness or spousal abandonment) but God says He nevertheless hates it even when allowed (and yes, I understand that people get divorced for the flimsiest reasons but that just means they’re ignoring the biblical teachings).
      The teachings of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are STILL applicable today for ALL people, Mark. You cannot ignore it or get around it.

      Delete
  8.          MORE GOOD NEWS PAUL,

    Dear Mark,

    I wanted to send you a quick note now that it’s been a little over two months since we celebrated the historic Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. Now it is time to take the next steps to make sure all Americans are protected from discrimination under federal law.

    That’s why I have joined a group of 40 Senators to introduce the Equality Act of 2015, a historic, comprehensive bill that would ban discrimination against LGBT Americans. Our bill would ensure full federal non-discrimination equality by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to federal non-discrimination laws. The Equality Act would ban discrimination in a host of areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, and federal funding.

    I have been fighting for equal rights for all Americans for over 30 years. With this new legislation, we move one step further toward our goal of true equality for all Americans.


    Sincerely,


    Debbie Stabenow
    United States Senator 
     
     Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem ending discrimination based on sexual orientation but too many people think that somehow makes the case for same-sex "marriage". It doesn't.

      Delete
    2. Paul,
      I didn't say it did. However I did say I was done with you. You only answer the questions you want to, and I will never go back in the closet no matter how hard you push. MORE GOOD NEWS Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat have been exposed. Mark

      Delete
    3. Mark,
      I tried to address as many of your questions as I could. I don’t understand the “you only answer the questions you want to” claim. Go back and re-read the posts. Do you see how you’re totally unable and unwilling to deal with Scripture and with the points that I bring up? I repeatedly ask you about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and you don’t have a response other than the “why do you eat pork?” argument. Do you now understand the differences and the distinctions in God’s various laws that should prevent you from bringing that argument up ever again? Do you understand that there’s no way to sugarcoat homosexual activity? No one’s telling you to “get back in the closet”, as you say, but God wants you to recognize homosexual activity for what it is (sin) and turn from it. No one’s FORCING you to engage in that type of behavior (at least I HOPE they’re not). You have the ability to TURN from it regardless of whether those desires remain, or not (that’s what 2 Corinthians 6:11 says). It’s no different than God commanding heterosexuals to turn from sexual activity prior to marriage which may mean a lifetime of celibacy if they never find that marriage partner. You have to be really careful, Mark, because God not only warns people about the love of sin, He warns them that if they don’t accept His truth, He will make them believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). That’s pretty scary stuff and pretty dangerous ground!
      Why is the Courser/Gamrat story “GOOD NEWS”, to you? It’s always sad, for a genuine Christian, to see ANYONE involved in sin. I suppose David sinning with Bathsheba would have also been “GOOD NEWS”. You may or may not yet be in the 2 Thessalonians crowd. Only time will tell if you’re willing to turn from what you know, deep down, is wrong.

      Delete
  9. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-levitical-laws-apply-gays-no-one-else?utm_medium=email&utm_source=botb&utm_campaign=rightwingwatch
    Pat Robertson

    ReplyDelete