You raise several important issues. Let me just respond to
the one that I think is at the crux of the confusion:
- “In my opinion, the state CANNOT, by the laws as set out in the Constitution and by the equality statements in The Declaration of Independence, deny anyone certain rights that they give to others.”
Even though we would agree with the Declaration that we are
all created equal, this doesn’t mean that the State can’t discriminate
behaviorally. The State exercises the right to disqualify certain people from
driving based upon their age, performance and driving record.
In fact, all laws discriminate. Therefore, the question must
be whether or not they discriminate justly and in a way that promotes the
general welfare. This should also pertain to the institution of marriage.
The State has always exercised discrimination in regards to
marriage, divorce and child custody issues – and yes, their authority
ultimately comes from God in all areas. The State has understandably
discriminated against polygamous marriage, pedophile marriage, incestuous
marriage and forcibly arranged marriage.
Should the State not be involved? Should someone be able to
start a business marrying 100 young girls from Moldavia in order to give them
residential and monetary benefits? Should parents be prevented from marrying
off their 5-year-old girls to a billionaire for money and so he can have
sex-slaves? Of course not!
What would be the long range impact of instituting gay
marriage? Can any society survive such an institution?
• For example, in Norway, a country that has had
de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties, illegitimacy is exploding.
In Nordland, the most liberal county
of Norway, where they fly
gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, illegitimacy has soared—more than 80
percent of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock, and
nearly 70 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. Across the entire country
of Norway,
illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex
marriage. http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm
• But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this
same trend in other countries. International surveys show a mutually
re-enforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. Natural
marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is
legal.
• [Blankenhorn]: “redefining marriage to include gay and
lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in
culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child.”…He goes on
to warn that if same-sex marriage is adopted, the claim that “every child needs
a father and a mother” will probably be viewed as “divisive and discriminatory,
possibly even as hate speech.”
• Furthermore, homosexual activists are fighting to change
marriage laws because they know that there is a causal connection between law
and behavior. As people like Sullivan and Signorile have admitted, they don’t
want to change the law so they can get married, but because they know that a
change in the law will change the attitudes and behaviors about marriage and
homosexuality for all of society.
Will this nation profit from such a change?
I'm of the same school of thought Mr Mann;thanks for putting it so clearly.
ReplyDeleteI also think health insurance rates will
go up quite drastically as well. We are seeing
an escalation of society's downward spiral by
the day.
Our young people are divided on this
issue more than older adults. I'm going to share this with all the younger adults I know. thanks so much
Things look bad. I hope that this prompts many to pray for revival. With God, all things are possible.
DeleteDanny - I have thought about this since the early 90's, when my mom asked me if I'd ever consider marrying my partner at the time. I told her "NO", because I don't believe, and never have, that marriage should be redefined. As you know, God has done an amazing work in me to restructure my life from one identified as lesbian, to one now identified as Christ's.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make with my comments was that the Church gave the State the authority to define marriage. And because of that, the State, who doesn't understand what marriage really is - particularly since the Christian voice has been minimized due to hypocrisy, and maybe in some ways extended grace too freely, is now having to deal with this issue. I would prefer that an institution of the Church (Marriage) not be under the authority of the State. The State has extended certain rights to people who are married as couples(which I am not, and therefore not extended those rights).
People who consider themselves LGBT, can gain many of the rights (property rights, visitation rights, etc.) automatically given to "married" couples, by legal means. These are the rights that are being used to justify their cause. However, if it were only about property rights, this would have already happened. But it's not!
You said, "Furthermore, homosexual activists are fighting to change marriage laws because they know that there is a causal connection between law and behavior. As people like Sullivan and Signorile have admitted, they don’t want to change the law so they can get married, but because they know that a change in the law will change the attitudes and behaviors about marriage and homosexuality for all of society." This is exactly what this is about. It's about acceptance, it's about forcing attitude changes. In my "gay" days, I recall saying to Christians, "Don't shove your religion down my throat." This is what this legislation is about - retribution to those who have hurt them in the past, acceptance in a world that has not been receptive, justification of self because of a lifestyle deemed unworthy. Instead of searching hearts, we point fingers.
We, the Church, must not do the same. We must maintain the integrity of the Covenant of marriage and treat it as it should be. We need to hit the reset button and turn back to the days of married for life, til death do us part. Let's take it seriously ourselves.
On top of that, we need to be informed about what marriage really is and what homosexuality really is and we need to share that information with others. I appreciate the facts you posted here and wish more people would have them when they approach this topic in the public arena. Too often, we (the Church) use Church language to state our cause. This is great when talking about Baptism, Confirmation, The Lord's Supper, etc. which are clearly institutions of the Church. But we can't only use that language to talk about marriage since it is BOTH a religious and a civil institution. We can use Church language and how it affects and reflects our relationship with God, and God's relationship with Himself, when discussing this in our churches, and in our personal relationships. But when we are talking in the civil arenas, we need another language. We need civil reasons and those reasons are becoming very blurry right now.
Your friend, Chris
I am very concerned with what this all means to the future of our society. I live in this society and I want to see it flourish, but it doesn't. At the same time, I want everyone to know the freedom that Christ purchased us on the cross, but not everyone does. My job is to love them in His name, not my own. To be about the work of Charity as it has been shown to me. I wish all would let go of their civil rights and hold more tightly to the rights endowed by their Creator. I wish they would give up their need for justification, but I know to do so may mean they have to give up the only thing they have that gives them purpose.
ReplyDeleteChris
Chris,
DeleteI really appreciate your remarks, and your concern for the gay community is apparent. Love is really key, as you so well expressed. Our prayer should continually be about how we should show love.
Mann: ...and yes, their authority ultimately comes from God in all areas.
ReplyDeleteThis is false, and is actually admitted to be false in the declaration of independance:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
I've already addressed the claims of the article you link to here. it would be nice if you either acknowledged that the link is seriously flawed and stopped referring to it, or addressed the flaws that I've pointed out :-)
Hey very nice blog!
ReplyDeleteHere is my blog post ; Matt Gorden