Who Should Deal With It

The "it" is the legal issue of "gay marriage". I put the term in quotes because I simply do not believe in any practical or real sense of the word that it is possible. Marriage, which has been ordained by God, simply cannot be accomplished by two dudes or two gals. It is impossible.

They can enter into a binding contract that is recognized by local, state or federal law – but it will not be marriage. Some 'civilized' folk like to call this a 'civil union'. Alright, go ahead an make yourself happy, if that will do it.

Alan, the Calvinist Gadfly, turned me on to this blog by Lashawn Barber.  It is a primarily political blog.  I likey. 

My question for you is – if we (or you) believe that the government should regulate "gay marriage" (i.e. outlaw it), then which government should do it? There are really only three choices:

1. The Federal Government – which will could accomplish this through an amendment to the United States Constitution. The primary benefit – judges at the federal and state level would be prevented from thwarting the will of the people in creating a law. In case you are not aware, a Fulton County Superior Court judge recently declared Georgia's definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman as 'unconstitutional'. I believe that popular support for this referendum was around 70% – but what right do people have to create laws for their own and societal's well being – right?

2. State Governments – Should state governments be allowed to make the determination on a state by state basis as to whether or not 'two dudes wanting to enter matrimonial bliss' is legal?

3. Who cares – maybe you just don't really care…. and think that if gays want to "marry" we should let 'em.

Guiroo and I had a discussion regarding how Christians view and treat the sin of homosexuality a few months back. It was enlightening to me, in that I really realized how difficult it is for me to 'forgive' that sin – or even to see the value of sharing the gospel with a homosexual. What a sin on my part!

So, I am not saying I am there yet – and not condoning continued homosexual activity after someone places their faith in Christ – but I suspect that a lot of us have a great amount of disdain and disgust for this sin. Here's to praying that we would have the same level of disgust for all known sin in our lives.

So, what say you folk. Pick one of the three and tell me why.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Grab bag, Politics

3 Comments on “Who Should Deal With It”


  1. Federal Marriage Amendment: Bone for the Base Dogs

    Now that George Bush and his co-president Vicente Fox of Mexico have their America-destroying “immigration” plan working its way through a “deballed” Senate, Bush is trying to throw his base dogs a bone with a homosexual &#8220…


  2. I carefully say #3 – who cares? But let me explain…

    Marriage is a word. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, marriage is defined as

    (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

    Obviously, this definition has been “modernized” in the last few years. But note that marriage as a word has meaning only in the action and state it describes: the uniting of oneself to a member of the opposite sex. But wait a second, there’s a second part to the definition, you say. Yes, but note the way in which gay marriage is defined: not only does it use the word “marriage,” it even describes it as “a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.” Two observations:You don’t use a word in its own definition. If gay marriage was marriage just, then we wouldn’t need to use the word itself to define it. This gives an indication that gay marriage != marriage.If we let gay marriage = marriage, we have lost something. In short, we have lost a word from the English language. By redefining marriage as something that is not marriage, we have not only created an institution without meaning, we have removed the meaning from a word that used to have a definition.So no, I don’t care if we outlaw it or not. Campaigning to outlaw gay marriage seems very harsh and potentially bad press for Christianity. It is construed as hate every day. Gay marriage certainly should not be legalized, because we cannot recognize as marriage an institution that is not marriage. But for that same reason, outlawing gay marriage is tacit concession that such an institution exists. I believe we should stick to the essential definition of marriage, which precludes any perversions inherently. If proponents of “gay marriage” want to start something else, a new institution or such, let it happen. Let the IRS decide if it wants to allow another way to tax people—that’s not so much a moral issue. Those who want this “gay marriage” institution to become marriage are really campaigning against marriage itself. Their success means the end of meaning to all marriage. Against that I will position myself.

    Personally, a new institution of “gay marriage” is repulsive and sinful. But politically, I cannot say that it should not be allowed. But every fiber of my being will protest the equation of “gay marriage” with marriage. I can’t let the English language be destroyed like that, and I can’t let the institution of marriage be desecrated by such an association.

  3. kevinschultz Says:

    I was going to read JS’s response, but it was too long. 😉

    Think of the revenue the government could collect. SS marriage licenses, the fees for changing of names on driver licenses, etc… These people just want to pay taxes like the rest of us.

    It would be interesting the impact “it” would on the legal industry, i.e. how many divorces would result from the new law and the % vs. real marriages.

    As for the discussion, if there is no federal law defining traditional marriage, then the feds should pass one. But if they don’t get around to it, Jesus will come back anyway. My concern is less about SS marriage but regarding their rights to be foster and adoptive parents. But then again, I am sinner just the same as them, and I have kids. Sin, the great equalizer of mankind.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: