Amendment One Foes Misguided, Sort Of…
According to this article in the Charlotte Observer, over 30 religious leaders in Charlotte used last weekend’s services to speak out against passage of Amendment One, which would ban gay marriage in North Carolina and is on the ballot during the May 8 Primary elections.
Cats laying with dogs might be an almost over the top metaphor here, but it’s no wonder organized religion is losing credibility when churches are coming together to support action expressly prohibited by the tenets of the Christian belief system.
Indeed, Rev. Chris Ayers of Wedgewood Baptist Church went on the record as saying, “Shame on Baptists who support Amendment One. The fulfillment of the scripture is the love of God and loving your neighbor.”
He certainly has the part about loving your neighbor correct, but seems to forget the verse, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
We certainly love our neighbors, but we must not forget to also condemn sin and value those who seek forgiveness rather than continue to behave in a sinful way.
The clergy’s opposition to the amendment is disappointing, at least for the reasons they have given.
You see, opposition to the amendment is actually the correct course of action for believers in both limited government and the sanctity of the church.
Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Government didn’t invent it and I don’t believe government should have any role in defining what it is. To get really anal (no pun intended), by defining what is a religious institution, I think that this is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Understand full well there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state” in the usual use of the term. The statement comes from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists where he outlines that the state would not interfere with the church. In this amendment one situation, it looks like the state is trying to do exactly that by making a religious act a government edict.
The State’s role is contract law when it comes to this. While the amendment specifically states it won’t interfere with mutual contracts of ownership, it still sets the definition of marriage, which is outside government’s purview to do, or should be.
Here is the text of the amendment:
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
By defining marriage as between a man and woman, is not government making a law establishing a particular religious institution? It might be one this author happens to agree with, but nonetheless.
The ministers in question have every right to voice their opinion, regardless of what side they fall on. To be in opposition to the amendment is the correct position to take.
However, they should be against the amendment for defining marriage for them, not because of any claim to “tolerance” or “Christian love”. That is nonsensical. They are in effect endorsing the practice of gay marriage, against even a layman’s interpretation of scripture, and not defending their right to claim marriage as a sacred institution up to the church to define.
As a Deist who leans in favor of Christianity, I do believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and regardless of what the government tries to define it as, I always will. I just get a little worried when the government starts to take the place of religion in a circumstance like this where there is no actual harm or damage to 3rd parties being done. (For example, “thou shall not murder” is a religious edict, but perfectly in tuned with government jurisdiction.)
Marriage is an institution that should be up to the church to define. As the recent resolution by the North Carolina Libertarian Party says, “A free and proud people do not ask the State for permission to marry.” Government should look to contract law alone. If two people desire to share their possessions or grant hospital visitation rights, that is certainly not a problem, and government should defend the decisions that two consenting adults make between themselves.
Government, however, oversteps its bounds when it decides what “marriage” is in terms of domestic legal unions. To them, it should be a matter of contract, and nothing more. As such, it should recognize any and all contracts regardless of sexual orientation.
Leave the definition of marriage to those who actually have authority in the matter. It isn’t the government.
Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Or…my favorite: People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
If you really believe “A free and proud people do not ask the State for permission to marry.” then why are you “disappointed” that clergy are standing up to this bullying move by the State? Christ calls us to love one another. Nothing loving about this ammendement which would harm children and tear families apart. Gay marriage is ALREADY illegal in NC. This uneccessary ammendment is just a way to (no pun intended) stick it to people who are already bullied and demonized enough already – – FOR NO BENEFIT TO THE GENERAL POPULATION. Good Christians, AND Good Conservatives, should stand together against this mean spirited intervention by the state.
I hope I didn’t make my point that poorly. I agree with you 100%.
I am opposed to this amendment because it encourages government to involve itself in a religious affair.
I am opposed to “gay marriage”, but only because the church *should be* opposed to “gay marriage”. I am disappointed in the churches that don’t seem to have a problem it. They are saying “no” to this amendment from a tolerance standpoint, which is the wrong angle to take. They should be against government defining their religion for them.
I understand, and in the body of the article you do explain – Sort Of…
Maybe you need a new headline writer…
In the private, religious realm, I think “tolerance” (as in the example of Christ’s unconditional love) is in fact exactly what the clergy should be about. How is treating others with hate winning them over to Christ?
In the public, governmental realm, I could care less who marries who as I don’t think it is my business or by extension the business of the state.
In terms of the republican party, it just strikes me as unnecessarily cruel and mean spirited and as a result very, very bad for our “brand.” “Conservatism” within the political realm refers to the role of government, NOT the role of the clergy or “morality”. Clergy are not democratically elected and therefore should not be attempting to make law.
A noble man, Gracchus, gets married to another man – but such brides are infertile no matter what drugs they try or how much they are whipped in the Lupercalia.
Juvenal Satire II Line 117
Thanks for this, Christian. One of the few Republicans in the General Assembly who got it right on Amendment One was Glen Bradley, who made the same argument on the House Floor during debate on this. A clip from those arguments can be found here: http://youtu.be/XaJ2iF9oLi0
Here, here! The three old guys in the background look like they could give a darn. 🙂 Glen is running for State Senate this year, correct? How about posting a link to how people can support him? Just sayin…
Great idea, Christian. Anyone wanting to support a Constitutional Conservative who understands the proper role of government, head on over to http://glenbradley2012.com/ and throw a $10-spot his way.
Great article Christian.
I couldn’t agree more.
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. The somewhat shameful history of the marriage license is further proof that marriage should not be under the purview of the state at all.
For all those supporting such an amendment I ask you to consider this hypothetical scenario.
Suppose sometime in the future the state defines marriage as only legal between two men or two women? What about if it’s defined as valid only between two people of the same race? Would this prevent you from getting married ? Would you think this was an acceptable exercise of the state’s power?
Government should not speak about marriage in any way, shape or form. It needs to get out of the licensing business.
Marriage should be left up to the individual and whatever religious, spiritual, etc organization that they belong to.
Christian,
I am very pleased that, as a believer, you have taken this position. It is well past time that those that call themselves “conservative” be forced to have a reckoning with the principles they claim to espouse. Your principled stands on personal issues such as this will only help in this regard. A hearty thank you from Union County….
A “reckoning” with whom, exactly?
As a Pastor I am opposed to govco even acknowledging if a man and woman is married. The whole concept of marriage law, license, etc is nothing more than a way for govco to control folks and buy them off with tax perks. Everyone should be angry that this is even a issue on any level. If we return to what the founders intended concerning severly restricted govco it would be in the hands of religious institution and not govco. I teach and speak against homosexuality. I support marriage between a man and woman. As a PastorI teach marriage is between a man, woman and Yahweh. Govco has nothing to do with it. If we religious leaders will stop looking to govco for perks and benefits this would be a non issue.
that was a great article. I to wish the gov had no part of marriage. When my wife and I got married in 94, I had to get checked by a doctor, in order get a marrige licence. I guess they wanted to make sure I “was clean and sound for breeding” as we used to say in the thoroughbred business.
I take it you “passed”? 😉
so far so good BCG- That’s a giggle
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t British insistence that only Church of England vicars could perform marriages one of the major issues that drove Presbyterians in the Carolinas nuts?
Yes that is what provoked many in the swamps and backwoods of the Carolinas to get involved in the war!
Could be why my own ancestors back in the swamp never managed to get married.
The comment “government didn’t invent it…” is actually rather amusing except for the seriousness of the issue. Of course government didn’t invent it. Almost everything government does is a reflection of what the people want, what society has deemed appropriate behavior or not. When one gets married the marrying authority states ‘now, by the power invested in me by the state of NC…. I now pronounce you man and wife.’ Anything without that statement is not marriage but a form of living together, which is acceptable for any couple. Marriage has been a legal institution, far beyond religious, for years, because the people wanted it to be a legal institution.
A reflection of what the people want? Maybe back when you were taking your girl to the sock hop…
Actually you are wrong Lewis.
Marriage licensing came about largely as a means of miscegenation. The requirement of a license was used to keep black people from marrying white people. Without a license you could not get married. When two people of opposite races tried to marry they were denied a license thus no marriage.
To argue “because the people wanted it” flies in the face of historical reality.
Licensing is just a leftover from a racist past. Nothing more nothing less
Jason,
You make my point. The people wanted those laws, else they wouldn’t have come into being.
No, not all the people, just enough of the people to get laws passed into existence.
And BCG, we should still have sock hops. Quite a bit of fun was had there.
So Lewis you contend that people want all the laws that come into existence ? That’s empirically false
Perhaps, but where, please tell me, do laws come from otherwise?
Love the sock hop idea. 🙂
But the idea that passed laws are loved by the people is absent reality. Just look at Obamacare. It was passed, so do the people support it? Absolutely not! Every poll shows solid opposition. Politicians do what they do, but sadly it rarely reflects the peoples will.
Christian is right, the idea that politicians pass laws due to public opinion is absolutely wrong. Politicians make policy DESPITE public opinion, not because of it. The only kind of pressure they respond to is organized political pressure, usually from well-financed lobbies or, more rarely, organized grassroots pressure from within their districts. They do NOT respond to random public outcries or periodic grand marches/protests.
The purpose of marches on Washington (or Raleigh, or wherever) is so that the groups organizing those marches can corrall a lot of people in one place and get their contact information, That way, those new contacts can be mobilized in the future by the groups that organized the march to put focused pressure on specific politicians in order to swing votes in the legislature. Marches and protests themselves are meaningless without that follow-up.
Christian, not loved – that is quite the stretch from what I said. People, not even all the people, are the root of all laws. Some people may detest the laws which are passed and others see no good in them. But others, as in the instant case, see a gradual changing of society which is opposed by one group and supported by another. The ‘conservative’ crowd wants to use government to maintain what they see as the proper way for social institutions to remain. The opposition thinks government should get out of the way. Each side uses rationalizations of law and precedent. The fact is our society is slowly evolving and setting in place legal restrictions or requirements either hurries that along or slows it down. Jason brought up miscegenation earlier – and where are we with that? Society has already moved along, not completely, but…. My own views have changed, not for me, but for how I view others and their decisions.
The gay marriage thing is an evolution of thought also. For my part, I could care less.
In rural areas they tended to just live together. My mother was the first woman in her Maternal line of ancestry that had a formal ceremony and paperwork to show she was married. All the rest of them down in Hot Coffee and Sullivan’s Hollow, Mississippi were Common Law
The government didn’t define murder either. It is sad that the state of morality in this country and state has devolved to the point that Amendment one has become necessary.
The state shouldn’t have to (actually cannot) define marriage, however it is entirely the state’s business to decide to prefer one form of human interaction above another, or not.
Bryan
The state can prefer anything it wants however legalizing on form of interaction and incentivizing it goes far beyond just preference.
Your point also ignores that the state is practicing a form of discrimination based entirely on sexual preference, while giving preference to heterosexual marriage.
It’s not up to the state to dictate society’s morality. It should be a reflection of it.
I think everyone here has missed the point. This is a defense of our freedom of religion and NOT a contolling of it. The gay/pride side of the house is trying to force their imoral lifestyle upon us by use of our children and media to the point where they ARE trying to force us to change our religion. The government already forces religion upon the masses in public schools under the names humanism, environmentalism, tolerence, sustainable development, evolution, and the like. We the people are trying to stand up and choose not to allow any more of our religious freedoms stripped by a socialistic agenda and overly burdened money hungry government as it is. It is vital to support the marriage amendment for the fact that if it is not passed it will open the door for a continued infultration and mutation of our right to freedom of religion as it was and is attendend by the Constitutions of both the US and NC. Remember that we are endowed by our Creator with LIFE, LIBERTY, and then the persuit of happiness. They are in this order for a reason. The persuit of your happiness cannot by law infringe upon my liberties and one’s liberty cannot snuff out another’s life. The MBLA/PRIDE agenda is trying to say their right to happiness overrides my liberty of religion and that’s not how the Founding Fathers intended it to be.
JCR
If government no longer has anything to say about marriage (no licensing, no perks, etc) and gay people can find a church/temple/etc that will marry them how does that infringe on your religious liberty ?
Will you no longer be able to marry if gay people are able to marry one another? Will your marriage be cheapened in yours eyes or the eyes of your god because two women are also married?
You rail against the government fostering “religions” on the people but yet you seem to have no problem with government only sanctioning your religious interpretation of marriage on everyone. You cannot complain about the government’s intervention in religious affairs in some areas but propose sanctioning religious beliefs in another area. In other words you cannot have it both ways.
On a side not the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land and this trying to infer that is how we should structure society is a fruitless argument. By the way initially Jefferson wrote “property” not “pursuit of happiness.”
How does the extension of a “right” to one group of people strip another group of people of that same “right”? How does one person’s pursuit of happiness with another willing person strip a third, unrelated and unaffected person of their liberty? I will not feel any more or less free if my nieghbor marries a man or a woman. I will not affect me one iota. This kind of thinking is what led to Sharia Law, and we, as Americans, are better than that.
Sharia Law? Coming soon to a city near you. Who was Adam & Eve? Hmmm.
What will the left do when the Religious Right realizes that Sharia gives them the legislated morality that they crave and they convert? The Left won’t be able to criticize them any more. They may just find Paris (or in this case Washington) is worth a Haj.
“The State” is you and I – and I decidely do not think it is for either one of us to be going there. This is just a way to gin up the redneck base – and to what end? Who will be “helped” by this law?
I’m glad I stirred this up a bit. I wasn’t going to respond but I think there is such misunderstanding of the loss of freedom of religion in this country that it has blinded many. A failure to pass this ammendment will lead to ammunition that people will use to warp and mutate religious beliefs into something that does not represent what the Bible says and thus changes the Christian religion. History is on my side. The proof is in Europe, where in some countries you will be thrown into jail for preaching what the bible says about the abomination and SIN that homosexuality is. They have literally gained such a stronghold that it is preventing people from FREELY practicing their religious beliefs and preaching what their beliefs state. It will happen the same way here in the US. It’s happened in different areas (just see the lies evolution and abotionists preach together) and it will happen here. People are loosing their religious rights in America due to over tolerance and sometimes we as a people need to stand up against the indoctrination that’s being forced down our throats. This is a wake up call to all of you who think our freedoms are in tact, they are not. Our freedoms are being stolen little by litte and if we do not adapt provisions that protect them, then the opposition will steal them. History IS on my side. I’ll leave you with a link to a news story about a pastor being arrested for reading the Bible? WAKE UP America, we are about to loose everything.
The government is trying to force religion to be defined by them! They are trying to take away our freedom to practice freely. Here’s a little proof.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/taking-liberties-arrested-for-reading-bible/
These pastors are no different than the president we have at this time. They both are ignoring the foundational documents of the position they SERVE in. How can a pastor get through seminary and ever hold such beliefs. These pastors should be removed from the pulpit by their congregation. But that is probably the problem, the pastors are afraid to go against the congregation for fear of losing their job and their money. The result is they go against the One, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they are suppose to be a vessel for the pouring out God’s word to His sheep. They will answer for there errant teachings when they stand before God.
No, these pastors are totally correct in their reading of the Bible. Those who choose to ignore advances in human understanding of sexual orientation, and God’s gift to us all of intelligence and understanding, are the ones who go against God’s word. It’s a shame every time there is an advance in understanding science, biology, genetics, and so forth, there are those who can’t accept it because it changes something. The Christian Church used to believe the earth was flat and the center of the universe – most church organizations have moved beyond that understanding. Sexual orientation is just a fairly recent (last 140 or so years) concept in church thinking. But change is beginning to be seen in various denominations, and the change will continue. I think Speaker Tillis was correct in his assessment that if the amendment passes, it will be repealed in the next 20 or so years when the next generation moves in to positions of power. What a waste of time, effort, brain power and resources this amendment fight is.
By the way, there is a little bit of a miscoception as to the name of the bill and how it will be on the primary ballot, it will list Marriage Amendment as “Constitutional Amendment,” Not “Amendment One”, it is believe that oponents of the amendment is trying to confuse the voters by callining it amendment 1. Also you must be registered to vote by April 13th to vote on this amendment due to the fact it will be voted on during the May 8th primaries. Remember you want to vote “FOR” the amendment.
No, those who are truly conservative will want to vote against the amendment
I oppose Amendment One for several reasons. Like the author, I agree that churches and individuals should make the rules, not the government. Nowhere in any Bible does it say “By the power granted in me by Caesar, I now thee wed,” because even Caesar – who portrayed himself as a God – did not consider so personal a matter to be under his purview.
In addition, I would say that NC State law already has defined marriage, whether badly or poorly or inappropriately; to elevate this to a Constitutional Amendment is a bad idea. The Constitution should be lean and free of clutter and focused on a very small, limited government; I’d rather take some stuff out (such as government schools) than add stuff.
The problem is that at anytime a juudge could over turn the NC law.
For those who want more information about the Marriage Amendment go to this website: http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/
. This is a site that deceptively makes you think that all NC families will be affected by the passage of the Marriage Amendment. Don’t take my word go there and check for yourself. They are for same sex marriage and against the Marriage Amendment. Go to the site and see if it appears that is the point they are trying to make or are they trying to convince everyone that the Marriage amendment is an attack on all marriages.
Or http://www.It'sAdamandEveNOTAdamandSteve.org
A sticky issue indeed! I think it should be noted that it was the church that requested the state enter into this issue by requiring state sanctioned contractual agreements for those who marry. This was done along with the church’s own requirement for a written contract. As time has gone on the marriage contract has become the jurisdiction of the state, albeit by default and for many legal reasons such as disbursement of estates after death. So, the marriage contract has become legal evidence in the application of many laws and falls under the jurisdiction of the state and the courts. The result is that the state must now answer the question definitively or change the laws to adjust to the changes in society or get out of it altogether.
As a Republican and as an elder in the Presbyterian Church US, and retired attorney, I am totally opposed to that amendment on many different levels. It totally trashes the US Constitution on full faith and credit, religious liberty and equal protection concepts. It singles out a group of folks for discrimination in a foundational document (ther NC constitution), and deals with a current social issue in a foundational document. It is totally unnecessary, does nothing to protect anyone’s marriage, and, as the article points out, is bad social policy. Conservatives who actually think the matter through have to vote against the proposed amendment, just a Tea Party NC Republican Congresswoman Renee Elmers is doing.
Claiming to be an Elder of a church and being for same sex marriage is like a Muslim suicide bomber terrorist saying he is a Christian Sunday school teacher. Also Ed, in your list of titles you failed to mention you special reason for wanting this law not to pass past, it appears you aren’t quite as proud to announce that reason in public here. Or is it that you want to pretend you are just a concerned citizen that has no personal connection to the law being past for a better affect for you cause.
Excuse me? You are an evil little troll and have perfectly illustrated why everyone, gay or straight, conservative or liberal, must vote NO on Ammendment One. The constitution is not your little playground. It belongs to ALL people in the state and was designed to enumerate rights, not to take them away. How does someone else being gay affect you at all? Newsflash: it is not a contagious disease. You can’t “catch” it anymore than you can “catch” having freckles, blue eyes — or being really, really stupid.
Thank you for clearing that up, I much more at ease now that I know I can’t catch your freckles, blue eyes and your really really stupidness. You know that is a close to a description of Howdy Doody, you got any pictures would like to see if you really look like him. Also the discussion is not about homosexuality it is about same sex marriage. As for how same sex marriage will affect me and mine maybe you would like to see the results from a state where same sex marriage has passed. Check out this site.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
Tory
Perhaps you should google the Slippery Slope fallacy
Marriage is a societal institution that transcends cultures, and predates the church. Different societies around the world have defined, and redefined, the concept of marriage to fit their desires, and to what extent it is recognized by the government, or not, long before the US was formed.
The marriage amendment, or laws defining marriage, are not one bit different in this state, at this time, than some African tribe today, or the people in Egypt 3000 years ago, doing the same.
To attack it as solely a religious institution to be separated from government, is to revise the history of the world, and is a false reason for the attack. Such tactic is another of the progressive tools meant to be distracting from the real assault on our societal institutions.
If you wish for others to refrain from treading upon you, perhaps you would be so kind as to watch where you place your own large jack boots….
I’m not sure what point you really made with your comment.
(was replying to “DontTreadOnMe”) Hypocrisy galls me is all. Acting all Tea Party while having no understanding of what a constitution is or what the role of government is. Don’t Tread On Me is usually a shorthand warning to government not to overstep or deny rights/place uneccessary burdens…so why use that slogan as your screen name while advocating overstepping?
I have question for all of you straight men who feel we the people must “protect” ourselves from gay people by passing a law against them. If we passed a law forbidding you to ever have sex with a woman ever again, would that stop you? ( I thought so…) Part of me is angry that a Christian would spew such hatred…but mostly I feel so very very sad that you are unable to feel the real love and promise Christ brought to the world for all who truly hear and follow his message of love and acceptance and gratitude.
You really really show your ignorance of the Gospel when you make any kind of statement that would vaguely suggest that Jesus would approve of same sex mariage. God hates sin, not the sinner. God is so pure he cannot even look on sin. I believe you are best to stick with the political side of this discussion although you don’t have much to stand on there either. But you are free to pursue any route you wish towards perdition.
Just curious…where in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John did Jesus speak about homosexuality?
That’s easy – NO WHERE. Nothing Christ like about bullying others. “They will know we are Christians by our love…”
As usual, the discussion has succumbed to name-calling and personal attacks by a few. Too bad. Let’s get back to the main issue – if and why the state should support marriage, whether or not church leaders do or do not support wedlock between a man and a woman. The false assumption that marriage does not matter to the common welfare is the position taken by libertarians. There is plenty of evidence that the state has an interest in maintaining strong kinship systems, for which wedlock between a man and a woman is the essential natural foundation.
The name calling started quite a while back with Howdy Doody calling the names like calling someone really really stupid and before trashing donttreadonme.
The fundamental reason for the state to protect marriage by a license is that marriage and kinship systems are the natural and most effective way for new citizens to arrive, be nurtured well, and therefore become adults who make a contribution to the common welfare. It is neither discriminatory nor disparaging to other types of relationships to recognize and value marriage between a man and a woman as unique and therefore worth recognizing as unique. The gay rights movement (but not all homosexuals) want to claim marital benefits and prestige, but refuse to recognize they themselves rule out other types of same-sex “loving relationships” who could make the very same claims. A lawsuit already is in process to extend the definition of marriage to include only homosexual couples in NC by judicial decision, as has happened in other states. That is why thirty states, including all other southeastern states, have already passed marriage amendments, because homosexual activists will change current laws about marriage by going through the courts. It has nothing to do with religion.
Joanne
I am sure you have empirical proof for the first paragraph you wrote right?
Can you not see that that which govt gives it can take away?
Suppose one day govt decides the only form of marriage it will recognize is that between two same sex couples? Would that stop you from getting married? Would that make your marriage any less valid in your eyes?
Govt should not recognizes any type of marriage. That way it cannot take away the right at a later date
I cannot believe that on a conservative limited government blog, there are many arguing for the coercive, intrusive power of the state to keep its tentacles locked onto our personal choices on who we do or don’t marry. How is this not an example of overreaching government? Do you like the idea of a govt that can tell you how to live your personal life?
It’s no use, Jason. You can’t argue with the limbic brain. Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right…
Adam is right – the two parties are becoming exactly the same, the choices they wish to control and the rights they wish to usurp are different, but they are two sides of the same totalitarian coin.
This “conservative limited government blog” encourages and appreciates spirited and cogent debate, with equal emphasis on both adjectives, which affords opposing opinions and points of view. Even those ours are right.
Just sayin 🙂
Jason: Empirical
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Beyond that, marriage is a reflection of the natural state of the human race. Some species are monogamous others have no mates except sexual. Humans vary somewhere between, forming long term relationships, but not always monogamous relationships. Marriage by the church or state or any other ‘authority’ is simply a reflection of that natural fact. Empiracally shown to be true – by the way. If, however, society, which is nothing more than a coming together, a community of individuals decides upon certain rules and procedures to maintain the natural state, to enhance it, then that is the right of society, the group of individuals.
In this country we have a constitution, actually numerous constitutions, whose sole purpose is to define government and the restrictions upon government and how it shall operate. Men and women wrote these to enhance what they perceived to be the best way for their society to act. The amendment in question is going before the people to be voted upon – the people have a chance to make the law directly. The reason it is on the ballot has been addressed previously.
Lewis
Reread the first two sentences of your last paragraph
They directly contradict each other.
Constitutions restrain government. They do preach to society how it should act.
Jason,
I disagree, obviously. What is a constitution except a description of how government, a reflection of society, should be designed to act?
Lewis et al
Simple question.
Does government dictate morality to its citizens or is it a reflection of their morality?
Both. Law reflects morality and morality underpins law. Morality shifts, however, usually precede changes in law. Which is why using activist courts (who are only supposed to enforce laws written by elected legislators), manipulating courts to change morality against the wishes of the electorate, is a bad idea. The amendment simply stops the use of activist courts to “reinterpret” laws on the books.
If you are worried about what can be taken away you had better be thinking about getting this farse of a president out of office.
Keeping those noses of government bureaucrats out of people’s bedrooms and kicking the current occupant of the Oval Office out on his tail are not mutually exclusive.
It is not about anyone’s “personal life”, neither mine nor yours. It is not about what any two people decide to do. Social policy by government addresses what is best for the whole population, in general. Here is at least one summary of “empirical proof”, but to understand it you will need to get your minds wrapped around the public good, not extreme individualism: Witherspoon Institute. 2008. Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles.
Ah the public good argument.
Here comes government to decide what’s in our best interest. Tell me Joanne who exactly defines the “public good?”
If your answer is government then that would seem to be a self serving argument on the part of government don’t you think ?
“it’s for the publics own good” I wonder how many authoritarian regimes implement their policies using just such a premise. I dare say all of them.
EXACTLY. Joanne’s sacred cow may be next and I can just hear the moos when that happens…
“Public good” is determined by… the public. Via a voting process. And instituted by government and validated in the courts. That’s how this stupid amendment was brought forth to begin with. Some idiot, got it put on a ballet and now we all have to vote it down.
Some voting is done by a representative (in order to avoid mob rule) and some by super-majority or a combination thereof.
Polygamists unite! Your civil rights are being violated.
If you like, put it up for a vote. You will probably lose. But you never know. 🙂
[…] course of action for believers in both limited government and the sanctity of the church….read the rest Share this: : […]
GREAT post. Thank you for saying what I’ve been saying all along. This is a matter for the church, period. I’d take the govnt out of all marriage if I could.
This is not a religious matter. This amendment is addressing civil marriage in the state. How you manage marriages in your church, temple, cult, circle, herd, whatever… is up to your institution.
Or are you talking about taking marriage away from all of us that don’t belong to your faith?
Pretty sad commentary on the level of discourse on PH that there are 70+ comments to this article but only 3-4 on average to articles about taxes and wars.
You cannot judge the “level of discourse” on PH by number of comments on this story – the level of intellect among the general population maybe, but PH “pundits” generally have a very high “level of discourse.” Anything gay or Bill James (coincidence?) brings in the crazy tourists….
“Amendments should have lasting values that underscore our freedoms. This one is a last-gasp effort to control lifestyles by restricting rights. If it cannot stand the test of time, Amendment One should not stand at all.” – Even the state’s most conservative newspaper agrees A-1 should be withdrawn.
http://www.salisburypost.com/Opinion/040112-edit-amendment-one-and-thom-tillis-qcd
Well. Yes, for all those reasons (sorta), folks should be opposed to this amendment. It is over-reaching. It takes rights away from people. And on all levels is simply *wrong*.
As for “who owns that marriage contract”. The concept of a long term spousal-like partnership between two people has existed for a long long time. Longer than we have historical record. Does a particular faith “own it”? No. People own it. I.e., my wife and I.
The religious institutions don’t own that “contract”. If it is God that owns that contract, that doesn’t mean religious institutions are the only entities that can regulate it or recognize it. No clergyman can tell me if God blessed my marriage or not. My wife and I determine that. A clergyman performing a ceremony is a community recognition. The government doing the same or stamping a document is a recognition of something my wife and I committed to.
So, long and short of it. Any entity can say: “We consider this the criteria for marriage and you get these benefits x,y, z from us.” This Amendment sets the bar for what the state recognizes. A religious institution presumably doesn’t have to follow it… though they probably put at risk their state tax subsidy. But this claim that religious institutions own that marriage contract and the criteria and process of obtaining that contract… is utterly bogus.
Further, even if religious institutions “own” the marriage contract, they do not “own” our constitution.
Correcting myself. This Amendment doesn’t “set the bar.” It would make the current criteria even more strict. What I meant to say is that *an* Amendment can set or change the criteria of what the state recognizes as a illegitimate marriage. That can’t de-legitimate my marriage or yours, accept in how we are treated in state matters (taxes, visitation rights, and whatnot). A religious institution doesn’t have jurisdiction over any of those things. None.
In the case of this amendment… it is an insult and denigrating to our fellow human beings. Please vote “no”.
I hope that was clearer.