Aspects of the Marriage Debate

The Debate

The problem with the "debate" right now is that it is not being allowed to occur.  Far too many of the self-proclaimed "accepting" people, rather than identifying and evaluating both sides of the issue methodically and dispassionately, immediately take offense to any dissenting opinion.  Such dissension gets summarily dismissed as naive, bigoted or ignorant.  The most prominent influences on today's pop culture - entertainment, journalism, universities - are firmly entrenched in this camp, which is why it is not surprising that the Millennials are the very first generation to hold a majority position in favor of gay marriage.  To be certain, the folks on the side of redefining marriage have good points to discuss and consider.  I wish they would simply acknowledge that those who don't agree with them also have good points, rather than resorting to mob-mentality and shame tactics.  This dynamic can be observed on this clip from Piers Morgan's program on CNN:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/must-see-video-a-marriage-expert39s-masterful-handling-of-piers-morgan

It wasn't right for the anti-gay lynch mobs of the past, and it's not right for the other side now.  When about 47% of the population is not in favor of instituting gay marriage, should we just ignore their voice, assuming all these people are bigoted, fearful ignoramuses?  How can one qualify the insinuation that today's wisdom is inherently superior to that of our forefathers?

The Legal Aspect

The focus thus far has been who should reserve the "right to marry."  As both conservative and liberal Justices of the Supreme Court could prepare respective opinions on the constitutionality of the "right to marry," the divide in the Court simply illustrates that the 10th Amendment should dictate: The people in their respective states should be able to define marriage as much as they will it.  Status of rights that the Supreme Court must defend among all states (outlined in the Bill of Rights) are not at stake here...at least for adults.

The Religious Aspect

When the Christian community vocally denounces gay marriage, citing violation of Biblical principles, advocates of gay marriage usually make the assumption that Christians are just imposing their beliefs on others who don't share those same beliefs.*  However, as long as the rights of citizens to decide in each state (as in California's Prop 8) is upheld, there is no imposition of will other than that of the majority.  This applies in either direction, which sets the stage for the people presenting both cases.  Let us not prohibit or discourage either side from doing so.

Basing legislation on principles that happen to coincide with the tenets of a particular faith is not grounds for dismissal, just as basing legislation on secular principles should also not result in a similar immediate dismissal.  If the Republic has a religious majority, the laws of the land will naturally reflect it.  It does not mean that the State has adopted a particular religion that then binds the conscience of all the people to pay tribute to a particular religious establishment.  Similarly, if the Republic has a secular majority, the laws will reflect it, and religious practice need not be inhibited.

Notwithstanding, since the concept of America is rooted in both a culture and a Constitution, we should examine which elements of our culture produced prosperity and which have produced decline.  The Constitution provides the framework to debate and legislate these issues democratically, without prematurely relinquishing its power to the Judiciary.  Rather than immediately seeking the Court's decision (in either direction), the electorate ought to be focused on democratically deciding which societal aspects and cultural elements need to be preserved or abandoned, in so far as public policy relates.

Christians (myself included) contend that our society compounds its problems with every step away from the Biblical tenets of the past.  Removal of prayer from schools and the 10 Commandments from public institutions, no-fault divorces, the advent of the abortion holocaust, and the mandate for a one-sided teaching of evolution in schools:  these can all be correlated to the breakdown of our society through the championing of adult "freedom," the erosion of accountability to God, and the progressive collapse of the American family.  Broken and dysfunctional homes account for a lion's share of the national dropout rate, drug dependency, teenage pregnancy, and crime.  This is not to say at only Christians can exercise moral responsibility in raising their children.  However, when non-Christians exercise moral responsibility, they are just demonstrating unintentional alignment with Christian principles, which still exists in our nation's cultural fabric. Our Founders were natural law theorists, attributing origins to God.  Accountability to our original religious tenets represents the highest probability of most people adopting right principles and allowing our children to reap the benefits.  Secular humanism has never proven a similar track record (quite to the contrary).  Even de Toqueville surmised that America's greatness lied in its Christian values, and that it would not last for long if faith were abandoned.

If today's problems with heterosexual marriage and relationships are broken, they are broken due to departure from Biblical principles, not because of them.  Continuing in this wrong direction cannot hope to solve any problems, and will promise to only steepen them.  Doesn't abandoning the Judeo-Christian tenets in favor of the secular humanist tenets just replace one prevailing religious system with another?  World Communism bore all the same marks of a religion without calling itself one, even while outlawing Christianity.

The Social Aspect

Once we agree that we can openly discuss what has produced social decline (and not just resort to dismissive name-calling), even apart from the religious aspects, we can look at second and third order effects of redefining marriage and family.  Family courts need to be able to lend value (of course, on a case-by-case basis) to what research clearly shows is the best formula for raising children:  a traditional structure with a husband and a wife.  This doesn't mean that the traditional one is the ONLY definition of family; it just means we know it generally favors the best social outcomes.  Expanding the definition of marriage and family to include homosexual unions exacerbates the problem family courts have today with being an effective complement to the societal interest of preserving and improving the integrity of the American family.  Instead, the family court would just bow to the protected status that homosexuals could gain if this issue ends up getting decided by the Supreme Court.

My children's greatest current challenge is that the family courts no longer lend much weight to the security and stability offered to them in a traditional family of a husband and a wife.  They refuse, in spite of clear academic evidence, to make a value judgement that a traditional family construct is usually superior to that of a single parent or a broken home.  Instead, the fantasy of the "blended family" between divorced parents - even in situations with extremely disparate and incompatible parenting means and methods - is imposed and given clear precedence over the possibility that a new family structure is best for the child.  In the court's view, the role of a non-custodial biological father is preeminent, despite an extremely underwhelming track record in terms of basic responsibilities, financial & emotional support, and physical presence.  I can attest that the only one who makes out is the bigger deadbeat, and the biggest loser is the child.  Gay marriage is just another construct of more social engineering fantasies that don't have children's interest at heart.  It is only a matter of time before a family court would be able to weigh against me teaching my children that homosexuality is not a lifestyle to embrace.

I suppose this appears incredibly intolerant of me.  Tolerance means putting up with someone who doesn't share your views or background; it does not require wholehearted acceptance.  Our goal should be tolerance, which goes hand-in-hand with freedom.  Compelling acceptance by all is dangerously close to fascism.  

Taxes & Benefits

Legislation that does not require redefining marriage can fix the discrepancies gay couples have with how taxes are imposed, social security and death benefits.  Employers should retain the freedom to manage the healthcare benefits as it aligns with a given company's charter and system.  There should be nothing to stop an employer or insurer from extending benefits to whatever living or family situation applicable to the employee.  These topics appear to be unnecessary excuses to redefine marriage, where they could (and should) just be fixed separately.

---------------------------------------------------

*Indeed it is tragic that too many espousing the Christian view have denounced homosexuality beyond that of any other sinful lifestyle.  It is not surprising that the non-Christian world naturally assumes bigotry.  Our focus ought to be revealing the truth and light of the Gospel, which frees people from bondage to all types of sin. 

Spoiled Brats

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/16/disgrace-occupy-harvard

Here is a link to a story about the Occupy Harvard movement. The author rightly points out the absurdity of Harvard students - truly NOT part of any 99% - protesting the institution that sets them apart and provides immeasurably richer opportunities for prosperity than the true 99%.

I extrapolate this reasoning to the Occupy movement as a whole. Truly, 99% of Americans have immeasurably richer opportunities for prosperity than the vast majority of the world because of the very institutions of free enterprise and limited government.

So ridiculous for the Occupiers to be protesting against what pampers their behinds relative to world standards.

Worth Defending

As a member of the military, I am compelled to ponder from time to time the value of what I've sworn to defend. Certainly, my oath is inflexible in loyalty to the Constitution. However, the Constitution, itself, is just an embodiment of principles and ideas that patriots have defended since its inception. And unfortunately, over the years, the interpretation of the Constitution has been ravished by the rationalizations of the legal elite (who I would argue have agendas quite disparate from the original principles).

So what is it, then, that makes this land worth defending? Beyond the obvious point of defending our home, where our families and loved ones reside, what made America so different and desirable than all the rest comes down to two key elements: a valuable culture and the freedom to provide for oneself.

The culture to which I refer is the one that reflects our traditional values: faith and trust in God, personal responsibility, and hard work.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, after visiting America in 1831, said, “I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields, and boundless forests–and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world commerce, her public school system, and in her institutions of higher learning–and it was not there. I looked for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution–and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!”

The freedom to provide for oneself, of course, implies that all such legitimate pursuits must not deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Moreover, Capitalism was born from this ideal, and has proven to be the world's best economic option (or at least the least detrimental one). I concede the possibility of a capitalist enterprise that does not evenly benefit all classes directly or indirectly involved. However, the dark alternative of vesting power in governments to ensure equality of condition has always proven to reap the most cruelty, corruption, and resultant inequality. This is because people are simply not inherently angelic enough to act above the simple rules of personal incentive, nor should we be obsessed with attempting to demonstrate the inherent goodness of humanity. (Sidebar: I always find it amusing how the leftist standard bearers pronounce the virtues of humanity and then decry the evils of Capitalism, corporations, Republicans, Christians, the military, etc.)

And thus is the tie-back to traditional American culture, which trusts in a perfect God and does not attempt to perfect humanity through worldly institutions. Could it be that Capitalism is so relatively successful as a result of being in closest accordance with the natural laws ordained by God? This makes me tend to think that modern liberalism and true Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Exploiting Economic Illiteracy

 "A historian writing 100 or 200 years from now might well say, 'You know, there was this little historical curiosity that existed for maybe 200 years, where people were free from arbitrary abuse and control by government and where there was a large measure of respect for private property rights. But then it went back to the normal state of affairs.'" - Walter Williams

See short WSJ article on this economist/professor/author:
Politicians exploit economic illiteracy

Five Platitudes and Terms That Should Go Away

1. "Don't judge!"
   

   Why not? Judgment is so underrated these days that the only way we get our fill of it is by watching Judge Judy, the Peoples Court, Divorce Court, Street Justice, Verdicto Final, Judge Alex, Judge Mills-Lane, etc. While only God can judge each of us when it comes down to eternal disposition, each of us should be more than capable of discerning the merit of individual acts and attitudes – to conclude good character from bad. Somewhere along the way, "Don't pre-judge (as in 'prejudice') became "Don't judge at all." Huge mistake. A well-developed character ethic should be encouraged in any society that is to prosper. An ethic that frowns upon discernment is not only not well-developed, but also self-defeating.
   

   Stupid chick: "Yeah, I slept with a lot of guys in college and tried various drugs. Don't look at me like that. Who are you to judge me?!"
   

   Me: "While I'm not in the position to punish you, that doesn't mean I have to approve of the nasty things you've done. I am someone who can tell you that your actions at least reflected your own lack of judgment and/or character at the time. I don't want to make you feel bad for your mistakes; it's just that being proud of them disgusts me."
   

2. "Give peace a chance."
   

   Roger that. However, when we give it a chance (or several, prolonged chances) and an adversary demonstrates absolutely no interest in tailoring any of its goals to the purpose of peace…what then? If the adversary then not only abandons the peace process, but also goes on the offensive (or supports those that do), is war still not the answer? If a mugger attacks your wife in the street, is the use of physical force to stop him not the answer? Assessing either situation requires discerning who the bad guy is – and then defending against him on the only apparent common terms before he wins.
   

3. "In war there are no winners."
   

   Ok, so what were the outcomes of the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II? I seem to recall that one side definitely came out on top in each case. If these wars were not fought, would there have been better outcomes? Would it have been better to not have: the founding of the first constitutional democracy, the end of slavery in the U.S., or the prevention of a Nazi-controlled western world? War is terrible, but not as terrible as the triumph of evil.
   

4. "Coexist"
   

   To whom exactly is this bumper sticker directed? Let's just suppose that the Prius behind yours on the road is actually being driven by a jihadist who wants to eradicate the existence of religions other than Islam. Do you think your stupid bumper sticker will make such an individual have a sudden revelation that coexistence is a nobler goal than enforcing Sharia? Or is your message aimed at the non-jihadists who you have illogically equated with the jihadists just because they oppose each other on the same field of battle? I'm assuming the latter is the case, which goes back again to a lack of judgment. How many voters, elected officials, or military personnel are acting on an initiative to eradicate any specific religion? In terms of stated intention or credible evidence, I'd wager to say almost none, especially compared to the number of geniuses on the road with this bumper sticker.
   

5. "War on Terror"
   

   We are not fighting "terror." We are fighting organized groups of radical Muslims whose tactics do not recognize laws of armed conflict and whose aims revolve around destroying or converting societies who don't enforce Sharia. What, is that not politically correct to say? Which parts are not factual? War IS terror, but there are legitimate and illegitimate ways of waging it. When characters like Ahmadinejad try to twist things by saying that Israel and the U.S. are the true terrorists, we should have the discernment to put no more stock in his statements than we should have in Hitlers' about the Poles being the aggressors in the Danzig. But perhaps we could avoid the whole issue cloud by just stating clearly who we're fighting.